That's what 3DRealms kept saying about Duke Nukem Forever, and we all know how that ended up.

A good, if not great single person FPS romp? DNF was fun, and well worth the money i dropped on it on steam. (on sale)

Yes, a couple of the physics puzzles missed the mark, it was needlessly gratuitious and vulgar, and the whole strip club dream sequence level was retarded.

But I still can't decide if they were deliberately silly, deliberately over the top vulger, and the whole strip club dream sequence was deliberately stupid all as a truly brilliant satire of the entire modern FPS genre.

And honestly even if it was unintentional, that just makes the parody even funnier.

"Jailbreak "... enough said.

Is misrepresenting what IOS "supports"; in that you are exploiting a bug to allow it; it is officially NOT supported at all.

The Developer program is another sideloading method, this time, actually supported by ios8, but it is hardly a general purpose solution to distributing apps outside the app store, and it would be a misrepresentation to say it was.

The enterprise program is yet another sideloading method, and it too is officially sanctioned by ios8, but again is hardly a general purpose solution to distributing apps outside the app store, and it would again be a misrepresentation to say it was.

Say again that sideloading is impossible on iOS [...]

Why? I didn't say it was "impossible".

Merely that there was no sanctioned way of doing it. Jailbreaking, developer program, and enterprise program are all ways of sideloading outside of the app store -- but NONE of them represent a legitimate way for anyone to distribute apps for ios to the general consumer outside of the app store.

i sideload apps all the time on my ios8

Care to explain how you are misrepresetning ios8 support for side loading apps. Because there are a variety of possibilities... but ALL of them are a misrepresentation.

Except that the play store is loaded with malware.

Its really not "loaded" with malware.

If you are that worried that what you are about to download is malware, check the ios store first, if its there with the same name, same icon, and same publisher, its not going to be "malware".

If its not on ios (and really the only things that aren't going to be there that a normal person would want would be things that ios actively doesn't allow) -- so a handful of technical utilities, arcade emulators, 3rd party browsers, etc. So do a smattering of research on the developer/publisher for those items to make sure your getting the right ones.

Or just get that stuff from F-droid.

(seperate advertising is malware).

Sure and if we get to define malware the way we like then I could say "Walled gardens that don't allow side loading of apps is malware" and write off the entire ios platform as malware.

So because it's a hobby means you're "allowed" to do it?

Its moot. "Allowed" or "not allowed", there are already MILLIONS of "suspicious" little packages stashed around the country; with more being planted daily.

Even if its not technically legal the sensible thing to do now would be to legalize it.

You've never been allowed to randomly attach things anywhere.

Sure if you pretend the ENTIRE geocaching hobby doesn't exist.

You know the one I mean? The one which is LITERALLY stashing small boxes, tubes, and other containers of things in public places; hidden in trees, under bushes, magnetically attached to light posts, under bridges, under stair ways, in hollows, under park benches, in sculptures, behind loose bricks, and under large stones, and in drains...

Be pretty comical for the the bomb squad to start blowing them all up. there's some 600 in my suburb alone.)

So by not communicating that they have not been served, they have communicated that they have been served.

Not quite. Strictly speaking all they are doing is communicating that they may or may not have been served by a secret gag warrant.

That is not quite the same as communicating that they have actually been served with one.

Its only the fact that they went from actively declaring that they haven't been served, to declaring that that they may or may not have been served leads us to INFER that they have been served. But they may not have. And the new declaration is still true if they haven't. So they haven't positively communicated that they have.

Why does this method as in TFS allow them to bypass the warrant?

The legal definition interpretation of disclosure isn't finely nuanced enough to definitively address this possible loop hole. Perhaps case law will settle it one way or another at some point, or new legislation may be passed to close it.

But such legislation would find itself running afoul of freedom of speech rules. It would either have to legally mandate that citizens outright lie (which would likely face a substantial legal challenge) - to force them to leave up a disclaimer that is false; or it would need to prevent all citizens from making a declaration that they had never been served a secret warrant... which would be a pretty serious limitation on free speech, and would also face significant challenges.

Google already has my credit card information (Play Store, AdWords, et al).

This isn't about your card information. This is your transaction information.

Why would I want give it to yet another party like Samsung?

