Do you play games to waste time?

Why don't you just look at the ceiling or go outside to count ants if you only need to waste time?

People play games to have fun. And having to play 10 times through the same level just to get killed at some stupid trap at the end is not considered fun by some people. And in fact I used to consider that fun when I have lots of hours per day to play, but not anymore.

Now, is it that bad that some people have a different measure of what fun is than you do? I don't think so. I think it is great to have games to appeal to different kind of people.

Do you usually see games with multiple endings?

Do you usually see games where you can get stuck and need to use save games?

Most of the games don't have that feature. And for games that do, then maybe automatic savegames are not the best feature.

But again, most games can be played without even reading dialogs (prince of persia is probably one of those)

Some people is commenting on the article that even if it is quantum generated randomness, it may turn out not be truly random(because "nobody knows, right?").

I guess that the scientists who developed this fantasize with finding correlations in their random number sequence. That would actually be something more interesting than the actual intentions.

Hi... I'm the asshole who posted the comment about the four horsemen.

Let me give you an example of why I think patents are not necessary for innovation in software:

http://brainstorm.ubuntu.com/

When it comes to software, ideas are cheap and abundant. Patents make sense when they represent something that is difficult to come up with (a diesel engine for example) and that may involve years of R&D.

But if you read that list, you'll see that ideas (even good ones) cost almost nothing, and have no value on its own. People is willing to give the ideas for free for many reasons: Because they can benefit by having the idea implemented, because of personal pride, because of a sense of community.

So for example, a patent troll (person A) would patent a good but almost obvious idea like "Autoname screenshots to have date and time for hour, instead of just 'screenshot'". And then if he is successful he would sit on the patent and wait until person B comes up with the same idea in a context were person B can actually implement it. And then sue. That's holding back innovation, not encouraging.

On the other hand, you have that the idea is so simple and cheap that people is willing to give it for free: http://brainstorm.ubuntu.com/idea/16850/

Do you not want not to format the hard drive?

Yes, I do
Yes, I don't
No, I do
No, I don't
Wait... what?

Except the user who wants to install the OS and start working instead of start option-hunting. Or those that don't know how to do it.

For example, did you know you can turn those annoying "OMG You don't have firewall" popups off in windows?

You can. But I think it is a semi-obscure feature (at least it is a feature I just found out).

Linux is about options. But that doesn't mean having all the options in every distribution. It means having the option of switching distributions.

Ubuntu philosophy is that of Gnome... less options to make things simpler. And the lack of customization is a common source of criticism. But you have KDE if you like full customization. So why bother?

But it means you have to consider if you want to click on it or not.

I'm thinking about my notebook's OSD indicating that volume is up, volume is down, brightness... I can't click on those (even if they could have added clicking on them as a feature to turn volume up and down).

A notification is just that, a way to let you know something.

Also, think about what happens when you are about to click something and POP! a notification that you end up clicking instead.

That sounds far fetched, but happens to me a lot of times.