So, none of them?

Honestly asking. I haven't bothered reading any video game specific site in years, primarily because video game sites seemed to either be the corporate "blatantly in bed with the publishers" type (IGN) or "shitty blog not worth anyone's time" type (Kotaku). I'm curious if any gaming review outlet actually turned down the offer and insisted on reviewing a release copy.

Which would explain how Zoosk got her postal code. Your Facebook name and profile picture are (by default at least) entirely public. Anyone going to your Facebook page can see them. They're available through Facebook's Graph API without any form of authentication.

Your postal code, on the other hand, is not. In fact, Facebook doesn't even record that type of information. Your "current location" is basically freeform. (Technically it's a "page" for a given city. But I think you can enter anything you want in there.)

Facebook's ads API, on the other hand, allows you to target by postal code...

The current version of OS X is 10.10.1. (10.10 is Yosemite. They stopped using big cat names with 10.9, which was Mavericks.)

The Windows kernel version has almost never matched the marketing versions:

Windows 95: 4.0
Windows 98: 4.10
Windows ME: 4.90
Windows 2000: 5.0
Windows XP: 5.1
Windows Vista: 6.0
Windows 7: 6.1
Windows 8: 6.2
Windows 8.1: 6.3

(Note: Starting with Windows 2000, the versions are NT versions, Windows 95/98/ME are actually numbered based on the DOS Windows (as in Windows 3.1).)

That's the reason given but it makes no sense. The Windows API doesn't give out names like that. The Windows 95 version was internally identified as version 4.0. Windows 98 was version 4.10. (ME was 4.90, and a separate flag indicates if the system was Windows NT-based, allowing programs to known the difference between Windows 95 (4.0) and Windows NT 4.0.)

So that explanation makes no sense.

Even more, if you check out the documentation on getting version information, the version returned is now tied to the application manifest as of Windows 8.1 anyway. So you'll only ever get version 6.2 (Windows 8) back unless you explicitly target later version of Windows, meaning the jump to version 10 can't cause problems with older software.

This whole "Windows 9*" check thing makes no sense. Well, except for Java applications, because Sun actually built Java to pull the version number and then translate it into a string rather than expose it via any public Java API. I guess the idea was that you shouldn't need to know the OS your Java app is running on, but as anyone who's done anything with Java knows, that never actually works in practice. As far as I know that's the only case where you'd ever be doing version checks against strings under Windows.

The majority of in-app purchases I've seen tied to your account, not your device, and allow you to restore them when you move to new devices. My experience is admittedly extremely limited (a couple of games my mom and brother own) but in those cases you were able to restore purchases from one device to a new device. More recent games even save to iCloud so you're now even able to keep your save games when moving to a new device, something that you weren't allowed to do earlier.

(For some dumbass reason the only way to transfer documents off iOS devices is still only through iCloud. You can't just connect an iPhone via USB and transfer documents off of it. If a given app doesn't support iCloud, your data is device-specific and can't be transferred off in any way. In 2014.)

In fact a bunch of games already do this. I know that Capcom has released Ghost Trick and the latest Phoenix Wright on iOS doing exactly what you're talking about. You get the first chapter free and have to pay to unlock the rest of the game. (And, unlike certain other Capcom iOS ports, those two ports are really well done.)

It actually works out pretty well, you basically get a free demo (like you would with shareware) and then you can pay for the full version. The only issue is that due to Apple restrictions, you end up having to download the full game, regardless about whether you decide to pay for everything. I suppose I should be grateful Apple finally discovered how to do delta updates for app updates.

It's Nerval's Lobster. He's a Dice employee who submits Dice stories to Slashdot. No, seriously, click on his user name, all his activity is submitting Dice stories. You'd think Slashdot could at least mention the Dice connection, but they never have.

Dunno about "hard-core FPS player" but MMOs are actually moving to consoles. The obvious example is Destiny which launched in September, not to mention the Elder Scrolls Online which is coming to consoles next month.

There might not be quite as many console MMOs as there are PC MMOs, but newer MMOs are definitely looking towards consoles as a target platform.

What the hell is this, then?

The Lync thing I'm talking about it only for online meetings. It's a part of Lync implemented as a web app and for some reason if you aren't on Windows it's your only choice if you want to see what other people are presenting. The place I work at doesn't actually use Lync for generic telephony. (Although they do have some form of half-assed integration where someone calling my office phone will, in fact, cause a Lync desktop app notification to appear. I just can't answer the call using Lync because our VoIP system isn't actually Lync.)

I think you're talking about Lync in general (that is, the desktop chat/VoIP app). I'm talking about the new Lync webapp that's used for Lync conferencing. For some reason I can't figure out, at least on Mac OS X (which is what my work laptop is), the Lync webapp refuses to use anything other than the internal speaker/mic or the speaker/mic port on the side. It doesn't matter what audio device you have set up in Settings, it just ignores it and uses either the internal speaker/mic or the ports, although you can select which of the two to use. Back when IT still supported the old Lync desktop app, that supported any audio device I threw at it. The new Lync webapp that they're having everyone use in place of the Lync desktop app, on the other hand, does not.

I have no clue how relevant the Lync webapp is to the new Skype browser thing the story is referring to. I can only hope it turns out to be completely unrelated given how poorly the webapp works. But it's potentially relevant given that Skype and Lync are now operated by the same team and they're basically discontinuing Lync in favor of Skype. (Unless it turns out to just be a branding thing, and Skype for Business will be an entirely separate code base from Skype. Microsoft hasn't exactly been clear on the future direction of Lync.)

Oh, goodie, I can only hope this new browser-based version of Skype works as well as the new browser-based version of Lync does, especially with Microsoft rebranding Lync as Skype for Business.

I remember when I used to be able to use my USB headset with Lync, prior to corporate moving to the new browser-based version of Lync. Now I can only use the built-in speakers and microphone because Lync manages to completely ignore the global sound settings somehow! I sure hope they manage to bring this feature to the new browser version of Skype.

Granted, this was still a step up from the Lync client which routinely crashed if the network hiccuped in any way, but still. I can only hope the Skype team is taking over the Lync team and not the other way around.

I will give Lync some credit. It makes a great excuse for blowing off a meeting. "Oh, sorry, I tried to attend your meeting, but Lync blew up." "Oh, yeah, it does that to me all the time. We'll try again tomorrow."

I love how the Democratic Party invention of free speech zones somehow became a "Dubya" thing. They may have only become widely covered starting in 2000, but they were originally an invention of the DNC to keep pro-life protestors away from their 1988 convention.

Both parties have been using them since the 2004 elections, so it's not like you can lay the blame solely on the Republicans either. Both parties do it.

You can always tell when a movie is going to be - uh, "good" - when they refuse to show it to reviewers prior to it launching in theaters. Likewise, when a game has reviews coming out before it launches, you usually know it's going to be a good game.

Of course, the big problem with games is that for some crazy reason publishers rely on "preorders" to establish launch day sales. You get things like 10% off if you "preorder" the game instead of waiting for launch day, or you get special DLC that's only available if you preorder. I don't understand why publishers are so interested in preorders. But it's yet another way of trying to get people to purchase a product before they can review it.

Now if you don't mind, I need to stop my rant about preorders so I can go back another video game Kickstarter.