When is there a major update to a platform without a "revolt"?
...we should stop to consider the consequences of blithely giving this technology such a central position in our lives.
For users technical enough to get the hang of filters and labels, they should have no trouble sorting through their e-mail. Maybe Google is trying to make it easier for the non-technical people. But it threatens to detract from the workflow of those who feel like they do have a handle on managing our inbox already.
This is a very weak comparison. E-mail offers vast improvements over snail mail, such that it is crippling the US Postal Service's revenue. Gmail's recent changes have offered little in terms of substantial improvements. It has left many users with the impression that it is change for the sake of change, like Windows 8 over Windows 7.
The way to complain is to go to Gmail's Google Plus page. Please tell me there is some what to organize against them and tell them to cut the crap? This is infuriating, and I used to be such a Google fanboy.
Notch has a lot more to gain from the goodwill of letting people share his games. He's a much smaller game developer than Nintendo and depends more on having the good graces of his fans. An Nintendo doesn't have much to lose. Most people won't see anything wrong Nintendo just soaks up the ad revenue from the video. It's a bit absurd that the people who make these videos think they can profit from the game.
For the sake of argument--and I am not a Genesis literalist--it's kind of crude to assume we know what kind of "behavior God on high would engage in." One could imagine that God would have to lower Himself and speak on terms the little creatures would understand. You could say that no emperor would ever engage in baby talk, but when the man needs to communicate to his toddler, he's going to dumb it down a lot. Christian non-literalists can argue that God communicates symbolicly in very human ways--liberally using myths and what not (not pun intedended)--because it the best way to get his point across to the little meat creatures running around down here.
So you're saying we should base the entire Internet on the Wikipedia model? We should let all those nice, generous people support out of their wallets all of the sites they get for free today? Keep dreaming.
Thank you for the uncited numbers you pulled from the air. I think they are fictitious and insupportable. News report: Businesses exist to make a profit. Websites have found no better way to make a profit on free sites than ads. The world ain't Wikipedia. If you can't put up with the ads, you aren't going to open your wallet, and those free sites are going to go under really quick if the majority of users all use Adblock.
So, can we conclude that Microsoft scroogled itself?
Since when was Wikileaks the authorized source of truth? Eyewitnesses and journalists present at the massacre have stated that there was bloodshed at the Square. Why should I believe some anonymous Wikileaks document over other testimony? For example, Chinese-Canadian Journalist Jan Wong wrote about the incident in detail in her book "Red China Blues." Granted, she could have been lying, but give me a reason I should believe Wikileaks over her. A few sources: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/tankman/interviews/wong.html http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oTWBDMen7bo