Comment Curved Tabs? (Score 4, Insightful) 250
I'm not really sure what the point of changing to curved tabs is except to make Firefox look exactly like Chrome. And I'll be pretty annoyed if this takes away the ability to enable the menu bar at all.
Comment Re:I (Not Heart) Hyperlinks! (Score 1) 196
At least in Word there's an option after you paste to remove the extra formatting. It shows up as a dropdown at the end of your pasted text.
Comment Re:The P.O. Box reinvented? (Score 1) 92
What issues have you had with Lasership? They haven't messed up anything from Amazon to me yet.
Comment Re:Hard for 8 Year Olds But Here's a Core Dump (Score 1) 726
There's also the Norby series (apparently mostly by Janet Asimov according to Wikipedia) which I quite enjoyed as a kid.
Comment Re:Not Blacked Out? (Score 1) 1002
Dinosaur Comics, xkcd, and SMBC are all blacked out as well.
Comment Re:Sigh... (Score 1) 488
But the Outsiders only went to We Made It because of a Puppeteer deployed starseed lure.
Comment Re:We're not retreating.... (Score 1) 432
Most people that want to post on Elitist Jerks are fairly well behaved and well informed people to begin with (Why else would they visit the EJ forum in the first place?)
If you think this you've probably never read The Banhammer (the forum on EJ where infractions are posted) or The Thread of Ultimate Suck (where bad posts are moved, usually after receiving said infraction).
in the meantime the official forums have to handle what must be 100 times the volume with a much lower average post quality even before moderation. Just saying "Well get more moderators then!!!" probably doesn't scale well to that sort of post volume.
Moderating forums scales fairly well with more people. A major problem with the official Blizzard forums is how much you have to do before you get banned. A much harsher policy would clean the forums up tremendously. Or so I'd like to think anyways.
Comment Re:We're not retreating.... (Score 4, Interesting) 432
It's pretty clear that Blizzard either doesn't think they can or is not willing to do the level of moderating that is required to get forums of the quality found at Elitist Jerks. It's also clear that this proposed change had nothing to do with reducing forum trolling.
Comment Re:And the old saw applies here (Score 1) 226
Are you saying then spent none? Becuase I followed the timeline and they already had like 5 different things to try within days of it happening. The problem is they should not have been forced to drill so deeply in the first place. Drilling in shallower water is MUCH safer although more politically incorrect.
Yeah, it's so much safer that the last major oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico was in 50 meters of water and took 10 months to stop.
Submission + - Blizzard Eliminating Privacy on Battle.Net Forums (battle.net)
Goatbert writes: Today Activision-Blizzard announced that in addition to the current (and controversial) implementation of their RealID social network for World of Warcraft and StarCraft 2, going forward all posts to the official Blizzard/SC2/World of Warcraft forums will display the posters First and Last Name. Handles or nicknames of any sort will not be allowed.
Submission + - Blizzard to Display Real Names in Forum Posts
Submission + - Blizzard to require RealID for Battle.net forums. (battle.net)
An anonymous reader writes: Recently, Blizzard Entertainment implemented a feature to some of its current as well as all of its future Battle.net-based games: RealID. Today, Blizzard announced that it intends to require usage of the real names of Battle.net posters for its StarCraft II forums before release, and for its World of Warcraft forums shortly before the release of World of Warcraft: Cataclysm.
"The first and most significant change is that in the near future, anyone posting or replying to a post on official Blizzard forums will be doing so using their Real ID — that is, their real-life first and last name — with the option to also display the name of their primary in-game character alongside it. These changes will go into effect on all StarCraft II forums with the launch of the new community site prior to the July 27 release of the game, with the World of Warcraft site and forums following suit near the launch of Cataclysm. Certain classic forums, including the classic Battle.net forums, will remain unchanged."
"The first and most significant change is that in the near future, anyone posting or replying to a post on official Blizzard forums will be doing so using their Real ID — that is, their real-life first and last name — with the option to also display the name of their primary in-game character alongside it. These changes will go into effect on all StarCraft II forums with the launch of the new community site prior to the July 27 release of the game, with the World of Warcraft site and forums following suit near the launch of Cataclysm. Certain classic forums, including the classic Battle.net forums, will remain unchanged."
Comment Re:Uh, no, you can't have my network (Score 1) 505
Well, since tax rates in the US are the lowest they've been for decades, I'm not sure what you have to complain about.
Comment Re:DRM, restrictions, outcry (Score 1) 610
Actually, i find it's the other way around. Nobody blinks an eye when Sony, Microsoft or Nintendo brings out a new line of consoles, vendor locked-in to the max, only running apps that require their approval and signature, a process which costs tens of thousands $$. But if Apple does it for their iPhone, bring out the tar and feathers!
There's plenty of complaining about that too. Have you somehow missed the many articles on Slashdot about homebrew for the Nintendo Wii and DS? And the complaining about Sony taking away Linux for the PS3? And I'm pretty sure we had at least one cheering Microsoft for allowing indie development the XBox 360, as well as a million articles about running Linux on the XBox.
Comment Re:... OR (Score 1) 232
If by "this" you mean "the FCC illegally making up its own law," that's unacceptable. The rule of law must be followed, because if we don't follow it here, we can't rely on it later.
What are you smoking? The entire purpose of the FCC is to "make up laws" (as you put it) about the communications systems in the country. Do you think Congress passes a law for each frequency band saying what it can be used for? No, they delegated that authority to the FCC. Now, obviously they can only regulate the matters that have actually been delegated to them by Congress, but to try to imply that it's totally outrageous for the FCC to regulate on net neutrality is bogus.
