The involvement of money with videogames isn't a new phenomenon at all. The two have been intertwined from the beginning. But what does the involvement of money have to do with whether or not cheaters should be arrested?
there's a big question as to just how useful and desirable such input really is
I strongly desire an input device similar to this (well, a combo of this and Livescribe. I take written notes during meetings (it's far less distracting than typing at a keyboard). It would be absolutely wonderful if those notes could be input to a computer for transcription. That would be incredibly useful.
Phree doesn't work for this because it doesn't actually write anything. Livescribe doesn't work for this because it requires the cloud.
" here we DO have VIP Cinemas now, with tables for groups and comfy chairs and in-theatre food & drink service"
Those are the only theaters I go to! But, at least around here, they aren't all more expensive. One of my favorite places is cheaper but has a two menu item minimum: $5 per ticket. The beer & grub aren't even any more overpriced than at a bar.
"no one really knows the backdoor sauce for the NSA NIST EC curves"
Everyone knows the "backdoor sauce."
The ECC issue was not that it introduced a backdoor as such, it's that it introduced a flaw in the random number generation that dramatically reduced the search space for keys. Even with the reduced search space, factoring those keys is still a huge computational task. The weakness just moved the task from "effectively impossible" to "possible".
The NSA's hope was that the crypto would still be strong enough that only the resources of nations or major corporations could pull that off. Which is a crazy hope, considering that you can get supercomputer-level computing resources very cheaply nowadays. if you want to own the hardware yourself, it's about on par with buying a house. Or you could use cloud computing services.
"This is an example of letting the perfect be the enemy of the good."
I disagree completely. This is letting the bad be the enemy of the good. This effort is bad for nearly everyone: it's bad for the internet at large, and it's bad for the people who will use the service.
What I find interesting is that the entire controversy could have been avoided if Facebook wasn't trying to claim that what it's doing is allowing internet access (since that's not what it's doing). If they has said that it was a private, specialized service then there probably would have been little backlash.
What they're doing instead is more like a bait-and-switch.
"People can be wrong without being evil or selfish."
Absolutely true. But people also have track histories, and we have to interpret Zuckerberg's actions through the lens of his history. And his personal history is dominated by him being evil and selfish.
I think that if you read through the archives of this site, you'll find that the stance tends to be less black-and-white than that. It's more along the lines of "government can be a force for good and ill, and we prefer the good."