...to read patch notes for GNOME 3 that read "You can now auto hide the top bar without installing a third party extension."

Did anyone else here play a legit boxed copy of Ghost Recon: Future Soldier on PC shortly after it came out? It wasn't even really playable for people that weren't pirating it until a patch that came out a week or two ago.

I have to agree. This seems kinda pointless, just connect to your TTYs with tmux or screen, problem solved. Why are we worried about improving something that is deliberately a fall back to a simpler system?

Most Wal-Marts I go into in NC have a single AR-15 on display and a several shotguns and rifles. None of these guns are ones that I would recommend buying. They also have shotgun shells just sitting out on shelves that people could pocket.

But most third party apps like skype and spotify and such that you won't find in most distro's repos are built for Ubuntu. Steam is going to be built for Ubuntu too. Random little apps that interact with android and iOs devices are usually written for Ubuntu if a Linux version exists (example: remotedroid). For this reason, I usually install Mint on friends computers that want to use Linux without having to learn anything about it.

All the "unlimited wireless" services I've tried are not worth $60 a year. If the speeds and reliability weren't so vastly inferior to home connections, and companies stopped charging extra for tethering, then I might consider it.

Same here. I've been using Origin since Mass Effect 3 came out and have never really had any issues with it. On one occasion, my ISP was having issues and I couldn't log into Origin, but it still let me start it up in "Offline Mode" and play my games in single player mode. Starting my Origin games straight from the .exe works too. And...I got a few titles I really enjoy for a steal in a big half off sale that they had!

They are allowed to monitor speech on the telephone, and they're also required by law to do so since the Patriot Act. And while I haven't heard of them censoring people's phone calls before, they sure do forward some of the recordings (which they delete after a month or so iirc) to the government who has their own methods of "censoring" individuals. I personally don't approve of the Patriot Act, but it's there, like it or not.

Where in that arcticle does it say that Verizon intends to censor people with "controversial things to say?" I see a lot of presumptuous statements by the editor and some straight up factual things said by a Verizon representative. What if they wanted to censor some child pornography? Or some legitimate terrorism related communications that threatened lives? That's not only their right, but their responsibility. If you have a legitimate link showing that Verizon has or even wants to censor people's political opinions, feel free to give it to me.

You know who else always talks about the Military Industrial Complex? Ron Paul does. You should try actually reading one of his books instead of random bloggers' smear pieces. He addresses problems associated with free market capitalism, like monopolies and bribing politicians. But you don't have to take my word for it!

The idea is that, generating new currency causes inflation, and no one should be able to generate new currency. The amount of goods present in the country and in the world isn't necessarily always going to be affected by the value of a dollar. By freezing the amount of dollars in circulation, you force the country as a whole to not only see but to tackle the actual effects of fiscal policy and regulations. No more invisible hands behind the scenes injecting money into foreign banks and various places. Injecting more money into a bubble to keep it from popping might delay the inevitable, but it just makes the consequences more severe in the long run. Then you have more private investors putting money into something that will just die in the meantime, and in the end all you have accomplished is lowering the value of a dollar, in which case nearly everyone loses.

The thing is, net neutrality bills are a potentially effective solution to a problem that hasn't really manifested its self yet, and quite possibly never will. While there has been some niche cases of ISPs trying to throttle torrents and things like that, for the most part, there's no reason for me to believe that the stuff that I personally do on the Internet will be restricted by some nefarious Caucasian owned corporation in the near future. If anything, the bills will probably result in ISPs having to do more paperwork and such and then deciding that to cover the costs, they're going to make me start paying for my bandwidth after I go above a 5GiB/month limit. But hey, the answer to all of our problems (whether they exist or not) is to just put the government's hand in every single aspect of every single corporation until they no longer exist, right?

Different people derive different implications from history. I've heard people use WWII as a reason to intervene in foreign affairs on far too many occasions for example. "History repeats its self," they always say. As a secular conservative type who thinks Paul is an amazing person but not the emperor of austrian/libertarian thinking, I do have to question his voting record in regards to gay marriage and abortion laws at times. But as a policy, I don't see an issue with delegating these decisions to the states. And if that happened, and I was in those states, I would vote in favor of allowing abortion/gay marriage. I'm just tired of getting the shaft in the two party system is what it comes down to. While most /.ers probably disagree, I think that free market capitalism is the answer to most of our economic issues disagree. And if like 10 people in Alabama or somewhere can't get an abortion while the economy booms because I voted in favor of state's rights, I'll still be able to sleep with myself quite nicely.