I'm curious as to what, exactly, most of you think a law enforcement agency does? Except, obviously, piss you off for taking your pot... The NGI program has ben gearing up for a while now, but really, if you did any homework at all, you'd know that there are several other major biometric/biographic databases already fully in use and effectively helping law enforcement both domestically and abroad in both the DOJ and DHS sectors.

I'm really at a loss to see how you truly feel that the just because the goverment has your fingerprints in a database somewhere that's more of an infringement on your rights than the fact that stores like Wal-mart and Target (and almost every other retail outlet) track everything you purchase, websites adjust ads to you specifically, and Amazon tells you what you want to buy.

Just so you understand, if a potential employer does a background check through one of these government systems, they are receiving back very limited information on you. Most law enforcement officials who do a check get back very limited data as well. It's not big brother as much as you want to believe it is, it's simply a check to see if you might be a criminal threat most of the time.

You want something more intrusive, how about the fact that potential employers--and I mean private sector--do a credit check on you automatically, which can pose far more of a threat to your personal liberties.

Another issue is the idea that America is a police state, or about to be because of this... Go to England, and then see how you feel. Cameras everywhere, and no public privacy whatsoever. Most of Europe is either like this or moving toward it. The US is still the most free and open place to live in the western world. And being able to bitch and moan about how it isn't is one of the greatest examples of what a good it is place to live.

There will always be examples of people who end up in lists and databases that probably don't fit the profile of what it was intended for. Still, I'll take the unfortunate addition of a kid who was thrown in jail just for getting a blowjob to the sex offenders list if it means that most of the other names on the list are sick bastards who deserved to be watched. Although, in reality, they aren't watched nearly as closely as they should be. And most of the population isn't watched either.

You are in the system from the day you're born with a SSN, but as someone rightly pointed out, we give away most of the truly personal data about ourselves on the internet for whatever reason. While you worry about law enforcement having your prints, Amazon and Wal-Mart already know far more about you than our government ever will.

I spent some time this evening comparing the upscaling of DVDs to 1080p on my 50in Samsung 1080p DLP set. I compared the PS3 to the Xbox 360 HD-DVD to my Philips upscaling DVD player (which does 720p/1080i).

Both game systems did a noticeably better job than the standalone DVD player (which means I bought that damn thing for no reason at all). As for direct comparison, much like the differences with BD and HD-DVD, I thought the PS3 has more noise, but better colors and the video was smoother. The 360 looked a bit sharper perhaps, but I have to guess it wasn't 1080p, as it seemed to have that interlace choppiness now and then. Still, if you own one or the other, you're getting an excellent upscaling machine and the image quality can approach near HD-levels. Close-ups, for instance, tended to look excellently sharp, though dark sequences were splotchy overall.

Either way, it's about time the PS3 got this functionality and it works pretty darn well. Just be sure not to watch an actual Blu-ray movie beforehand, as then everything looks crappier...

I tried a couple PSOne games and there was noticeable improvement there as well. Sure, they still look old and sort of crappy, and Silent Hill has an audio glitch with the radio, but it's the most tolerably playable they've been in years. I also like that it magically makes the games all widescreen and look right. Red Faction looks better than ever (I love that game).

I've no wish to add fuel to any fires, but I will say that in my experience 1080i is the least appealing HD resolution. 1080p is, ideally, optimal all around of course, but games today should at least support 720p, which I've found to be noticeably sharper and more pleasing to watch. Upscaling DVDs really brings this home, as interlaced images just tend to give me a headache during action scenes. Given that games tend to be all action scenes (especially the "next" gen stuff we see lately), this seems like a big issue.

That said, most PS3 games label themselves as 1080p. A surprising amount of X360 games are as well--Sonic and Lost Planet immediately come to mind, and well, I'm at work, so I can't walk over and check the rest of them, but more and more are coming out. I think it should absolutely be the standard, simply because the new video game systems and HD DVD formats are the only things out right now that truly use high def to anywhere near its full potential.

It is somewhat ironic that the so-called "killer app" for the PS3, Resistance, is actually 720p. All in all, if you are shopping for a new TV, I wouldn't hesitate in recommending paying slightly more for 1080p for any set over about 42 or 47 inches.

I think the real question is will there be any loss of quality on these "Total" HD discs? Looking at the back of the box screen shot, I also wonder about the fact that only the HD-DVD version supports HD Dolby Digital sound formats, and there is no mention of DTS support. Other than that, if the quality is there, I think it's a good idea in that a) it can get Hi-Def movies into more homes more quickly and b) it enables companies to make just one version of the product, although given the absurd propensity to release pointless "special edition" DVDs, that might be a moot point.

I think the people moaning the loudest about what a horrible woman the mother is have never dealt with a truly damaged or difficult child. ADHD certainly does exist, and yes, it is over-diagnosed far too often. I've actually seen teachers demand a child be medicated simply because they were "too difficult" to deal with, which should be criminal. Actual ADHD kids, however, are a nightmare for both themselves and their parents. I've dealt with a few and if you don't believe it's an actual condition or that it makes parental life hell, you should do more actual research instead displaying a blind bias.

While it's certain the kid's guardian(s) have no small fault in the development of the child (right down to genetics, since almost all behavior we exhibit can be traced there), at some point you have to decide enough is enough and try something radical to get the kid to listen and respect authority that he clearly is otherwise oblivious to. Child therapists would probably agree with the mother's action given the glimmer of background information on the kid that can be read into this story. At some point with very difficult kids, you need a grand gesture to show them that actions have consequences.