That's not to say his bit is funny; that's obviously left to opinion.
Bah, not this stupid argument again. It is funny. It's only not funny if you are an uptight conservative who thinks he is serious. It becomes even less funny once said uptight conservative figures out he is joking, at which point it becomes really funny to everyone else around uptight conservative.
The response I've heard most from my 100% lefty friends when criticising his show is that it starts to feel like his persona boils down to only one joke, show after show. Whether or not one believes that, I think there's definitely room to disagree on his comedic merits, as there is with every comedian.
I think that were I in a conservative area I'd be more inclined to have the experience / perspective you describe. As I don't have any conservative friends, I can't accept that Colbert is universally loved among everyone but conservatives.
I'm sorry but "Colbert" and "Comedian" only belong in the sentence if the words between them are "is not a ". Maybe I'm English and I just don't get him....
He's certainly not a classic comedian. As others have pointed out, his entire persona is done in satire, and it's blindly-patriotic, high consuming America that he's satirising.
That's not to say his bit is funny; that's obviously left to opinion. I've come across plenty of disagreement in the USA regarding the quality of his show. All the same, it is possible that something is lost in cultural translation.
In any case, we Americans don't always get your humor. Does that mean it's not actually funny to you too?
I think the same goes in this direction; whatever British humour isn't widely popular here might well have mixed reviews in the UK. All the same, what's not to get about a man in women's clothing?;)
I don't know how to put this without almost certainly burning Karma.... but IMO someone who needs this patch, who respecs often enough that 1000 gold for the "right" to have two specs is actually valuable, not to mention having 1000 gold lying around,... do you think his exam scores will be affected in any way? Can you spend less than zero time learning?
As a retired warrior, I can assure you that you don't have to be a hardcore player for this to be worth it. Arena is a really fun aspect of the game, battlegrounds are great drunken guild activities, and tanks are always in demand.
That might sound like hardcore playing, but it's just the option to do different things. My guild had PVP premades on the weekends, and if I signed on then, I'd want a PVP spec. I only played Arena casually, but still got in the minimum games every week (again a PVP spec). Pretty much everytime I'd sign on, though, someone would want me to tank a heroic, or the occasional raid.
So even if I'm just playing a couple hours in the evening, a few days a week, I was still in the position to switch between a PVP arena spec and a PVE tank spec. Even with just having the PVP spec on the weekends and the PVE spec during the week, it still adds up to a lot of gold, much more than 1000g, which as other people are pointing out, isn't really hard to collect at all after hitting the max level, which is the only time you'd need the dual spec ability anyway.
Completely right, although I know there are even worse out there. You have no argument from me,11:40am was early morning today. Still, I'd prefer to have all celebrity names and commercial brands stay out of space.
Serenity is a spaceship. This thing is not only not a spaceship, but its ass does not glow. It does not make any sense whatsoever, whatsofuckingever to name it Serenity.
I've been watching NASA's mostly-boring cable feed, and the crew on the ISS (American, Russian, and Japanese alike) all seem to refer to and consider the ISS a spaceship. It's certainly not fixed in space, and it tends to act much like the space shuttles do (orbiting w/ maneuvering thrusters, etc).
I haven't really looked to closely at it, and obviously it's not going to fly to the moon any time soon, but at this point in history I think it's a little farfetched to categorize the ISS as "not a spaceship". If I were to stretch really far and make a bad comparison, I'd say it's more like an aircraft carrier than an oil rig, as it still moves around the "ocean" nut has different purpose and functionality than your average "ship" (bad analogy, feel free to ignore).
Glowing arses aside, When I saw the name suggestions (on the last Slashdot story, I didn't vote or know there was a vote in progress), I thought Serenity was a perfect name for an ISS module. Not out of lore, or likeness, but simply as a good name (my Firefly fan days are behind me, for the moment anyway). I don't think out-dated cargo ships will be flying around out in space anytime soon, so holding out until there's something resembling the show hardly seems worth it.
I don't mean to argue any merits, as it's just an opinion. My main point was that while I greatly enjoy Colbert's influence and ability to have huge numbers of people do this sort of thing, I hope that there's a line drawn somewhere. A bridge is one thing, but an ISS module is another. Give it a good name. It's not about having enjoyed Firefly, or any other Sci-Fi TV show, it's about being interested in the space program since childhood.
