When the British passed the Stamp Act of 1765 American colonists viewed it as a tax on their right to speak freely. The British were unable to enforce this law as it was almost entirely ignored by Americans while colonists, colonial legislatures, merchants protested against it. Today American citizens view copyright law as a tax on their right speak and just as in 1765 Americans tend to ignore copyright law while internet colonists, digital legislatures, and web merchants protest against it. In 1765 if the British authorities had just let colonial representatives into Parliament the Stamp Act in some form may have remained and American Revolution might have been prevented. Today the American government and the legacy media companies driving this legislation will have to let the public into the debate if they want to prevent a digital revolt.
Looking back at trailers and dev interviews about D3 every single one of them hypes that this is an online game you play with friends. They talk about how nifty the auction house will be, the crack down cheaters, and how it will be to play in groups. I don't recall a single mention of a "single player mode" or "offline mode." They pushed this game as an online game. The problem is all the rose colored glasses that people have been using to look back at D2. This game isn't D2. It is as different as D2 was compared to D1. Blizzard tried to do something new here. Maybe you don't like it but decrying attempts to innovate on this website is ridiculous. Go sit in the corner with all the folks who don't like Kickstarter in the music industry.
If the Federal Government has to release the software it produces to the public domain rather than under an open source license there would almost certainly be some licensing conflicts with other open source licenses. GPL is the most obvious one but most of the other open source licenses all have redistribution restrictions that would make utilizing code difficult if not impossible. Now we can quibble about open source licenses being good or bad or stupid or what have you but do we really want to argue that the US government agencies shouldn't be allowed to submit improvements to Apache or send things upstream to Debian or build a database based on Couch?
CCP has an economist that watches EVE's economy. They even put out quarterly newsletters that in game investors watch closely. With Valve doing this as well soon virtual economist will become a real job.
That is not what is going on here. Youtube accounts used to be separate from Google accounts but you could link your Google account to Youtube. I am betting a lot of people do this because it means just one login or all Google services. Now Youtube accounts are being slowly migrated into full Google accounts, no more special Youtube accounts. At some point in the future it will just be one single sign on for all Google services including Youtube.
How is this bad? I don't think it is at all.
What people seem to be getting confused about is Google re-branding and integrate the social features that already exist in their products into one service that exists across all products and the new account is called Google+.
Youtube has likes/dislikes, comments, subscribing, and messaging.
Reader has subscribing and recommending.
Picasa has friending, subscribing, and messaging.
Docs has sharing and collaborative editing.
Latitude has check ins and friending.
Google Profiles had a bit of everything.
The new G+ account replaces the old Google account even if you don't make a profile, and you don't have to, so that all it is is a name change.
To sum up:
Youtube accounts are becoming full Google accounts that are now called G+ accounts.
Talking about geek video and no mention of TWiT.tv? They do twenty-eight live shows that amount to some forty hours of live streaming content a week. Not only do they cover a huge base of topics but they are profitable and just moved into a big new studio.