I think it is an incredibly simplistic viewpoint to say that "Washington corrupts everyone who enters."
Corruption isn't something that happens without consent - it's not iron + oxygen = rust. You need two parties to tango for it to happen.
Maybe a better way of putting it would be "Washington enables the already corrupted and the easily corruptible." I think that speaks more to the character of politicians that hold office and power in America. It also puts the blame squarely where it belongs instead of moving it off to an anthropomorphized object called "corruption".
This would be a great solution if the three branches weren't all in bed together. In reality, what you're asking for is the government to admit fault for actions by the government in the hopes of teaching the government a lesson.
TL;DNR: Do not, under any circumstances, engage a troll. It never yields any benefits, and it always results in harm.
Longer version - To engage a troll at all is a harmful to you and the community for two reasons:
 The troll loves attention. Any attention at all results in more troll posts. The troll doesn't care what you post, it just wants to suck as many people possible into its little game of ego-stroking. Your logic is useless against the troll, because it doesn't care about logic. Engaging it only encourages further trollish behavior.
 By engaging the troll, you take away your time from contributing to the actual conversation/debate at hand. Furthermore, as more and more people get sucked under the trolls bridge, less and less of value is actually said. Take a quick look at any thread on TD where people are engaging trolls. It's all chaff and no wheat. This destroys community.
For trolls and the TD site, simply click REPORT and move on. I know you think you're helping by engaging the troll, but you are not. Without exception, you only make things worse.
If you don't validate their behavior, most of them will go away. The one's that don't will get more and more furious as no one says anything to them. It makes it easier and easier to see them, and thus easier to REPORT their posts.
PS: If you want to get all conspiracy theory on trolls, you might posit that a fair share of them are hired guns designed to side track every conversation about their employers.
Corrupt Government Defense: We claim state secrets
Corrupt Government Judge(s): Dismissed
The US Constitution died years ago. And there isn't any amount of bitching now that is going to change any of it. The power has long since left the hands of the people. You don't get a say in what happens next.
So, Lutz is the patsy that has replaced Gibbs. I wonder if Lutz knows how much trouble he's getting himself in for whatever pittance Steele is throwing at him.
Also, isn't the wording by Lutz "I am the manager of a company, AF Holdings, LLC" a bit misleading? I don't remember exactly, but isn't the current claim by the Prenda crew is that Lutz the owner of the company?
Requires large amounts of server resources? Nope. From a [url=http://www.simcity.com/en_US/blog/article/simcity-update-5]Simcity web site blog post[/url], posted by the Assistant Producer Kyle Dunham:
i[...weíve begun upgrading several of our servers to both increase their capacity and mitigate connection issues. This process has been going well and we successfully upgraded 10 servers yesterday: NA West 2, EU West 1-4, EU East 2-3, and Oceanic 1-2. Today weíre working on upgrading our remaining servers, so bear with us as we take them offline one-by-one to perform these upgrades. While this is going on, we also released the new server South America today, bringing our total server count up to 24, including our Test server.]i
24 servers (NOW), including a test, so 23 production. It's hard to tell what they started with, but digging through the 5 updates, I get:
Update 1 - Added 4 new servers (EU West 3/4, EU East 3, Oceanic 2)
Update 2 - No mention of new servers
Update 3 - 1 new server (Antarctica)
Update 4 - No mention of new servers
Update 5 - 1 new server (South America)
So it sounds like they started with no more than 17 production servers, and added 6 over the last few weeks.
So 23 servers are running everything (registration, authentication, cross player interactions, region stuff, etc) but the item that interests me the most is the region work. Which, even given the most beneficial "looking through a glass darkly" interpretation of EA's claims, must be done server side. It requires to many horses or something.
Taking away the overseas servers that I know about (EU East 1-3, EU West 1-4, Oceanic 1-2, Antarctica 1, and South America 1), that leaves 12 US servers.
I'm having a hard time running a solid number to ground, but update 3 mentions "Tens of thousands of new players are logging in every day", and update 4 says "...8 million hours of gameplay time". Both updates may include all players (US, Europe, etc).
But these numbers seem to indicate hundreds of thousands of players, and potentially tens of thousands playing at once.
The region processing cannot be very CPU and/or RAM intensive at all. How could it be? 23 servers CPU's and RAM for tens of thousands (at least) of players at once. The amount of CPU/RAM slice per player must be very thin indeed for this to work at all.
And if the thin slice theory - (TM) is correct, than once again, I circle back to how come this couldn't have been done on the client? The client whose available resources in CPU and RAM are almost certainly going to exceed the very small amount available per player on the server?
Again, I come to the conclusion that the server component is completely about control, and not in the least about offloading processing power.
Like everything I post, everything above is my opinion, and not a statement of fact.
Of all the people ordered to appear, Team Prenda decided not to bother -- instead telling the judge they were available by phone, though the judge chose not to call. The only person (outside of Gibbs and Morgan Pietz) who did make it was Alan Cooper.
I wonder if the Judge is filling out bench warrants right now.
I mentioned this on another thread, but repeating myself - if the game requires more horsepower then the average desktop could deliver, how is it financially viable to stand up (and maintain) servers behind the players to crunch those same numbers? It's not like servers have "super CPU" and "super RAM" components. If it beats up the desktop, it's gonna beat up the server.
Sure, servers can hold more RAM and more processors than the average desktop, but those components are expensive (for both systems). A lot more expensive then a one time per customer $60 purchase would ever cover, even if every penny went to the server infrastructure.
Unless you did it on the cheap, and simply didn't put enough server resources in place to handle the player load. Maybe build a queuing system to force players to wait for their slice of server CPU/RAM. Nah, that would be an evil thing to do to your customers.
I think the point at which Iím smelling a rotten fish here is that the computational resources youíre talking about doesn't change just because itís being run on a server. The computers in the rack aren't somehow superior in processing power to the oneís in the desktop*. If the game beats up your local computerís CPU, itíll do the same to computer in the rack.
If it takes this much, PER PLAYER, to run the game, than there is no server architecture that would support this and be financial viable for a one time $60 per player purchase. And for me, thatís where the smell comes from.
* To forestall the obvious; yes, if you are running a 386 without the math co-processor on the desktop, itís probably not going to do very well compared to a modern CPU in the server. The argument assumes that weíre talking about generally similar desktop and server CPUís. There isn't a magic server CPU that does things automatically faster than their desktop brethren. If there was, every gamer on the planet would be using them.