They actually had him on the local morning radio last week (or was it the week before?) plugging his new album, and they asked him about it.

He basically said that he's aware of the trope, but that he doesn't feel like he talks like that. Whether that was a canned response for the radio, the honest truth, or something in between is open for debate =)

Solution: Seal off singleplayer characters from interacting with anything outside the sandbox. Don't allow the characters to be used in multiplayer games of any sort. No access to the multiplayer/RMT AH. That character is confined to his/her little sandbox world.

Want access to those things? That's what Battle.net is for. The price you pay for that is needing a connection.

Protects the online game economy, and lets me play on my laptop wherever I might be, whenever I might be there, with or without available (and consistent) wireless.

Heck, a singleplayer-locked Hardcore character would be the *toughest* way to play (assuming no cheats/savehacks), as you'd be limited to whatever items dropped for you, and you wouldn't be able to get help of any kind, nor XP boosts for having multiple players in the game. Combine that with Hardcore's perma-death, and you've got a pretty unforgiving environment.

Or, set up a local VM with the exact same software loadout you have on your production server, and as close to the production configs as you can manage locally.

Develop under OSX, pushing to your VM development server.

When you're ready to deploy, have a script sync from your development VM to the production server.

This isn't about linux. It never was. This is about getting what you paid for, and keeping it.

Let's say you bought a fairly expensive item - like a car. Let's also, for the sake of simplicity, say you paid for it in full. You are the owner of the car.

Included in the price you paid, there are a bunch of features - some you'll use, others you won't. Regardless of whether you use them, you paid for them. Moonroof, heated seats, air conditioning, etc...

Let's say one of those features is free maintenance every 6 months, at the manufacturer's dealership. You bring in the car, and they change the oil, fill the fluids, check the air in your tires, replace the windshield wipers, etc...

Now, a year after you bought the car, you bring it in for service. When you get it back, the heated seats have been replaced with physically-identical un-heated seats.

This may not upset you too much if you never actually used the heated seats. However, was it right for the manufacturer to remove them?

The next time you bring it in for maintenance, you ask what they plan to do. In addition to the usual stuff, they tell you they intend to remove your air conditioner - not because there's a problem with it, but because the manufacturer has decided they don't want to support air conditioners anymore. You protest - you paid for the air conditioner, and it's something you use. You don't want to lose it. The dealership says "OK, take the car and leave then. We're not working on it unless you let us remove the air conditioner. Oh, and you won't be able to play any new CDs in your CD player until you let us remove the AC."

This is what Sony's already done. This is what folks are complaining about - and what they have a right and duty to complain about.

What Sony's doing now is equivalent to the dealership saying: "We can come in the middle of the night and remove your AC if we so choose, without telling you or giving you the right to refuse".

Who owns that car again?

Who owns your PS3?

Is it wrong that I'm a little dismayed at this? IMHO these belong in the National Archives, or at the Smithsonian's Air & Space museum, not in the hands of the highest bidder. They're a part of our space program's history, and deserve to be preserved.

The iPhone isn't really a "phone", though. It's a small touchscreen computer (as many smartphones are) that happens to have a cell radio (or two) inside, and software to operate it.

Case in point, the iPod Touch is largely the same device without those radios.

The OS was made to run a small touchscreen computer. The iPad is just a little less small ;P

I'm in about the same boat, with about the same contract timing, just a bit south of you in MA. AT&T's coverage is half-decent, but their reliability for both voice and data has been *horrible* over the past three years (1 year on an unsubsidized 2G iPhone, 2 years on the 3G).

I don't hear the same complaints from the Verizon smartphone users I know. FWIW, I've never heard a single one complain about "not talking and surfing at the same time", as AT&Ts ads would have you believe. They complain about Verizon's prices and their shitty customer service, but never about the network, reliability, or general ability to do stuff.

This is why we need to force carriers to unlock phones upon request, once any subsidizing contract is terminated. We need to be able to take our phones to another carrier who's willing to treat us like customers, and not as the enemy.

There really should be enforcable consumer-protection laws against re-defining terms to mean their opposite. Unlimited should mean Unlimited, fine print or not. It should not, under any circumstances, mean "Limited".

Who the f*ck cares if they call it "unlimited"? The 5GB cap is well documented and well-known. Sure you have to read a little fine print (which isn't even all that hidden anymore), but if you're a remotely tech-savvy user, you're probably reading forums like this one and are acutely aware of the 5GB cap anyway. And for 99% of users, 5GB/month on a cell phone may as well be unlimited

Because, pure and simple, it's deceptive. It's a lie.

"Unlimited data" means "Data, without limit". If there's a 5GB limit, calling it "Unlimited" is lying.

Re-defining "Unlimited" to mean something else is deceptive.

Both of these things are wrong, and potentially illegal.