Colbert can be entertaining, but I hope (futilely, I know), that NASA reserves the name for someone who's more deserving than Colbert. If Serenity is too spaceship-y (which I can understand, I'd never want a module to be called Enterprise or Galactica), what about one of the influential Sci-Fi authors? Or an early astronaut/cosmonaut, scientist, etc.
I guess I'm leading up to, why let the public pick at all? We'll just end up with the Butthead Memorial Auditorium. Nasa is stocked with nerds, they can be trusted to do the right thing. If NASA wants to bring back the public's interest, they should do it by acts that capture the public's interest, not passing amusement. How about a moon base already?
I was actually surprised to see this question on Ask Slashdot, since the k9copy / k3b combo is the fastest, most reliable free method I've found for ripping and burning DVDs across any operating system. You ca set k9copy to automatically burn with k3b when the rip is done, making it more or less a one-step process (there might be an OK dialog or two in there, I don't remember off hand).
One of the reasons I've been using KDE as a desktop environment for a few years now is that I know I'll be regularly firing these applications up anyway, so I might as well have the KDE background noise there anyway.
Instead of worrying about the next thing to jump out at you around the corner (though you'd have to worry about that too) you would have to worry about things like having enough food and supplies to outlast the zombie hordes, or having to fight off other people from taking over your shelter
I had that experience playing Fallout 3 (PC, hardest setting), especially in the first 25% of the game. During that period, it felt like no matter how much I scrounged around for scrap to sell, I never had enough ammo, couldn't afford beds or a doctor, and the food I found had to be rationed for threat of radiation poisoning.
Whenever I set off to a new destination, I basically crept along in the grass. It seemed like if I was attacked in route, I would usually not die, but then I wouldn't have enough health or ammo to accomplish my objective (or really survive at my destination at all).
Eventually I built up a strong arsenal and collected some wealth, but until that turning point, I was constantly worrying about surviving in the long term. I actually started to think about how it would work as an MMORPG, much as you describe (I decided the major obstacle would be defending fortifications against attacks planned while most players are asleep).
As the bonus outrage rages on, I'm getting pretty annoyed with it. I've bought into the concept that there's a hell of a lot to do in Washington, and the sooner something is started, the sooner something can get accomplished.
I think there are better ways people can be spending their time, rather than dwell on something that, even if they get the budget money back, won't actually help with stimulus, healthcare, foreign policy, etc.
Members of Congress have plenty to work on, they should be started to iron out support for the budget, as there will be tremendous disagreements.
Attorneys in the DoJ should be looking at who broke the law in the past decade, both in government and in wall street/banking/insurance. I really don't care if bonuses get paid out to executives of AIG. I care about seeing indictments and prosecutions successfully carried out against individuals like those with roles of responsibility in the illegal wiretapping, or those who knowingly scammed the financial public.
The President's role in all this, is, of course, to keep Congress and the executive branch on track. He has an agenda, and being aggressive about the AIG bonuses seems like a step backwards. He's going to be in office for 4 years, and what good he does during that time is what will be important in his re-election and to the country.
For me, it's not about MSOffice. OOO is fine. Its about a mail client that works with Exchange, and Evolution isn't there yet.
I can't change my mail server, or its settings. I have no control over the mail server, or its gateways for that matter.
I don't know anything about Exchange, but I gather it's a mail server of some sort, but the foreboding sense I get when people talk about using it suggests to me it's somehow more. In fact, if it was a mail server in the manner to which I'm familiar, you could obviously check your mail using something else, or forward it to another address.
Despite that easy conclusion, I'm still confused. How did Microsoft manage to produce an email server-client solution that's only compatible with itself. It seems like making IIS only serve pages to IE, or MS Word only accept input from fantastic keyboards like the Microsoft Natural Ergonomic Keyboard 4000.
I suppose if one ignores that email has been standardized successfully for so long, the comparison can be made to instant messenger, where services developed their own protocols and stuck with them. Even so, it was never a big deal to write 3rd party clients that worked with them. What does Exchange do that's so different?
While I didn't come up with those words exactly, I was thinking something along these lines. IIRC, Google has praised the DMCA as the only reason sites like YouTube can survive, because it provides a safe-haven for people in that situation.
If they received an official takedown notice, it seems like at least an attempt to file an official response to it and who knows, that might even be the end of it.
Of course, I'd have to make that decision as an individual, not as someone who might profit more from complying with the demand then complaining about it.
