Your analogy is completely wrong: it would be correct if my house had a very fancy security system, there is a note on the front that says "I will give $500 to anyone who detects a problem with my security", you rang to tell me you found one vulnerability but I decided to ignore you because I don't want to pay you and then you broke into my house and left a polite note apologizing for it but mentioning that you do, in fact, have a way to break the system. Still illegal, but if there is a jerk in the story it is Facebook for not ignoring the bug reports and not paying bounties.

Totally! Just because it is social commentary and not a romance doesn't mean it isn't awful, you should totally trust the anonymous coward and the many well-read, intelligent people he is making up!!

And yes, he did not provide any counter-arguments other than his inexpert opinion (which is so much better than your English literature major opinion on English literature), but still this is something that he just knows because of his faith and if you believe in something with enough faith we all know it automatically makes it truth.

Of course some people will argue that even if she was a terrible writer that does not give people the right to harass a woman that campaigned for something she wanted but those idiots are missing the point, and I don't have to tell you what the point is because several well-read, intelligent people I am making up know what the point is.

I bought a copy of the Orange Box, and proceeded to play Half Life 2 for a bit until I got the "AI Disabled" DRM. I went into the forums to ask about it and a moderator promptly shamed me for pirating the game. I eventually proved that I actually had bought the game and some Valve representative told me how to fix the issue, but I was definitely not happy about it. For the longest time I did not buy any more Valve games because a bug in their DRM code caused me to get flamed in their forums.

I'm not sure where you are hiring, but my company interviews a lot of people and most of them have trouble doing basic programming tasks (for example, iterating an array). Just on phone interviews we weed out two out of three candidates. From the candidates that actually make it on site only about half have decent interviews on relatively basic data structure and algorithm questions.

Foreign interviewers don't fare much better, though. We basically attempt to interview as many people as possible so we get the few competent ones no matter where they are from.

When we do hire H1Bs, they are paid exactly the same as US citizens, which is more than the average for our city for equivalent positions. Of course, my company does care about the quality of our software; maybe if we didn't care and hired every idiot out of college we wouldn't have a shortage of engineers.

According to Wikipedia there have been 27 school shootings since 1995, in those school shootings, 320 people have been killed (it is hard to tell how many of those were children, but a safe estimate would be half of them were because the incidents happened at school). I would say that a 27 to 1 ratio for incidents and around 160 children dead vs. 19 children dead is "in much smaller numbers".

But arguing about what kills more people is missing the point entirely. The problem is not that people can find some creative ways to kill other people, the problem is that currently it is very easy for a kid who has problems to grab a handgun and gun down whoever he doesn't like. The solution is not just outlawing guns, part of the solution probably has to be figuring out who these kids are and helping them adjust better to whatever they are going through, however, saying that because there are crazy people out there killing other people then we shouldn't do anything about school shootings is a bit like saying we should not spend any money researching a cure for cancer because people still sometimes die of the flu.

Well, at this point, even with your phone in your pocket and your laptop at home we all know you bough Apple and you even made it a point to note that it was expensive so, yes, I would say that it is important for Apple customers to be seen as people who have money to spend on expensive electronics.

From looking at the cover, maybe this was an issue with it looking very, very similar to another series of books that is fairly famous?

This, this a hundred times! I bought Driver: San Francisco on the Steam Summer Sale and was poignantly disappointed when I discovered that it was not protected with Steam but with UPlay. And it wouldn't be so bad if it didn't look as horrible, didn't feel as rushed, didn't have an annoying bug where it would not shut down properly when I tell it to shut down (it keeps on running in the background until I kill the process). Really, who thought it was a great idea to reinvent the wheel only this time it is square.

So mention one person who makes money out of Windows except for every person who makes money out of Windows because I disqualify them. Got it!

1. Valve
2. National Instruments
3. Piriform
4. Grig Software
5. Norton
6. McAfee
7. IBM

8. Just going from things in my start menu that either I or my company bought and as far as I am aware none of them are moving to the web and/or in decline (unfortunately in the case of McAfee).

His point was not that the model of "pay for what you play" was very original, it was that the model shouldn't be called "free to play." It is misleading (and infuriating, at least to me) to get a game that is "free to play" and then realize that you cannot really play it unless you pay. Also, the problem with this model is that most of the times you will get an experience that is clearly broken just to make you spend money with advertisements for in-game stuff every two seconds (an example I have played recently is Dungeon Defenders where, even if you have bought the DLC, you are still shown three ad screens before being allowed to play), in an arcade you have a much better grasp of exactly what you are paying for.

Well, them and CyanogenMod users and developers which I would want to believe is a large-ish group.

Then, instead of having to go to blog A, twitter feed B and podcast C you only go to one place and save time.

Totally not true! I see them everywhere, all Microsoft interns got free Microsoft Phones and some of them even use it!

But after that we don't really want it...