Agreed, that's a pretty bad logo. Kudos to them for the idea. It needs to be promoted, but not with that. It'd too cluttered. Text is a bad thing. It should be optional, underneath, beside, etc, but not wrapped around as part of the logo. The idea of brand recognition is that the logo becomes instantly identifiable, which means it DOESN'T need to have a detailed explanation of what DRM-FREE means, in the long term. Put the text "with it" now somehow, but not as the actual logo. :\

No, the court found no evidence the editor asked her to change conclusions to distort the truth. The case, as I mentioned earlier, was not resolved around the topic of whether or not Fox was allowed to lie. It was resolved around the fact that the events described never happened, and that she doesn't have the right to decide what she broadcasts (or rather, if she decides to quit because she doesn't like it, she doesn't then have protection). The question of whether or not Fox had the right to lie was never decided in the court case, as it instead centered on facts immediately prior - whether or not such a determination is up to the employee.

"There is no evidence that any such pressure was applied to the final BGH report. Mr. Lang testified during the employment lawsuit that WTVT’s general manager never mentioned anything more specific about the BGH report than that it concerned “cows and hormones and milk,” and that “[n]o one at WTVT ever suggest[ed] that we broadcast anything with known lies in the content.” Ms. Akre, one of the Petitioners, acknowledged during her testimony that WTVT’s News Director Phil Metlin sought to produce a balanced report. Although the Petitioners cite a number of specific statements made to them by TVT management during the editorial process that are supportive of their claims, we must consider all of the evidence together in determining whether they have raised a substantial and material question. On the whole, our examination of the record reflects a legitimate editorial dispute between the Petitioners and TVT, rather than a deliberate effort to coerce the Petitioners into distorting the news."

There's no evidence they asked her to lie. She was deciding on her own what was fact and what wasn't. The story is a fabrication. The court found there was no distortion of Fox's part. Are you beginning to get some idea of the gross bias now? You're guilty of confirmation bias - you haven't looked into the facts at all and are just agreeing with the original article which was fabricated or at least, heavily distorted. This is the entire point I was making - that both sides of the debate are equally as biased as the other. Fox only stands out because it goes in the opposite direction to the mainstream. If 10 mainstream sources say "Fox won the right to lie in court" and one says "No we didn't", the natural inclination is to believe the 10, even if that's not the facts, especially if you're personally opposed to Fox. http://boothby.newsvine.com/_news/2010/09/17/5125831-so-apparently-the-claims-that-fox-won-the-right-to-lie-in-court-arent-truthful

Indeed, I do include print sources, but failed to mention them simply because we were speaking about TV. However, likewise, I think you're being way too generous to NPR. ;) In my experience, the more they say and the more commentators they bring in on a subject, the further from the truth and further into terribly misleading bias they get. NPR might do an excellent, unbiased report on the breeding behavior of castor canadensis, the North American Beaver, but as soon as any social, educational, financial or political topic is introduced, you ALREADY KNOW what all their conclusions are going to be - and even the conclusions of their guests. This is a heavy bias indicator - whether you agree with the conclusions or not - because all they're doing is pandering to their listeners by espousing and confirming their own social, educational, financial and political leanings. If what a network broadcasts is tailored to its audience, it's biased. While this works fine for a "rock" station, or a "country" station, it should be absent from a news station, and especially National Public Radio.

Sometimes the misleading nature of news is extremely subtle. Yesterday for example, I counted 8 different major networks referring to either a "gunman on college rampage" or "gunman on college shooting-spree". Then they had guests on talking about what to do about these constant "rampages" that are threatening our schools, etc, etc. However - this wasn't either a rampage, or a shooting spree. This was a shooting from within a single location - which wasn't even on campus (I understand). The gunman was shooting from within his rented home, at people who were trying to evict him, and in the process some rubber-necking bystanders. However the news of the day, that which people remember, and all the discussions were about, was "CRAZED GUNMAN COLLEGE RAMPAGE!" and all the implications associated with this.

Disclaimer: I do understand that NPR frequently has on guests which disagree with the general network consensus. However, so does Fox. This alone is an attempted balancing measure, but it really only scratches the surface.