Threatening to sue Verizon won't help you at all. Remember 2600's www.VerizonShouldSpendMoreTimeFixingItsNetworksAndLessMoneyOnLawyers.com? Suing over an opt-out issue would just end up costing you a lot of money.
Clearly what they should have done was kept the language non-committal throughout the review, and then have different conclusions, each one saying a different browser is the best, and display one per visitor based on the visitor's user agent. That way they make a definitive call on which browser is best, but Firefox users will read Firefox is the best, Safari users will read Safari is the best, etc.
I didn't read your post beyond those words. If you have a point try and make it without invoking Godwins's law...
Godwin's law specifically refers to a mention of Nazis or Hitler, and the post you've responded to clearly did neither. If you call someone on it please get it right, as I now have to invoke it to correct you and the thread is over.
I find that any players farming an area produce that result (in fact, I'd wager non-glider players are better at monopolizing the mobs). In any case, it's been quite a while since Blizzard made it a lot easier to earn gold through dailies and quests alone, making it more time efficient for me to buy the rare materials as I have need for them.
I've been quite disappointed reading the various discussions of this article. The boom in web applications has been thoroughly covered, and the advantages they offer have been a frequent topic of discussion.
My hope after reading the article was to find a different side of the web app boom discussed. There has been real change in the state of the Internet, and I think there are some negatives that warrant addressing in a general context.
I don't like that the same browsers that are required to view the majority websites correctly today take up as many system resources as they do, often displaying pages that do nothing that warrants it. I don't like the privacy concerns. Social sharing and collaboration is great, but I feel as an end user I'm passing away the responsibility of my privacy more and more. I don't like over-zealous use of web technologies when not needed. I don't want my web mail to look like a desktop email client, especially when the comparative performance gap is so wide (fortunately many companies like Yahoo! give me the option to keep the older version I find to be more efficient).
Google Docs is a handy web app in many situations, but working with a spreadsheet is no where near as snappy or efficient as using a desktop equivalent. This is a case where it might be better to take the positive aspects of Google Docs (collaboration, availability from any computer with Internet access, etc), and find a good way to build them into the desktop alternative.
It's worth pointing out that there are some major online success stories that do not involve web applications. iTunes, the leading way to purchase music downloads, is a desktop application. Skype also isn't something you run in your web browser. And, despite the rise of clients embedded in web sites, instant messaging will never be more useful in the web browser than as a separate application. These are all intrinsically web services, served via "desktop clients" (and are better for it, imo).
This is all just off the top of my head, and are likely not particularly good points. There is presently a lot of talent working in the web application field, and there have definitely been great strides in how people are able to use a web browser to interact and be productive. I can't shake the nagging feeling, though, that we might be better off with more focus on improving how we can use what we have outside of the browser.
From what I've read, Glider farms for you. It doesn't provide PVP cheats or magically grant you epic raid drops. That is to say, it doesn't go very far into impacting game play experience for others.
At least, as someone who's played quite a bit, I've never felt impacted at all by someone using a bot, much less unfairly.
Unless of course this is the bot that keeps you from going AFK in Alterac Valley without contributing (which before the last expansion meant that Horde was down ~15 players each battle), in which case everyone who's used it can burn in hell.
It's a really BAD precedent to set, to legally enforce the idea that a software developer can FORCE a customer to use their product only in specific ways they outline.
Yeah, about that. There are these things called license agreements, they're kind of like contracts, which are a sort of legal instrument, that is maybe, like, thousands of years old.
If you don't like the license, don't buy the software.
That makes a lot of sense. However, Blizzard can change the license agreement required to play, and you can't keep playing unless you upgrade to the latest patch and accept the new terms. Since the game is based on accumulative success, do we get reimbursed for what we paid for if the license changes to something we no longer agree with?
Or, in this hypothetical scenario, perhaps we could use the product we bought months ago on an alternate server to continue to enjoy our purchase.
It's a really BAD precedent to set, to legally enforce the idea that a software developer can FORCE a customer to use their product only in specific ways they outline. Imagine if Microsoft or Apple came along and dictated that their operating systems could no longer legally be used as a platform running any "p2p sharing software" (since as we ALL know, torrents and other types of p2p sharing are inherently bad, right?).
