the first CS student that claims he read The Art of Computer Programming Vol. 1-3 and isn't lying.

When I moved out of my DSL provider's service area (Speakeasy), I didn't have to pay the early termination fee. It wasn't my fault they were unable to provide the service.

Is the game good enough to pay $50 up-front, $10/month, and suffer through ads? If they invest the extra revenue in their development, support, and network, you're getting what you pay for. If they're squeezing loyal customers for extra profit and offering nothing in return, it's a price hike. If it's too much to pay, find something else to do with your time and money. People always gripe about price increases, but if they're willing to pay more the product was under-priced.

Wait, you have to pay for games? I can already buy a console, pay a monthly service fee, and purchase games. I thought OnLive was similar to a premium cable channel, you paid a monthly fee and could play the entire catalog available. This is a slightly cheaper console but you lose the games you bought when the company tanks.

Pioneer of on-demand gaming my ass, Sega and even Intellivision were far more innovative decades ago.

I made two attempts to argue my position, but based on the responses and moderation, I'm obviously in the minority. Even by American standards I'm a casual World Cup fan, so my perspective is a lot different than an avid sports fans. I'll concede, FIFA represents its fan base and should address the noise if it's harming the event and quality of play.

I will stand by my defense of South African fans, the posts calling them "retarded" or malicious are unfair. FIFA was aware of the buzzing after last year's tournament, so the blame lies with them, not the fans.

The horns really annoy me too, and I agree with everything you said about safety and fan behavior. But there's no denying that bee-swarm hum is part of the South African football experience. It may be a recent phenomenon, but it's a point of pride for their fans and part of their identity. Right or wrong, native Africans see it as their stamp on post-apartheid Association Football.

The comparison to hooligans isn't fair. There's no intent to hurt people or ruin the game for others, even if that's the outcome. Hooligans brutally assault innocent people without provocation, destroy property, throw body fluids, and threaten/humiliate players and officials. Even worse, it's not just out of control drunks, their actions are often organized and planned.

I agree with you, but I didn't initially. After hearing that the first time, I wanted FIFA to put an end to it immediately. But the organization's president summed it up nicely when he said "Would you want to see a ban on the fan traditions in your country?" The knee-jerk reaction would have been to eliminate or limit the horns. I admire FIFA's decision, they valued the host nation's fans over the international media.

The sound bothers me, but I don't want the World Cup to become a homogenized TV event like the Olympics.

If the company is reducing staff, asking for a raise won't go over too well. If you can find a better offer, take it or let your current employer counter. Don't expect anyone to pay you more if no one else is willing to. Use this opportunity to improve your skills and demonstrate your value to the company. Again, if they don't give you what you're worth, another company will.

You're not alone, fair or not, all companies expect employees to continually improve productivity. The ones that do are retained, those that can't are not. The job market is cut-throat, out-perform your peers, keep your skills sharp, and make sure your resume is up to date and being seen.

I have no argument if it's used in a quote or a reference to the term "tweet." But the NY Times wants its writers to avoid using slang in their own copy. It would be like going back to the 1960s archive and reading an article describing Kennedy's speech as "groovy." Even worse, "tweet" reinforces a fallacy that Twitter offers some novel, unique form of communicating.

I thought the same thing. The relationship between MPG and gas consumption is counterintuitive. It wouldn't as surprising if you said marginal gains in gas consumption shrink as MPG increases. The limits become obvious if you think about much higher values like 1,000 MPG to 1,100 MPG.

The average person believes a car that gets 50 MPG will travel 17 miles more on a gallon of gas than a car that gets 33 MPG, and they're right.

Opium use predates written history, and it certainly has an interesting history. If heroin is legalized, can I make jokes about "craft smack"?

The head on a Guinness stout has nothing on this beer...

It was apparently served with a thick head of foam, in vessels designed so that “one had the option to inhale the foam or drink directly from the mouth of the vessel.”

Heroin users call that chasing the dragon :)

That's true, you can't monetize person-hours unless you know the opportunity cost of that time. If those hours would have been spent watching TV, it's cost neutral (1 hour of leisure time either way.) Were executives and sales reps playing it work? That's a cost benefit. It saved the hours spent removing viruses and malware they would have downloaded surfing porn sites instead.

Good point. I wonder how well they'll review the credibility of each "strike"? Expect a flood of copyright notices if they're taken at face value.

Like many others here, I've worked with databases that store call logs and correspondence. You would be surprised how often personal information like SSNs and credit card numbers end up in the system. A single incident can be a legal or PR disaster for an organization. I don't see how the value of user notes could outweigh the risk. Is it really a feature people want?