I switched to Netvibes a few years ago, when Google added the unremoveable sidebar (which was added at the behest of gadget developers, apparently the only users of iGoogle that matter). It has served me pretty well, though I still miss having a Google search bar with full functionality.
Wiping your nose does not cure a cold. It never has, and it never will.
Do not give specious reasoning a free pass because you agree with its conclusion.
During OIF I, I made the grievous error of saying that #4, Country Captain Chicken, wasn't that terrible. After a few days of my coworkers selflessly saving the #4 for me while they got first pick on a new box, I quickly recanted.
Old Man Murray made a compelling argument explaining the decline of adventure games:
Your alluded-to attribution is incorrect. That quote comes from an essay by Rabbi Lapin:
http://www.aapsonline.org/brochures/lapin.htm
Your interpretation of the statistics does not appear to take proportionality into account.
If Job A has 6 fatalities and 100 workers while Job B has 3 fatalities and 10 workers, Job B is more dangerous since the odds of death are higher on a per worker basis.
Yahoo Pipes works acceptably for this task.
Example: http://pipes.yahoo.com/pipes/pipe.info?_id=VsavzdaC3RGH9sTVrLQIDg
Most of Asia are already using IPv6.
Yes, fractions of a percent, just like the US who "has its head in the sand."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv6_deployment
Shacknews reports that StarCraft II will support non-free user-made maps and mods. Depending on how this is implemented, mapmakers may find their works offered for free via other distribution channels. As some iPhone app writers have discovered, it's also possible to be undercut by a free cloned or superficially changed version of their map. How does Blizzard intend to enforce author rights?
I've found Hamachi to be a good way to integrate LAN/WAN players.
So let me get this straight -- you want to discourage, not copying, but loaning?
The parent was talking about casual copying. If a game did not implement CD checks, then it could be loaned out, installed, then returned--no copying required. I think it's fairly obvious why game devs prefer users buying their products instead of borrowing them from a friend.
But if anything, this opens up new markets -- game rentals, and used games. And it does drive up the value of a game, if you know it can be re-sold.
Used game sales aren't good for the original developer. If a game is bought for $50, then resold four times for $10-30 each time, how much does the original developer make? $50. Epic Games has voiced their opinion on the issue, and has taken measures to discourage the practice (unlocks/DLC).
The supposed purpose of DRM is to "keep honest people honest", by preventing things like actual copyright infringement. But your comment does tend to indicate the true purpose of DRM -- to prevent people from doing perfectly honest things (like lending) that you'd rather be able to charge for.
I don't disagree with your statement that DRM can have ulterior reasons. However, lending is not always honest. With a book, possession directly implies access. If I loan out a book, I can't read it until it's returned. Software is different; It's dishonest to loan out my copy of Office 2007 to my friends to install, if can still use it.
If you're already forcing them to be online, why do you need to limit the number of saves? Just don't allow more than one person to be online at once.
The point of limiting saves is to create a finite resource, which discourages sharing. Users wouldn't have to continuously be online--only if they want to save their game. Is it an inconvenience to users? Yes. But it is somewhat compensated by the "resume anywhere" feature, while "one user at any time" is only a stick.
And hey, I can lend games on Steam. I just have to lend the whole account at a time, and if I lend my account credentials, I risk losing the account. That's really all the incentive I need -- to limit the number of saves on top of that really serves no purpose, other than to save you disk space.
Actually, that's against the Steam EULA:
You may not reveal, share or otherwise allow others to use your password or Account.
The solution I recommended is better. With Steam, loaning is an all-or-nothing proposition. You can't play one game while a concurrent user plays another, even if you legitimately own both. This is not an issue if a game+saves is tied to a key instead of an account.
Is there really that much of a difference between handing my buddy a CD in a jewel case vs handing him a CD in a jewel case that has the key printed on it?
I don't believe keys matter for casual loaning of single player games, which is what The Sims 3 is. Their best strategy is to discourage loaning, which has been a side-effect of hand-held console cartridges for some time. Carts have a finite amount of space for save game slots, and as a result you don't want to loan your cartridge to someone careless who will overwrite your "hard work" with their own progress. This could be implemented in a similar fashion by moving storing saves online, and limiting the amount of slots available. The customer loses some flexibility by being unable to save locally, but benefits by not losing progress when reinstalling, or transitioning between different computers.
Those who can, do; those who can't, write. Those who can't write work for the Bell Labs Record.