Or imagine if you bought the latest edition of a "Call of Duty" game, only to find out the EULA stated it was illegal to play except on weekends? Blizzard has effectively won the legal ability for developers to state and enforce anything like this they'd like to put in the agreement!
Or if you bought Gear of War for Windows and discovered that you could only play it before a certain date, after which it would no longer function, and that date has already passed.
You don't roll out half baked software over the top of working software.
In this specific case, Fedora is responsible for that decision. The real question seems to be why are distributions jumping to these releases of KDE. I understand how a commercial product might want to be able to advertise having the latest version of everything, especially if it can result in some pretty screenshots (as KDE4 can), but how competitive does Fedora need to be here?
Then you don't get the trojan from iWorks, but from the keygen that further frustrates you by playing an annoying and loud tune while you go through the serial generating process.
Note to keygen creators: I do not want to hear your brother's crappy techno remixes when using your app. Is there some way I can pay you to disable this feature?
Send your money to me, and I'll reply with instructions on how to "mute" undesired sounds you find coming out of your computer. Never be forced to listen to crappy music again!
Re-title your executive security memo to something along the lines of "Avoiding personal liability concerning security breaches through executive negligence." If an executive isn't interested in security measures, he or she (like a corporation as a whole) will be more likely to pay attention to what measures are needed to cover his or her own ass in the case of a breach.
The Comcast CD that came with my Internet self-install officially supported Windows and OSX, so I could install it on my laptop at least -- or so I thought until I tried. It also specifically required Internet Explorer 5 for Mac, a product not available even through the MS website anymore.
Of course, the whole situation was moot. Those install CD-ROMs aren't required to use the modem. I just called Comcast and told them to activate my modem, and I was online in minutes.
Verizon DSL is similarly not limited to Windows. The article actually says that Verizon supports Ubuntu, and that they are going to send over tech support.
This really shouldn't have made news anywhere, it basically amounts to "Woman has trouble setting up her Internet connection, complains to the press before receiving support from her ISP."
Slashdot Mirror
That's not to say his bit is funny; that's obviously left to opinion.
Bah, not this stupid argument again. It is funny. It's only not funny if you are an uptight conservative who thinks he is serious. It becomes even less funny once said uptight conservative figures out he is joking, at which point it becomes really funny to everyone else around uptight conservative.
The response I've heard most from my 100% lefty friends when criticising his show is that it starts to feel like his persona boils down to only one joke, show after show. Whether or not one believes that, I think there's definitely room to disagree on his comedic merits, as there is with every comedian.
I think that were I in a conservative area I'd be more inclined to have the experience / perspective you describe. As I don't have any conservative friends, I can't accept that Colbert is universally loved among everyone but conservatives.
I'm sorry but "Colbert" and "Comedian" only belong in the sentence if the words between them are "is not a ". Maybe I'm English and I just don't get him....
He's certainly not a classic comedian. As others have pointed out, his entire persona is done in satire, and it's blindly-patriotic, high consuming America that he's satirising.
That's not to say his bit is funny; that's obviously left to opinion. I've come across plenty of disagreement in the USA regarding the quality of his show. All the same, it is possible that something is lost in cultural translation.
In any case, we Americans don't always get your humor. Does that mean it's not actually funny to you too?
I think the same goes in this direction; whatever British humour isn't widely popular here might well have mixed reviews in the UK. All the same, what's not to get about a man in women's clothing? ;)
I don't know how to put this without almost certainly burning Karma.... but IMO someone who needs this patch, who respecs often enough that 1000 gold for the "right" to have two specs is actually valuable, not to mention having 1000 gold lying around, ... do you think his exam scores will be affected in any way? Can you spend less than zero time learning?
As a retired warrior, I can assure you that you don't have to be a hardcore player for this to be worth it. Arena is a really fun aspect of the game, battlegrounds are great drunken guild activities, and tanks are always in demand.
That might sound like hardcore playing, but it's just the option to do different things. My guild had PVP premades on the weekends, and if I signed on then, I'd want a PVP spec. I only played Arena casually, but still got in the minimum games every week (again a PVP spec). Pretty much everytime I'd sign on, though, someone would want me to tank a heroic, or the occasional raid.
So even if I'm just playing a couple hours in the evening, a few days a week, I was still in the position to switch between a PVP arena spec and a PVE tank spec. Even with just having the PVP spec on the weekends and the PVE spec during the week, it still adds up to a lot of gold, much more than 1000g, which as other people are pointing out, isn't really hard to collect at all after hitting the max level, which is the only time you'd need the dual spec ability anyway.
