Nearly every project I've seen gives you a copy of said product for pledging a certain amount. Also, have you heard of the term "investing" before?

Don't forget Counter Strike: Global Offensive and DOTA 2!

Not just that. Many people don't know that you can get easily infected by a rogue advertisement even being displayed. That alone keeps me using Adblock, even if all of the other factors people name didn't exist.

If you can get modded up to +5 insightful for this comment then I greatly fear for the sake of Slashdot. It's full of idiots now. I'm going to get modded down for saying this, but I really don't care. If this kind of response is really the kind of discussion that Slashdot is supporting now, then goodbye. I really don't care what happens to you all now. This site is a lost cause.

He isn't saying that they're shoehorning multiplayer into every game. He's saying that every game should include an online component of some sort, as he says right here. They're not saying that games should all have multiplayer involved. They're saying that they should involve the internet in some way. There is nothing wrong with this. For example, take optional high score challenges in Mirror's Edge. The Sim City example, where online is required, is a bad example because that's just one game and the game was designed to be multiplayer-centric from the start. There are many, many single player games, like Mass Effect, that don't require the multiplayer or online functionality whatsoever. This is just FUD. EA isn't the best company around, sure, but including online features in single player games is definitely possible and it can't always be a bad thing depending on how it's implemented.

This isn't a discussion about GNOME 3, though. This is about a completely optional distribution for people who already like GNOME 3. That is what the article is about and I just wished people talked about that instead of the exact same rants we get all the time.

You don't seem to see that this a completely optional distribution for people who already like GNOME 3. In no way is it being shoved down your throat.

Whenever these kinds of articles are brought up, there is NO insightful discussion whatsoever. It's sickening, really. Instead of actually contributing to a logical discussion, every single comment on these kinds of articles says, more or less, "lol GNOME 3 sucks and only morons would like it because it's obviously trash; use a DE that actually makes sense". The problem with this kind of comment should be painfully obvious, but apparently it's not so simple with most of you. People say this in EVERY FREAKING COMMENT ON THESE ARTICLES! There is no originality whatsoever! Look, WE GET IT! You guys don't like GNOME 3! Just shut up then and leave the people who do like it alone! So what if some people enjoy GNOME 3? That's not your freaking problem! If they want to make an Ubuntu flavor that uses GNOME 3 by default then LET THEM FREAKING DO SO WITHOUT HAVING THEIR PERSONAL PREFERENCES QUESTIONED. Is this REALLY that hard? Is it really so bad to say something like "Oh well I hope this works out for them" or "I hope that GNOME 3 fans enjoy it"?

Seriously, you have a freaking right to dislike any DE you freaking want. I'm not contesting that. Just because I don't like some DEs doesn't mean that I should just go and yell at people who do like them all the time. That's not only rude but it's a waste of my breath. People like different things and you all should freaking realize that some people have different preferences than you do. I love GNOME 3 and I wish this project the best, and even if I didn't like GNOME 3 I'd still support its freaking existence because everybody has a right to support the software that they use. That's THE WHOLE FREAKING POINT OF HAVING MULTIPLE DEs AND DISTRIBUTIONS IN THE FIRST PLACE!

Good gravy... Just shut up and leave us all alone. We don't need your flamebait and trollish comments.

Oh trust me, I know lots of people who think abortion should be allowed in many, many circumstances. People use it as a form of birth control all the time, as evidenced by the rather high (and grotesque IMO) rates of abortion relative to the number of cases where those people would consider it a "legitimate option". Also, circumcision isn't meant to solve a problem I think. All I know is that it's a long-standing religious practice and that it has little-to-no difference in the child's life anyway. As long as we have freedom of religion we have to allow this practice, especially since it's not very harmful at all.

Wait, abortion without killing the fetus? Please explain. I'm curious as to what you mean.

And whether or not this is child abuse is really a matter of opinion. Some religions require or prefer it and it happens at such a young age that most kids, I assume, don't even know what happened if anything. I didn't know until I read about it myself.

So... How is that different from abortion?

Most Slashdotters I know of are pro-abortion, yes? They believe that the mother should decide whether or not the child is born or not. Why, then, is circumcision apparently evil in our eyes?

Okay I've read all of the reasoning here for why people are against this, but lets think about it: linking is not illegal, file hosting is not illegal, but hosting a website with the explicit purpose of linking to copyrighted material in such a way that it infringes upon the copyright of the content owners? THAT should definitely be illegal. Don't tell me none of you have ever seen a forum or a blog filled with nothing but links to illegally shared copyrighted material. Heck I've seen several that have explicit categories for things like games on a per-system basis, genres of music, or whatever else. Whether it's for ROMs, ISOs, MP3s, or any other type of file, they exist. Lets not pretend that they don't. You can wear a tin hat and stroke your neckbeard while saying that the problem is copyright law, but realistically, in the world we live in where changing it so radically will never happen, these sites should be stopped. Heck I'd gladly link to at least a dozen that I know of off the top of my head for evidence if it wouldn't possibly incriminate me.

"No, DownloadSomeFreeGamesAndShitOrWhatever.com is totally legal! It's just people linking to stuff! They can't control what people share!"

Think about how freaking ridiculous that sounds. Yes, we should go after the infringers in the first place, but that doesn't mean we can't attack these sites as well. It's not like only one person is allowed to infringe. By hosting theses sites, the site owners are accomplices.

What if someone got into the profession before something like this was decided? Should they just switch professions?