http://slashdot.org/~SockDisclosure/journal/

Actually it does. I have bottles here that are over 20 years old and they keep on getting better (at least I hope they do ÃO).

The oldest red wines are over 50 years old but yes, after a certain age, the wine goes bad.

And we still keep them coming. This is Slashdot after all...

So, about those sharks...

Is that your wife or a musical instrument?

No. They don't.

They enjoy lasers as christmas presents though...

Well, it certainly would be available to me too, if I played that game.

And I certainly wouldn't buy it! So yes, it would destroy PvP for me...

Maybe you didn't read my post thoroughly enough.

MarioMax was pointing out that Blizzard was planning to implement a micro transaction model.

*I* was pointing out, that they already *did* implement such a microtransaction model (realm change, name change). I was *also* pointing out that this is *not* game changing.

Basically my point was/is, that Blizzard did implement it in a non-harmful way, whereas Sony screwed up (they tend to do that quite often).

In fact, Blizzard already DID what you're mentioning there. You can transfer your character for 20$ or you can change the character name for 8$.

However, I'm not sure anyone complains about Sony selling vanity pets or vanity armor. Personally I don't care whether anyone is running around in a black dress they bought for 10$. I also couldn't care less if someone changed their hair style or color for 20$.

I DO care though when some player is able to get better gear or progress faster. A new hairstyle doesn't destroy PvP. A new, better armor, attainable only through micro transactions, DOES destroy PvP and with it the game for a lot of people.

... which has nothing to do with me being 5000 Euro richer :)

Um. Yes it is. I can go to any branch of my local bank any time, tell them my name and account number and withdraw up to EUR 5000,-- with just a signature.

They should really consider getting a new name for their app...

I do own several Macs as well as an iPod, an iPod shuffle and an iPhone. Doing a lot of graphics design work, there wasn't really a big choice of good operating system for the task.

Stories like this, however, make me less and less fond of Apple.

I seriously don't understand why it hurts them to have competing software (!) out there which brings their devices to a greater number (!) of people (i.e. Linux users).

Personally I'm fine with iTunes (I rarely use it though, I play my music over a Squeezebox) and it's not too bad on OS X (it's terrible on Windows though). If there were better or more lightweight alternatives (like Amarok), I'd use them and still buy Apple products.

Bottom line: I can understand why they want to control the user experience for their customers. But I don't understand why they want to restrict the small community of power users to that user experience as well. It's not like I'd call Apple support if my Amarok stopped syncing my iPod...

Our well-paid IT industry jobs will provide the money we need for the stable and the pony food.

Oh wait...

Thanks! My original post wasn't meant to provocate, I simply didn't know. What exactly makes the Apple License incompatible with the GPL? A (very quick) websearch didn't give me any useful information.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I always thought that the only thing that makes the Apple Public License incompatible to the GPL is the fact, that you have to redistribute modified code under the Apple Public License and not the GPL.

Why exactly would that be a problem for Linux?