This is even worse than the average car analogy.
Completely right, although I know there are even worse out there. You have no argument from me,11:40am was early morning today. Still, I'd prefer to have all celebrity names and commercial brands stay out of space.
I finally RTFA, and hopefully the "top suggestions" won't be considered.
LOL @ Xenu, though. I'm sure that would go over well.
Serenity is a spaceship. This thing is not only not a spaceship, but its ass does not glow. It does not make any sense whatsoever, whatsofuckingever to name it Serenity.
I've been watching NASA's mostly-boring cable feed, and the crew on the ISS (American, Russian, and Japanese alike) all seem to refer to and consider the ISS a spaceship. It's certainly not fixed in space, and it tends to act much like the space shuttles do (orbiting w/ maneuvering thrusters, etc).
I haven't really looked to closely at it, and obviously it's not going to fly to the moon any time soon, but at this point in history I think it's a little farfetched to categorize the ISS as "not a spaceship". If I were to stretch really far and make a bad comparison, I'd say it's more like an aircraft carrier than an oil rig, as it still moves around the "ocean" nut has different purpose and functionality than your average "ship" (bad analogy, feel free to ignore).
Glowing arses aside, When I saw the name suggestions (on the last Slashdot story, I didn't vote or know there was a vote in progress), I thought Serenity was a perfect name for an ISS module. Not out of lore, or likeness, but simply as a good name (my Firefly fan days are behind me, for the moment anyway). I don't think out-dated cargo ships will be flying around out in space anytime soon, so holding out until there's something resembling the show hardly seems worth it.
I don't mean to argue any merits, as it's just an opinion. My main point was that while I greatly enjoy Colbert's influence and ability to have huge numbers of people do this sort of thing, I hope that there's a line drawn somewhere. A bridge is one thing, but an ISS module is another. Give it a good name. It's not about having enjoyed Firefly, or any other Sci-Fi TV show, it's about being interested in the space program since childhood.
Colbert can be entertaining, but I hope (futilely, I know), that NASA reserves the name for someone who's more deserving than Colbert. If Serenity is too spaceship-y (which I can understand, I'd never want a module to be called Enterprise or Galactica), what about one of the influential Sci-Fi authors? Or an early astronaut/cosmonaut, scientist, etc.
I guess I'm leading up to, why let the public pick at all? We'll just end up with the Butthead Memorial Auditorium. Nasa is stocked with nerds, they can be trusted to do the right thing. If NASA wants to bring back the public's interest, they should do it by acts that capture the public's interest, not passing amusement. How about a moon base already?
k9copy has no documentation and isn't intuitive? Really? Did you try searching Google for "k9copy tutorial"?
There are plenty of highly detailed guides.
I was actually surprised to see this question on Ask Slashdot, since the k9copy / k3b combo is the fastest, most reliable free method I've found for ripping and burning DVDs across any operating system. You ca set k9copy to automatically burn with k3b when the rip is done, making it more or less a one-step process (there might be an OK dialog or two in there, I don't remember off hand).
One of the reasons I've been using KDE as a desktop environment for a few years now is that I know I'll be regularly firing these applications up anyway, so I might as well have the KDE background noise there anyway.
Instead of worrying about the next thing to jump out at you around the corner (though you'd have to worry about that too) you would have to worry about things like having enough food and supplies to outlast the zombie hordes, or having to fight off other people from taking over your shelter
I had that experience playing Fallout 3 (PC, hardest setting), especially in the first 25% of the game. During that period, it felt like no matter how much I scrounged around for scrap to sell, I never had enough ammo, couldn't afford beds or a doctor, and the food I found had to be rationed for threat of radiation poisoning.
Whenever I set off to a new destination, I basically crept along in the grass. It seemed like if I was attacked in route, I would usually not die, but then I wouldn't have enough health or ammo to accomplish my objective (or really survive at my destination at all).
Eventually I built up a strong arsenal and collected some wealth, but until that turning point, I was constantly worrying about surviving in the long term. I actually started to think about how it would work as an MMORPG, much as you describe (I decided the major obstacle would be defending fortifications against attacks planned while most players are asleep).
As the bonus outrage rages on, I'm getting pretty annoyed with it. I've bought into the concept that there's a hell of a lot to do in Washington, and the sooner something is started, the sooner something can get accomplished.
