Actually it *was* an original plot. Better love story than Twilight too.

That's really not what the article says at all. It says they decided to go with an ad supported model on Android because it pays better than selling the app. Which, as noted, not only proves the "Android users don't like to pay for apps" point, it doesn't mention a comparison to iOS at all. While I'm sure you could probably find an example of an app that has made more from Android than iOS, this isn't it.

I'm not sure if I should tell you to RTFM, or if you're just trolling.

I was a huge early proponent of Google+, and actively evangelized it to my friends and family. But it's been months now, and they haven't fixed anything that's wrong with the site, the mobile apps are still a mess, and as far as I can tell they never resolved the "real names" thing or even issued an apology. And they've botched virtually every other step of the launch.

At this point, I'm about to give up and reactivate my Facebook account. I just don't think Google is agile enough to run an evolving social networking site.

I agree with you on pretty much every point.

Good Photoshopping is worth at least as much as good photography. Look at any high quality professional photography these days, and a large portion of the quality and look comes from post-processing. The only people who would disagree with that are either delusional about the current state of photography, or desperately clinging to the last vestiges of the analog age. Obviously journalistic photos aren't edited to the degree in the article, but most things not explicitly documentarian in nature are.

It's also true that a lot of analog-age artists have trouble making the switch to Photoshop. It's a completely different skillset that allows people without traditional artistic ability to make art, and challenges traditional artists who have to develop entirely new technical skills. Makes me wonder how many other photographers out there are doing this, but are competent enough at Photoshop to get away with it. I certainly know how to clone things out without leaving telltale clone marks or other amateur mistakes. And I'm not even that good with Photoshop.

I think photographers keep getting away with this because people are gullible, and tend to believe what they see without listening to the quiet, nagging voice in the back of their mind telling them that something looks wrong. I'm a little surprised they caught him by spotting that the Lynx had the wrong season coat. When I looked at the pictures it was glaringly obvious that they were poorly-edited fakes, regardless of their content.

FBI_SURVEILLANCE_VAN is an incredibly popular SSID that comes up on every list of clever network names I've ever seen. A friend of mine even uses it, though hers has some numbers attached to make it look better.

And ICQ. But I think we already knew that the writers at Gizmodo are a) probably still in high school, and b) not really techies.

Vancouver is an awful example of this. I've been there several times, the most recently for the Olympics, and I have never enjoyed the trip. Vancouver is filthy, gridlocked with traffic, impossibly expensive, and laid out in an incredibly inconvenient way. I would never choose to live there, let alone have children there.

Game designers have this annoying kind of god complex about how they think you should play their games. That's not how it works. You make the game, I'll decide how it's going to get played. Just because a company is capable of creating a game doesn't mean they're capable of creating compelling gameplay.

You must be new here.