You're right, that is obnoxious. I apologize.

I guess I get riled up about "cloud" stuff since it's basically a pain-in-the-ass marketing buzzword that people think is significantly different from how we've been doing things. As opposed to what it is - a "tag" attached to a point in time where these things evolved.

That and those damn "to the cloud!" commercials...

You're missing the point. You're saying that you should keep local backups of things you do in the cloud.

That's wrong. You should, at best, be keeping backups in the cloud of things you do locally.

The difference between the two is that the cloud comes second, so if it goes away you don't really lose anything.

His Star Trek reviews don't have any of this and I think they're the better for it.

You mean, except for his having killed his wife by driving his Cadillac into a tree, and the subsequent "suicide" of his girlfriend which he covers up by having a prostitute write a suicide note before he kills her, too?

I guess I meant that he doesn't break up the review with a bunch of video-based skits. The implied subplot is fine, I'm just not a fan of the way he does it in the Star Wars reviews.

Except the reviewer has got the worst, I mean absolute worse, voice for doing reviews. He doesn't modulate his voice at all; it's that same dull, nasal-sounding voice. I got through about five minutes before I turned it off.

What might not be obvious at first is that it's a caricature named Mr. Plinkett. It's supposed to be a slovenly old man who borders on senile and psychotic. They do this to add some additional humor and characterization to the reviews, otherwise you're basically going to be listening to some nasally nerd nitpicking details. It takes a little getting used to but if you've only watched five minutes I encourage you to give it another shot with the knowledge that the voice is satire.

That said, the Star Wars reviews do suffer a little bit from a skit-based "subplot" wherein the Plinkett character has kidnapped a hooker and kept her in the basement. We think he's going to kill her but instead he shows her the prequels as torture. It's supposed to be funny but it's mostly cringeworthy. His Star Trek reviews don't have any of this and I think they're the better for it.

What I need is a way to give her a computer that she can't change.

Just for email and facebook and she'd be happy. Heck- maybe just for facebook. Lock everything else down.

So... an iPad basically? Maybe with the keyboard attachment?

Don't forget their end of latefees-- which ended up the king of late fees. Apparently, if you kept the DVD, no late fees occurred, because they just charged your credit card for the purchase of the movie.

Which only occurred after you didn't return it for a week! Did you think they were just going to let you keep the movie forever?

That's sort of what they were implying, yes. I mean, what did they expect from people by proclaiming the "end of late fees!" The entire concept and marketing of it was an abortion.

Yeah it's been stated that the movie's editing makes certain things seem different than how they went down. Stuff like how Billy Mitchell's videotaped score being rejected the following day and Walter Day apologizing to Weibe. And when Weibe's videotaped score was rejected, the record reverted to the other record he set in 2003, not to Mitchell. And Weibe has stated that the scene in the restaurant where Mitchell avoids him leaves out the part that came later where Mitchell came over and apologized for being rude and introduced his wife.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_of_kong#Disputed_facts

Weibe is the everyman character we all identify with and Mitchell has an abrasive personality that make for an excellent film. But both men agree that the movie doesn't portray them correctly. Still, it's a great film. What I wonder is - will there ever be a DK score that's literally impossible to beat?

is there any legal way to obtain and install an iApp apart from the official apple appstore ?

Well seeing as how this is just a comic book, couldn't they have just put it on an iPhone/iPad-formatted website behind a paywall?

If I remember right from the last Slashdot discussion we had on this:

1. Some organizations (mostly religious ones) don't want porn to exist at all. They pray (literally) for the day when it is legislated out of existence. a .xxx domain would legitimize it further than it already is.

2. Many porn sites already have a large vested interest in their .com domains. They don't want to have to move to .xxx domains.

3. The porn industry doesn't want some quick/easy way to block them. Sure, you as a parent would like to just block www.*.xxx and be done with it but what if your ISP decides to do the same? Then you can't look at this no matter what. To say nothing of the false sense of security (i.e., just blocking www.*.xxx doesn't really block all porn)

4. How would it be enforced? Anyone can have a .xxx domain? Does it have to be a porn site? Would porn sites have to move to .xxx domains instead of .com domains?

5. Who decides what is porn? An example was given of a stunt to raise awareness for breast cancer or something wherein a thousand women got naked and laid down to pose in a large shape. The photo was carried on a lot of news sites, including Yahoo. Would it be considered porn? It's not video footage of people having sex but it is a photo of a thousand naked women. If it is considered porn, would Yahoo have to host it on www.yahoo.xxx instead of www.yahoo.com? And wouldn't Yahoo get into a shitstorm by even registering www.yahoo.xxx in the first place?

Basically when both the porn industry and the religious movements are agreeing on something, you know it's messed up. Yeah, on its surface it's not a bad idea, it's just one not thought through very well.