I think there are better ways people can be spending their time, rather than dwell on something that, even if they get the budget money back, won't actually help with stimulus, healthcare, foreign policy, etc.
Members of Congress have plenty to work on, they should be started to iron out support for the budget, as there will be tremendous disagreements.
Attorneys in the DoJ should be looking at who broke the law in the past decade, both in government and in wall street/banking/insurance. I really don't care if bonuses get paid out to executives of AIG. I care about seeing indictments and prosecutions successfully carried out against individuals like those with roles of responsibility in the illegal wiretapping, or those who knowingly scammed the financial public.
The President's role in all this, is, of course, to keep Congress and the executive branch on track. He has an agenda, and being aggressive about the AIG bonuses seems like a step backwards. He's going to be in office for 4 years, and what good he does during that time is what will be important in his re-election and to the country.
For me, it's not about MSOffice. OOO is fine. Its about a mail client that works with Exchange, and Evolution isn't there yet.
I can't change my mail server, or its settings. I have no control over the mail server, or its gateways for that matter.
I don't know anything about Exchange, but I gather it's a mail server of some sort, but the foreboding sense I get when people talk about using it suggests to me it's somehow more. In fact, if it was a mail server in the manner to which I'm familiar, you could obviously check your mail using something else, or forward it to another address.
Despite that easy conclusion, I'm still confused. How did Microsoft manage to produce an email server-client solution that's only compatible with itself. It seems like making IIS only serve pages to IE, or MS Word only accept input from fantastic keyboards like the Microsoft Natural Ergonomic Keyboard 4000.
I suppose if one ignores that email has been standardized successfully for so long, the comparison can be made to instant messenger, where services developed their own protocols and stuck with them. Even so, it was never a big deal to write 3rd party clients that worked with them. What does Exchange do that's so different?
trample you.
Stupid sheep.
While I didn't come up with those words exactly, I was thinking something along these lines. IIRC, Google has praised the DMCA as the only reason sites like YouTube can survive, because it provides a safe-haven for people in that situation.
If they received an official takedown notice, it seems like at least an attempt to file an official response to it and who knows, that might even be the end of it.
Of course, I'd have to make that decision as an individual, not as someone who might profit more from complying with the demand then complaining about it.
So what happens when I visit the page in Linx?
Do you mean Links or Lynx? In either of those cases, the page just displays praise of you directly, for being so hardcore.
Threatening to sue Verizon won't help you at all. Remember 2600's www.VerizonShouldSpendMoreTimeFixingItsNetworksAndLessMoneyOnLawyers.com? Suing over an opt-out issue would just end up costing you a lot of money.
Clearly what they should have done was kept the language non-committal throughout the review, and then have different conclusions, each one saying a different browser is the best, and display one per visitor based on the visitor's user agent. That way they make a definitive call on which browser is best, but Firefox users will read Firefox is the best, Safari users will read Safari is the best, etc.
With that kind of argument, you could prove that the Germans couldn't lose World War I...
Godwin's law!
I didn't read your post beyond those words. If you have a point try and make it without invoking Godwins's law...
Godwin's law specifically refers to a mention of Nazis or Hitler, and the post you've responded to clearly did neither. If you call someone on it please get it right, as I now have to invoke it to correct you and the thread is over.
I find that any players farming an area produce that result (in fact, I'd wager non-glider players are better at monopolizing the mobs). In any case, it's been quite a while since Blizzard made it a lot easier to earn gold through dailies and quests alone, making it more time efficient for me to buy the rare materials as I have need for them.
I've been quite disappointed reading the various discussions of this article. The boom in web applications has been thoroughly covered, and the advantages they offer have been a frequent topic of discussion.
My hope after reading the article was to find a different side of the web app boom discussed. There has been real change in the state of the Internet, and I think there are some negatives that warrant addressing in a general context.
I don't like that the same browsers that are required to view the majority websites correctly today take up as many system resources as they do, often displaying pages that do nothing that warrants it. I don't like the privacy concerns. Social sharing and collaboration is great, but I feel as an end user I'm passing away the responsibility of my privacy more and more. I don't like over-zealous use of web technologies when not needed. I don't want my web mail to look like a desktop email client, especially when the comparative performance gap is so wide (fortunately many companies like Yahoo! give me the option to keep the older version I find to be more efficient).