I agree that Fox distorts stories in its broadcast, but I don't agree it does so any more than other major news networks. I must admit I gather my news from a wide variety of sources (the only real way to get in the middle of everything and make heads or tails of it :)) and you see the slants everywhere, from MSNBC to The Daily Show, to Arutz-7, Fox News, RT, Al-Jazeera, etc. The broadcaster that appears the least biased is BBC, but I can recognize this may be confirmation bias at work on my side, no matter how much I try to sort out fact from fiction.

Don't worry, OP misrepresented the story. (Actually, the website did, and OP just copied its conclusions). The actual story is that reporters don't get to decide what their station broadcasts. If they don't like it, they can quit, but they can't then claim damages if the broadcaster didn't do anything illegal. The court agreed that it isn't up to the reporter to make a conclusion on the legality of a broadcast, and that a networks broadcast isn't illegal simply because it's misleading. If it were, EVERY NETWORK IN THE UNITED STATES would be forced off the air.

This particular reporter happened to work for Fox. Most other networks were delighted with the outcome. The reason it wasn't reported widely? Because every network relies on this very fact to protect its broadcasting. Fox is by no means any more misleading than any other major network - it's just slanted in the opposite direction from most others which makes it "stand out".

That being said, any network can still be taken to court for a multitude of FCC violations. Not reaching conclusions which agree with yours, however, isn't one of them.

Wow.. the hypocrisy here actually hurts. A website, called "ceasespin" which is entirely dedicated to a biased anti-Fox news story which is itself mis-represented on the website. This is a great example of confirmation bias. If you agree with the conclusions, you won't even recognize it as bias, and won't see the slant. The entire website is simply an anti-Fox haven. Maybe you're simply too naive to recognize exactly the same bias occurs on every television network, whatever their particular political leanings may be.

The court case wasn't about Fox's right to lie (and the court's conclusions weren't about that subject either). The issue was that a television reporter refused to do their job, and expected to get away with it because she felt she had a personal right to decide what their station should and shouldn't broadcast. Initially, she won on this claim. But it was appealed, and her reward was removed. While the jury agreed the story was "slanted" or "contained misleading information", this didn't give the reporter herself the right to decide what the station reports. If she's that personally upset about it and the possibility that it reflects on her individually, she can quit.

This was an important case for many interested networks. Not because of the rights of reporting it gives them, but because it reinforces the right for them to fire reporters who won't do the job they're being paid for. As we know from Nuremberg, "I was just doing my job" isn't a defense. If you're truly convinced you're doing something morally abhorrent - don't do it, even if it costs you your job. The employers can still be brought to task over their own actions.

So please, stop promoting slanted, misrepresented stories yourself before you criticize others for doing so.

Yeah, the article does touch on that.

"As for why OpenGL is faster than DirectX/Direct3D, the simple answer is that OpenGL seems to have a smoother, more efficient pipeline. At 303.4 fps, OpenGL is rendering a frame every 3.29 milliseconds; at 270.6 fps, DirectX is rendering a frame in 3.69 milliseconds. That 0.4 millisecond difference is down to how fast the DirectX pipeline can process and draw 3D data."

I think the summary was just .. a summary! :)

And you read OP wrong. He never said 303.4 FPS was a Linux FPS.
"Using these new OpenGL optimizations to the Source engine, the OpenGL version of L4D2 on Windows is now faster than the DirectX version (303.4 fps vs. 270.6 fps)"
Which is exactly what the article says. The OpenGL version of L4D2 on Windows was faster than the DX version on Windows.

PS, Apologies Guspaz, this was for McGrew.

I can't disagree strongly enough. For the average user, Linux is still awful as far as "usability" goes. While it's fine for us power-geeks, telling someone they have to write a .desktop file in a particular format in superuser mode in order to create a shortcut for an application which won't otherwise pin to the Ubuntu launcher - for example - is a joke.

It's as simple as this: if the average user needs to use the console EVER, the OS is not ready for the general public. That's not to say if someone wants to do something abnormal they shouldn't have to use the console, however short of using pre-packaged software complete with desktop shortcuts on most distributions, a user is going to need to at some point drop into bash and do something which current usability guidelines are well beyond.