As I said, this is about spreading my profile data around. The more entitites that have a piece of it, the better. No one entity has a complete picture.

Company A knows: I spend X here, Y there, Z there.
Company B knows: I travelled here, there, and the next place.
Company C knows: my heart rate was all day, and how many steps I took
Company D knows: what i looked up on the web

Company A/B/C/D each know a bit about me, and try and sell some ad impressions based on it or whatever.

I think that is FAR better than giving ALL that to google or any other single entity. And then one person can stalk you simply by getting access to your google profile and get more detail than he could if he literally followed you around.

And indeed, why would I want my in-person payment method to be tied to a specific manufacturer? Google Wallet works with anything that can speak NFC, as far as I can tell,

What? You mean I can use Google Wallet with something that takes Apple Pay?

while a Samsung solution will certainly only operate on Samsung devices.

And if I'm carrying a samsung device in my pocket... that seems to be ok. I mean, what if one day I switch to an HTC phone? Seems like that's a decision for 2 years from now? Why worry about it?

I mean, I have a Visa from BankX in my pocket right now. 2 years from now I might use a Visa from Bank Y. Who cares? As long as what I have in my pocket today works where I want to use it today, I'm set.

Sorry. I was really wondering why they think that I would choose their app over Google's?

I don't "like" google. I certainly don't trust google. Google already has a huge amount of data on me.

So why would I choose Google over Samsung?

"Not being google" alone is a compelling reason for me to look at samsung and other viable alternatives.

Pizza places use drivers with out commercial insurance and they pay low so the drivers can't do good up keep on there cars.

My brother did pizza delivery during his undergrad years. He was paid minimum wage plus tips and provided his own car.

He had no particular difficulty covering the maintenance of the vehicle or adding commercial insurance to the vehicle. (Our parents insisted he have it.) Granted he lived at home and didn't pay rent.

And the article you link to mentions a 32$ million judgement. Although he -did- have commercial insurance, I know he didn't have THAT much insurance. I don't think much of anybody does. I personally carry a couple million.

And frankly, anyone who thinks they are so important that their injury or death is worth a 30 million dollar settlement should be self-insuring to that amount, instead of hoping whoever hits them has that much insurance.

Yes. But I'm getting video too in the first box; not just audio.

Autoplaying makes it look like you don't care that the user might want to make their own choice as to if or when he watches the video (or that you think they're incapable of making the video play by choice). Doubling it up just makes you look like you don't know what you're doing.

Its both. They don't care what the user wants AND they don't know what they are doing? (Have you not seen beta?)

The Binding of Isaac: Rebirth is an order of magnitude better though in my opinion. Bigger, badder, and more polished.

No longer in flash.

I can't remember exactly how the Uber review process worked but I THINK it was like the AirBnB system where host and guest could not see each others reviews/ratings until both had finished.

How does that work?

If the driver doesn't review anyone, then no one can ever see the passengers reviews? (No exploit there... if a driver suspects the passenger was unhappy, he can just not review them to supress their review.)

Or everyone can see the review except the driver? (Trivial to work around with a 2nd account.)

Neither seems to be a working "solution"

Seems like a mixed bag to me. On the upside if it motivates customers to be on their best behaviour; to be polite, prompt, etc. That's only a good thing.

On the other hand, if its just creating a circle jerk of good reviews that's not doing the system any good.

Driver only ran over one child; and the odor in the vehicle was less rank than the vehicles state of cleanliness would have suggested it would be. Could not hear radio over soothing rattles and squeaks. Would ride again! 10/10. A+++++

Adding a registry entry to remap keys is pretty trivial, too.

You need to be an administrator to do that. That makes it pretty non-trivial.

is running a different OS which doesn't treat Ctrl+Alt+Del in a special way

Now your suggesting what exactly? That the attacker is going to throw in a linux live CD, boot it, run his 'fake login screen' that looks like the usual windows screen?

Ok... yes I guess that is a theoretically possible attack; although you'd probably get caught as soon as the user isn't actually able to log-in and IT gets called in...

Usually the fake login screen attacks "fail" with a you got your password wrong message, and then quietly disappear and throw the -real- lock screen up so the unwitting user tries again... gets in to what he expects and assumes he must have fat fingered his password.