Google Docs is a handy web app in many situations, but working with a spreadsheet is no where near as snappy or efficient as using a desktop equivalent. This is a case where it might be better to take the positive aspects of Google Docs (collaboration, availability from any computer with Internet access, etc), and find a good way to build them into the desktop alternative.
It's worth pointing out that there are some major online success stories that do not involve web applications. iTunes, the leading way to purchase music downloads, is a desktop application. Skype also isn't something you run in your web browser. And, despite the rise of clients embedded in web sites, instant messaging will never be more useful in the web browser than as a separate application. These are all intrinsically web services, served via "desktop clients" (and are better for it, imo).
This is all just off the top of my head, and are likely not particularly good points. There is presently a lot of talent working in the web application field, and there have definitely been great strides in how people are able to use a web browser to interact and be productive. I can't shake the nagging feeling, though, that we might be better off with more focus on improving how we can use what we have outside of the browser.
From what I've read, Glider farms for you. It doesn't provide PVP cheats or magically grant you epic raid drops. That is to say, it doesn't go very far into impacting game play experience for others.
At least, as someone who's played quite a bit, I've never felt impacted at all by someone using a bot, much less unfairly.
Unless of course this is the bot that keeps you from going AFK in Alterac Valley without contributing (which before the last expansion meant that Horde was down ~15 players each battle), in which case everyone who's used it can burn in hell.
It's a really BAD precedent to set, to legally enforce the idea that a software developer can FORCE a customer to use their product only in specific ways they outline.
Yeah, about that. There are these things called license agreements, they're kind of like contracts, which are a sort of legal instrument, that is maybe, like, thousands of years old.
If you don't like the license, don't buy the software.
That makes a lot of sense. However, Blizzard can change the license agreement required to play, and you can't keep playing unless you upgrade to the latest patch and accept the new terms. Since the game is based on accumulative success, do we get reimbursed for what we paid for if the license changes to something we no longer agree with?
Or, in this hypothetical scenario, perhaps we could use the product we bought months ago on an alternate server to continue to enjoy our purchase.
It's a really BAD precedent to set, to legally enforce the idea that a software developer can FORCE a customer to use their product only in specific ways they outline. Imagine if Microsoft or Apple came along and dictated that their operating systems could no longer legally be used as a platform running any "p2p sharing software" (since as we ALL know, torrents and other types of p2p sharing are inherently bad, right?).
Or imagine if you bought the latest edition of a "Call of Duty" game, only to find out the EULA stated it was illegal to play except on weekends? Blizzard has effectively won the legal ability for developers to state and enforce anything like this they'd like to put in the agreement!
Or if you bought Gear of War for Windows and discovered that you could only play it before a certain date, after which it would no longer function, and that date has already passed.
You don't roll out half baked software over the top of working software.
In this specific case, Fedora is responsible for that decision. The real question seems to be why are distributions jumping to these releases of KDE. I understand how a commercial product might want to be able to advertise having the latest version of everything, especially if it can result in some pretty screenshots (as KDE4 can), but how competitive does Fedora need to be here?
Then you don't get the trojan from iWorks, but from the keygen that further frustrates you by playing an annoying and loud tune while you go through the serial generating process.
Note to keygen creators: I do not want to hear your brother's crappy techno remixes when using your app. Is there some way I can pay you to disable this feature?
Send your money to me, and I'll reply with instructions on how to "mute" undesired sounds you find coming out of your computer. Never be forced to listen to crappy music again!
Re-title your executive security memo to something along the lines of "Avoiding personal liability concerning security breaches through executive negligence." If an executive isn't interested in security measures, he or she (like a corporation as a whole) will be more likely to pay attention to what measures are needed to cover his or her own ass in the case of a breach.
The Comcast CD that came with my Internet self-install officially supported Windows and OSX, so I could install it on my laptop at least -- or so I thought until I tried. It also specifically required Internet Explorer 5 for Mac, a product not available even through the MS website anymore.
Of course, the whole situation was moot. Those install CD-ROMs aren't required to use the modem. I just called Comcast and told them to activate my modem, and I was online in minutes.
Verizon DSL is similarly not limited to Windows. The article actually says that Verizon supports Ubuntu, and that they are going to send over tech support.
This really shouldn't have made news anywhere, it basically amounts to "Woman has trouble setting up her Internet connection, complains to the press before receiving support from her ISP."