I am indeed using windows 7 and am fine with it. And 8 is fine on a tablet. I just feel like the review did have several good criticisms of Windows 8 as a desktop OS, it really is quite frustrating to use as a complete workstation replacement versus what we've been used to. It interrupts productivity in the office. Again, as a home tablet OS, its fine. Have you tried it with Dual Montiors? Blagh. Definitely not for workstations.

"Well, there you go! We all knew this OS was an absolutely terrible OS for desktops, but hey guys it works for tablets sorta so its not that bad"

I'm lost.

"We all knew there were usability issues on the desktop" sounds like conceding "This is a shitty operating system", or at least "This is a tablet only OS".

Click on the start button. Click Shut Down.

Because Windows is so ubiquitous, Linux has had to copy Windows UI design for awhile now to make it accessible. Anything that isn't Windows style is unintuitive since we've learned that, even if it would originally be more intuitive.

Have you seen Ubuntu lately?

WRONG. WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG.

The old desktop IS still there. HOWEVER, many of the things which used to be on the desktop ARE NO LONGER.

MANY THINGS HAVE BEEN MOVED TO METRO AND CAN NO LONGER BE ACCESSED OUTSIDE METRO, INCLUDING SYSTEM FUCKING PROPERTIES AND RESTART THE COMPUTER.

The review is absolutely correct, and you're completely misinformed. Just because you have a command prompt doesn't mean that everything else from your desktop still works or is still there.

I have to switch from metro to desktop to use half my apps, but I have to switch from desktop to metro to use system properties? Worst design ever.

You don't seem to understand his complaints. Its not that shorcuts work. Its that metro shortcuts kick you to the desktop, and the desktop kicks you to metro. Why can't you just use one? Why can't everything be done in both? Its a clusterfuck.

You see Arsenal last night?

They're 'avin' a larf

You're not looking at the center of the person, if you were doing that, the head wouldn't make sense. You'd stare at their chest. The point is not to look at a being's physical form necessarily, but rather to look them in the eyes, that is, to look at where they're looking from. You see them seeing you, they see you seeing them. Do you look a blind person in the eyes when you're talking to them? They won't look you in the eyes back, likely. Its about perspective, not about form.

The bug doesn't infect you just because you played with somebody who had the bug. They have to be hosting the game, I'm almost positive. Then for you to share it with somebody else, you'd have to host the game, etc. If you don't know you have the bug, then I could see this happening.

Still, they don't even mention if the bug is "saved". I don't think it is, there's lots of local server variables you can modify on the PC by editing RAM address values (like with Cheat Engine) and you can modify all kinds of things like making the game temporarily harder and increasing the drop rate. These values are not saved to the character. That said, badass *could* be something that is saved, but the article isn't clear. Has anybody tested? I think we're jumping the gun here, assuming the worst.

Which is what they do. They ban every modded xbox they are sure is modded. If they just banned everybody then nobody could play. They ban you if they detect you are running modded.

This has nothing to do with trusting the client. Its a game that uses local listen servers, not dedicated servers. That's it. It has nothing to do with the client.

No, you're right, although you're not explaining it fully. The game is ad-hoc rather than central server. Instead of having dedicated server boxes which host games for clients to join, instead one player hosts a local listen server where they are both a client and server, and then everybody connects to their server. The reason why this matters is it means that if you mod your xbox and you host the game, then the server is modded. Everybody else talking about clients is full of shit.

This has absolutely nothing to do with trusting clients. Its the fact that the game is hosted on local servers, not dedicated servers. If the person hosting the game is modded, then the server is modded. The clients aren't trusted, but they don't have to be, that has nothing to do with it. Its the server. They don't use dedicated servers like Call of Duty, but personally I hate those.

Wrong. This is happening because in Borderlands 2, there aren't dedicated servers like in Call of Duty. When you play multiplayer, you host a local server yourself. Then everybody else connects to your server as a client. The server is not trusting client stored data, but the server ITSELF can be modded and compromised.

I'm actually wearing my expendable "redshirt" right now xD

I personally always liked Picard better. Maybe its because TOS was already being phased out in favor of TNG, but I always thought Picard was so much more impressive than Kirk.

Kirk was a brave hero, your Flash Gordon, sure. And he was good for that.
But Picard... he was.. well, Professor X.

I'm with you. I kinda want to like DS9, but I just can't get into it. Meanwhile, Voyager, which is actually probably cheesier than DS9, feels less cheesy somehow. I guess I just need to have that classic Gene Roddenberry setting, a lone ship exploring the far reaches of the galaxy, encountering new aliens, etc.

No, rather, Kirk was a war-time consigliere, where Picard is a diplomat.

Kirk would send some red shits in, they'd die, he'd realize something, and then they'd win.
Picard would already be 4 moves ahead and would have lead you into a xanatos gambit where he can't lose.

Kirk is the action hero, Picard is the thinking man.