I think you pretty much summed it up perfectly, just given how blown out of proportion everything got in what should have been a quickly forgotten article, I didn't want to be perceived as trolling or anything.

To be clear, I didn't link to the article to start up another debate, I was just try to answer Smartmouth's question.

^ vote down the double post! i wish i could just delete it...

A few days ago in this post :
http://www.engadget.com/2009/11/10/hey-google-failing-to-spellcheck-android-2-0-can-have-undesir/#comments

engadget (actually chris IIRC) was having a little fun with google
for a couple of typos in an android error message. Some internet
drama ensued after commenters pointed out engadget's less than
perfect spelling record. Topolsky got involved and all of his
comments got 'lowest ranked'. At some point in that same post, the
karma system disappeared from Topolsky's comments and they couldn't
be ranked anymore. AFAIK ever since then editor's comments aren't
subject to karma.

If I'm wrong I'm sure I'll be corrected, but that's the last time I
remember being able to vote up or down on an editor's comments

A few days ago in this post :
http://www.engadget.com/2009/11/10/hey-google-failing-to-spellcheck-android-2-0-can-have-undesir/#comments

engadget (actually chris IIRC) was having a little fun with google for a couple of typos in an android error message. Some internet drama ensued after commenters pointed out engadget's less than perfect spelling record. Topolsky got involved and all of his comments got 'lowest ranked'. At some point in that same post, the karma system disappeared from Topolsky's comments and they couldn't be ranked anymore. AFAIK ever since then editor's comments aren't subject to karma.

If I'm wrong I'm sure I'll be corrected, but that's the last time I remember being able to vote up or down on an editor's comments

They took away the ability of ranking editors comments the other day. I'm pretty sure it had something to do with the whole "spelling post" incident. I don't think Topolsky liked having all of his comments 'lowest ranked'. But I could be wrong.

sammy is a totally common nickname for Samsung, not just here on engadget, but on other sites and forums as well

Comparing two or more publicly traded companies in terms of who is "worth more" is actually not very straight forward.

An often cited determiner of value is market cap, but that's not the definitive answer. If the internet boom and bust earlier this decade should have taught us anything, it's that market cap can be a totally imaginary valuation with no basis in reality whatsoever.

The fortune 500 for example, ranks companies based solely on revenue, and I had a teacher in business school that said the true value of a company was its book value, and some people will say that the number of employees has a bearing on how large (or valuable) a company is.

As an example of what I mean, Microsoft has roughly 3x the number of employees that apple does (100k vs 35k for apple), nearly double the revenue ($58B vs $32B) roughly 3x the net income ($15B vs. $5B), but the difference in market cap is only a factor of 1.4 ($250B for MSFT and $185B for APPL)

Thus, by many measures MS is a way bigger company that Apple and should be worth a lot more, but if you look only at market cap, they appear much closer in value.

"Up top the 13.3-inch 1280 x 800 display is, well, pretty awful."

Doesn't the dm3 have a 1366x768 screen? I know the hp site says it's 1280 x800, but other reviews like this one:

http://www.laptopmag.com/review/laptop/hp-pavilion-dm3t.aspx?page=2

say the screen is 1366 x 768, and people on the notebookreview.com forums say the screen is 1366x768 as well.

ipod touch 3.1.2 really mitigates podcast scrolling issues and general lag when opening music applications.

There is still some hesitation in scrolling podcast lists, and the music player still takes longer than it used to, but both are a lot better in 3.1.2 than 3.1.1