Just brush 'em with barbecue sauce and slap 'em on a bun!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

+1, but only for the last sentence.

Being a buzzword and having a specific definition are not mutually exclusive. "Paradigm shift" has a specific definition, but is one of the best known examples among buzzwords due to it's overuse, misuse, and the tendency to use it to sound trendy and intelligent.

They won't undo it so much as they'll eventually roll the dice again and come up with another superfluous gyration of something that already works well enough. If not for the negative PR I'd have wagered the replacement for the ribbon would be something with Live Tiles. Perhaps a honeycomb arrangement of commands with your most frequently used commands automatically shared via social media.

I wish, though that is the exact opposite of what the theatres want. Notice that before every movie they play some ad that includes the sound of someone pouring a soft drink? You can hate that it works, but you know that your mouth just started watering. The smell of buttered popcorn and the sounds of people eating may drive away a few, but it's money in the bank from the rest of the cud-chewing masses. The people who aren't buying the concessions are a much lower profit margin anyways. Just look at what it costs to make your own popcorn at home.

This.

The rational way to approach winning this prize would be to ask yourself if you'd buy a ticket to space if you had the cash value already in your savings account. If you'd spend your hard earned money on anything other than a brief flight "up real high" then take the cash equivalent.

Even if they cover the taxes that you'll be responsible for paying on the value of the flight, I'd rather be filling out tax forms knowing that some of that cash was still in the bank.

Why does the MIT license bug people so much? If people want to share their modifications they can and will. If people don't want to share their modifications it's not like publishing the code under GPL would have convinced them to, they just wouldn't have used the code at all.

I played Dragon's Prophet for a while (a free to play MMO). While I thoroughly enjoyed the gameplay I just got tired of fighting my own temptation to spend on the cash shop to advance quicker.

So no, as the article points out I have no purely rational reason for avoiding free-to-play games. That said, I have no purely rational reason for playing games in the first place, it's a choice I make purely on how a game environment resonates with my own subjective perception. A game that feels like a shady carnival with carnival barkers clamoring for the most cash they can drain from me just doesn't appeal to me. How "fair" that attitude is to game developers and publishers is, to me, quite irrelevant.

My brother and I use hammers for ranged attacks all the time. It's a clean kill in one hit if they don't have any power-ups.

It's called an air-bag.

So if I make a game from this and pay people to play it, will Epic cut me a check for 5% of what I'm paying the players?

I agree. The US should hold back and let someone else get involved / invested first and then jump in later when that fails to cover it.

Hold that thought for a second, my caddy is lagging behind.

Take what? Take their money to the bank when their plastic funnels and tree-branch-filtration kits sell like hotcakes to the very folks hoping to, ahem, "stick" it to the man?

Suppose a manager promises a customer that they can have all the last minute changes they asked for ahead of schedule and under-budget. When the engineers work on their own time to make the delivery, does the manager pay their uncompensated time from his own pocket?