If McDonald's messes up your order, they don't ask you if you'd like to order a milkshake while they fix it.
I really wouldn't call Yosemite flat, even though a lot of tech sites claim it is. It has a lot more visual eye candy than Mavericks, IMO, what with all the transparency and other stuff. I think it looks pretty nice.
I think we would both become depressed if we saw how much money people waste on Candy Crush Saga, Dungeon Keeper, Clash of Clans, etc....
I really wish more games adopted a model where you just pay for access to the next level instead of placing toll bridges or a "pay to win" option. The first stage or area of the game is free (like a demo), and if you like it, you pay $X for the next area, and so on. That way, you only pay for what you actually consume, and anything you unlock is unlocked permanently.
I'm honestly surprised it wasn't set to auto-renew.
No bezels is nice. However, I have three 24" ASUS monitors with probably around 1.5" of bezel between them, and it's honestly something you get used to. When gaming, you aren't really supposed to look directly at the other monitors anyway (there tends to be a lot of distortion to the sides), so the bezels aren't as big a deal as you might think. I would prefer to keep 5760x1080 over 3840x1440, but that might just me. The extra vertical space is nice, but not at the cost of almost 2000px in horizontal resolution.
Beyond that, the "ultra-wide" LG monitor isn't as good for a lot of productivity tasks. With three separate monitors, you have the advantage of the window manager allowing you to maximize or snap to multiple points instead of one giant one. So you can have three maximized windows with the click of a couple buttons, whereas on the LG monitor, you have to manually position them to achieve the same effect. If you use the "snap to side" feature found in Windows and at least some Linux WMs, you can quickly have six windows side-by-side filling three monitors. Finally, if you're watching a video in one monitor, maximizing it only fills that single monitor, leaving you two others to use in the meantime.
IIRC the way you were supposed to do it was by clicking "Duplicate", which opened a duplicate, untitled copy of what you were working on. I actually like this functionality, as Save As can sometimes make it confusing as to which version of a document you're working on. I've seen "Save As" create a new copy of the file but leave the old one open for editing, and I've seen it create a new file and make that one the one you're editing. It's easy to look at the title bar and check, but it's also easy to forget. Apple's way involves an extra button click, but it's unambiguous.
I think it's important to keep the original meaning of "beg the question" because there's no (AFAIK) other, simple way to say what it describes. Also, there's a difference between "originally meant" and "currently means, but is often misused".
I disagree that knowing the gist of events prior to the original trilogy doomed the prequel trilogy before it even began. Sure, we knew, in broad strokes, what happened, but not how it happened. Beyond that, studies have shown that people actually tend to prefer a creative work if they've had the ending spoiled for them.
It's an attempt to get more views, I think. I know I clicked the link when I saw it in my RSS feed because I thought, "Holy crap, they found another glaring security whole in Apple products?" Then it's somebody analyzing others' analyses.
I don't think devices outside of mass storage really call for USB 3.0. Many keyboards still use USB 1.1, even today, because they don't need anything more advanced.
As someone with an iPhone, reversible USB plugs can't come soon enough. The transition stage will be annoying, but oh so worth it.
Everyone has different experiences. I never had problems with Lion (mid-2011 MBA), but I saw enough people complaining that I won't doubt you. On the other hand, I could never go back to Snow Leopard after Mountain Lion, and especially not after Mavericks.
Not sure it's luck, since Apple went out of its way to replace OpenSSL in 2011 because they didn't think it was secure enough. (Granted, their own replacement wasn't perfect, either, as seen by both this and the "goto fail" bug.)
It really is a terrible organization. There are actually some positive aspects to their teachings, but there are so many subtle, subversive elements that it's a net negative (to put it very mildly). To this day, my parents sometimes have a hard time getting out of the mindset that if something bad happens--no matter how unavoidable or random--it was somehow their fault. That kind of thinking is just plain toxic.