Rogue -> Ro(w) + Gue(ss).

Rouge -> Rou(lette) + (ca)ge

I never seem to have any problems with them... but that could be a Brit thing. Divided by a common language and all that. :)

Numpty.

robots.txt is just a plain text file - all you do is create the file in notepad, save it, and upload it to your website like you would any photo or background image. There's no 'Bigwheels'... even a kid can do it, even on the free hosts.

And yes, it does compensate you, by sending traffic to your site (how did you think search worked, by magic?).

Seriously : user guide for dummies

That wasn't intended to stop people finding porn though, just to stop the kids stumbling into it by accident.

'Course, the kids can still find it on purpose, short of their parents wising up and installing some parental controls.

If you stop using them they've no longer got any reason to cater to you though - as you're no longer a customer. They'd no longer have reason to avoid the stupid things as your 'vote' has already been cast.

Which means when they do cross the line, there's fewer people left that can make an effective boycott, and the impact is less visible.

In other words, choose your fights carefully. I for one believe the slippery slope argument to be dangerous when overused, and will save my vote for when it's actually needed.

No, you'll be fine.

I did make a point of saying 'freeloaders'. Talk Like A Pirate Day will be completely unscathed. :)

Autocomplete is the only thing that's changed... they're not stopping you from typing it manually and they're not censoring sites or search results.

So, if you're boycotting Google over this, apparently it's *you* that cares about autocomplete.

It won't even affect it - It's only autocomplete, not the search itself.

Basically all this means is that the freeloaders (I prefer not to use the term pirate) will need to type 'torrent' manually instead of having it pop up magically. Big deal... given the lengths some of them go to already an extra eight keystrokes (including the space) isn't going to dissuade them one bit.

Google can't magically stop people using the terms outright as it would affect a lot of other searches as well. For instance, someone searching for a water torrent stock photo... Google isn't doing anything to affect that.

AltaVista didn't even have autocomplete, IIRC, and they've not said anything about it changing search results at all.

Because your PC can use the 52 in the living room and the same sound system, but will normally look better if it's properly configured. The Xbox360 and PS3 are using 5 year old graphics technology, and a $100 GPU for a PC will outperform one nowadays. Given that a TV runs at a set resolution, this extra power can either be thrown sideways into PhysX objects, used for higher resolution textures, greater particle densities or stronger antialiasing.

For a good example, compare Mirrors Edge on the Xbox/Ps3 to the PC version (the mission Ropeburn is a good example as it uses all the games features) - even running on PS3 era technology (a Geforce 8800), the PC version generally looks better.

Of course, most people haven't cottoned on to this yet and don't have a gaming PC set up in their living room. Given the consoles are likely to have another 3-5 years before being succeeded, it wouldn't surprise me if this becomes more common. Especially given how similar these consoles already are to PC's - software updates, installs to hard drives, web access - it's only the interface that's really different.

Games For Windows was a flunk, but if they got games (including Steam/D2D) integrated properly with the Media Centre (pretty sure it's now part of 7 by default, haven't upgraded yet myself) there wouldn't be any reason to have a console anymore. All you'd do is set up a guest account on the PC that loads the media centre in fullscreen mode, with user switching enabled in case you decided to do some work on it.
Wireless joypads for the PC have been available for a long time, and a machine capable of beating a console in performance can be had for a similar price (remembering that if you're using your TV, you don't have to buy a monitor!).

Cost of designing the machine to use such an SSD, yet keep it hidden from Joe Average (If he sees it, he'll break it somehow) without compromising system performance or stability, then manufacture and integrate this hardware solution into every single machine you build? The current system achieves more or less the same effect (most reinstalls are due to software issues - it's cheaper to tell the user to reinstall than actually spend time troubleshooting it), but with the visibility problems already solved. As a software solution, it's also going to be *much* cheaper than any hardware solution. More expensive is already too expensive.

So would the TFS, apparently. I guess Taco's got some cash to play with. :)

That said, if it beats out the other cards in it's price range, and has the same price then it's probably fair to call it a bargain within that slice of the market.

If I were to base my entire understanding of the system on your post (read the Article? On Slashdot?) I'd imagine this is like Folding@Home, but you get paid for your machine time? Doesn't make sense on modern computers - when it finds its level it's unlikely that you'd receive as much as you spent on the additional power. But for those of us running older machines with poor power management, it makes more sense to run something like that in the background - we're using the electricity anyway, so may as well do something useful with it. I guess I should go read that article. :)

Here's an interesting idea : Maybe they're bothering *because* you can't stream it yet? It's a neat way of showing that broadband in the US (and here in the UK too, for that matter) simply isn't fast enough for developing new services - in most areas it can barely handle the existing ones. The public reacts badly when they realise that their connections aren't fast enough, but the connections people abroad are using *are* - and we all know how much Joe Public loves to complain.

If the telecoms companies are fast enough, they might be able to spin this to make it look like it's youtube that's broken - most people don't know enough to question that. But, if it makes the media - or enough people who *do* know - complain about it loudly enough, then it puts some real pressure on the ISPs, and if were lucky we might see some real investment in the infrastructure.

It's easier to show it this way than to try and push the bitrate up on the videos - if they try to jump the rates, people will assume Youtube's broken and use competitors that are running lower rates. Not because they're any better mind, but because they don't stutter every ten seconds.