The counter that we used to all get by fine with console-based or text-only OSs is a moot point. We've progressed beyond those because there are superior, easier ways to work, using technology that simply wasn't available in the past. We used to ride horses everywhere but then the car was invented and we had a superior way to travel. While hobbyists can still go ride a horse if they want to, it's clearly inferior in the majority of situations the average citizen will encounter. Because we don't need text interfaces for the vast majority of purposes anymore, the general user is not instructed in their use - nor should have to be.

If you have to read a man page in order to discover how to use a piece of software, that software is flawed, and fails at usability for the general populace. It's form and function should be largely self-evident. By all means, any specialist may find a command-line encoder which you can parse batches of files to with a convoluted string vastly superior for their particular usage. These individuals do not represent the majority of users.

As far as people having no trouble making their software "just work" on Linux, take https://www.virtualbox.org/wiki/Downloads as an example. One link for 32bit & 64bit Windows. One link for 32bit & 64bit MacOS X. For Linux however, a wiki page, 45 initial links for various Linux flavors, sudo instructions for adjusting your repository so existing Debians installs can download the latest versions, sudo instructions for fixing invalid signatures in your existing repository, and sudo instructions for verifying the signed key for Debian and RPM installs (something that is as simple as a right-click in Windows).

Lets be clear.. it's a huge amount of trouble to make software "just work" on Linux. Some publishers simply hook into wine libraries and give you the Windows software with a few path redirects and, in some shocking cases, privilege elevations. But that's not making it work on Linux. That's making it work through Wine. Producing new software for Linux beyond text-only applications, which "just work" in a wide variety of flavors is an incredible amount of work. It's far easier to port a graphical application to Mac OSX and have it work on all flavors of Mac OSX than it is to port to Linux and work on all flavors of Linux.

To address another claim of yours - Windows needs more maintenance and Linux less? What? Again - presuming you're talking about your average home desktop user (this is a thread about Steam, after all - we're not looking at enterprise applications here), this couldn't be further from the truth. Windows 7 requires virtually no user maintenance whatsoever. It updates and patches silently. Patches do come more frequently, largely due to expectations of professionals - this is a good thing, not bad. However, what it does on its own is not "maintenance" as far as any user is concerned.

Linux on the otherhand - take Ubuntu again, the most popular general-user GUI for the OS. You want automatic patch updates? First of all you've got to install that package, manually. Then you've got to edit /etc/apt/apt.conf.d/50unattended-upgrades and /etc/apt/apt.conf.d/10periodic to set it up to download and install automatic upgrades. What? You wouldn't do that because it doesn't give you control over the finer details of each update and how it impacts on the rest of the software you use? That's why Linux isn't ready.

Xbox Live is free. Maybe you're thinking of Gold Live - the service which provides extra non-essentials for those who really want it. The live service, match-making, all online gaming, is free.

"If we adopted this type of reasoning in science, cutting open a body to figure out how it works would be cheating and would be disallowed. Deconstructing atoms with supercolliders would be considered cheating and disallowed. The creation of vaccines and medicines that cure diseases unnaturally would be considered cheating and disallowed. And if you ever violated any of these rules, you'd be sentenced to death, because once a cheater, always a cheater, and cheaters should be permanently banned from the game (life, in this case). Sounds reasonable, doesn't it?"

Except.. science isn't a video game, Learning more in science isn't considered an unfair advantage, thus, whatever means you adopt to learn more can't be comparably considered cheating. Learning more in science about how things work is the entire point of science.

I understand you've written a huge post trying to justify your cheating, but nonsense like this doesn't help your cause. When you were cheating, you weren't playing with other people aware you were cheating, so you could try and "learn". You were doing it on public servers against other players who were trying to have fun. You're scum. Once a cheater, always a cheat, is in fact very apt. Such individuals are generally scum at every level of interaction with the rest of humanity.

No, they don't. They end up turning off their aimbots and wallhacks but still use ESP hacks to tell them where every other player is. Makes them seem more legit. Once a cheater, always a cheater.