I highly doubt that realityimpaired is blocking Zynga to "stick it to the man." More likely, he wants to block Zynga because he hates seeing all the messages and advertisements coming up on his News Feed all the time. It's easier to block an entire publisher than block said publisher's 50 games.

Actually, I think rules about opening a spouse's mail would be called "Laws of the Letter."

Try the veal...etc, etc.

I don't know if I would call it "puppy-dog." I actually get a little freaked out every time I see his face on Wikipedia. I have kind of stopped visiting anymore because the eyes just follow me...

Your search - star wars prequal story line - did not match any documents.

Suggestions:

        - Make sure all words are spelled correctly.
        - Try different keywords.
        - Try more general keywords.
        - Try fewer keywords.

Except, that's not entirely true. Yes, while people typically use very weak passwords, Gawker's mistake was that they used DES (WTF?) to encrypt their passwords. DES has been shown to be not strong enough for quite some time now. On top of that, Gawker did not handle passwords correctly in the first place. No salt. No hash. It was just one big screw up.

So, yes, people choose bad passwords, but that can only result in a small compromise (one account). In Gawker's case, they had the whole entire system compromised, and it was very easy to crack those passwords.

Just to respond to your arguments about the drawbacks of cloud computing:

A. From my own experience, this is rarely a problem - at least within countries that have a good Internet infrastructure. Most places you can get WiFi somewhere, and even in a country like the U.S., which is spread out, most areas have internet access. The ones that are far in few between (say, the mid-northwest of the U.S.) is the exact reason Google, Apple, and others are building their devices with 3G. Typically cell phone coverage is good enough for basic needs, and you can wait until you get back to a true connection (read: WiFi) for others (watching Netflix or something).

B. Oh, I wouldn't say that. I use most of Google's services, and it's absolutely free to me. Yeah, if I'm paying for a cell phone data plan, that costs me $30 a month, but I'm not paying for that plan JUST to use the cloud. I'm paying it for all the internet access I get (back to part A). So, it's not really comparing apples to apples. And, of course, "backing up things locally" is not good if you truly want to protect your data. Sure, it's great for doing quick transfers or something like that, but if something happens to your home (say, hurricane, flash flood, fire, etc), my guess is that both your PC and your external hard drive are going. Cloud back-up is redundant and off-site. That's definitely a plus.

C. This is a point I semi-agree with. For those of us here who are smarter than the average bear, or have a greater insight into computers, we probably have more secure systems (since we are probably only managing a few) and present a much smaller target than, say, Google. But too many people out there download SuperTrojan or CoolScreeSaver.exe and suddenly find themselves infected. In their case, Google can do a much better job than they can at protecting their syste.m

D. This is really the same argument as A, so...

I disagree. I can think of a number of people who this would work really well for. And, while it is still new and it's a huge disruptive approach to The Way Things Are(tm), I think there is some real potential. Is it going to be perfect? No. Like they demonstrated with Android, Google likes to learn as they go. It sometimes is to their detriment - as it was with Google Wave. It was an amazing idea, but the implementation was poor at best and they did very little to market it and/or sell it correctly (which, coincidentally, I believe is also a problem of theirs with their efforts at a social networking platform). However, if they do this right, Google has the capability of really causing some major waves in how people think and use computers. I, for one, am interested in seeing what happens.

This is actually part of the problem. Because the United States already has a built up infrastructure, it can be very difficult to work around or with the individuals/government who own that infrastructure so that the fiber can be updated. As a small example, I can't get Fios at my home, even though it's available one block away, because the township I am in (right at the border) refuses to allow Verizon to dig up part of the street (even though it would be repaired, of course). My friend has a problem like this as well, but, in his case, it's his HOA who refuses to let Verizon dig up the lawns.

Amen.

What these billionaires are doing is trying to leave a legacy behind. When you are as rich as they are, stuff doesn't mean anything to them any more. They can buy whatever it is that they want. Instead, they want to go down in history books, or keep their name alive, or do whatever it takes to have some sort of imprint on the world well into the future and, presumably, past their death. As AlteredEgg pointed out, money does not buy your way into heaven, but it does keep you pretty famous here on earth.

Yeah...because lower classes NEVER go begging to...oh...say...some big entity like the government for a handout. No. Never.

Why do you assume they failed? Maybe they advertised it to appease the current WHARGABL of the month, and then...just didn't implement it (or made it hard to find). Either one is not a failure*.

* Failure is oftentimes defined by point of view...

Now now. Let's keep our expectations realistic.

/take it how you want

Your statement presumes that those are two different things...

Very untrue.

The fact that something is entertainment does not make it a pointless waste of time. For example, snowboarding is entertainment to me. As part of that, I bond with friends, enjoy the outdoors (and get to see some new sights), get some exercise, and feel accomplished when I do some new trick I'm working on (assuming I don't end up in the hospital in the meantime...helmets have saved me more than once).

Now, when specifically talking about video games, those aren't necessarily a waste of time either. For example, a friend of mine comes over every Friday before we head out for a bite to eat, and we enjoy a few hours of [insert video game that we decide to play here]. Sure - we don't accomplish any TASK in the real world, but we enjoy the bonding time, and usually end up talking about whatever is on our mind (which is very good to do). Video games provides the medium that has helped our friendship become stronger.

Video games DO become a waste of time when they are replacing more valuable time. This is true of anything. I have to be careful that I don't spend too much time on my computer (not gaming - just programming or reading the news) because then that time replaces time that would be much better spent with my loved ones.