Oh for fuck sake, if you want to link to statistics, use the NetApp statistics, stop using the bullshit W3Schools statistics (which have a giant disclaimer saying that their statistics are in no way realistic or reliable). NetApp's actually says the Firefox share is 5 times as many as Chrome, but that's not the point.

Add 20 times the quoted figures or more to beat down the enviro-luddites and it's a non-starter.

However, the government should not be taking advantage of stupidity to undermine our rights. It is one thing for an agent to communicate with people who are already under investigation -- such as with your state police friend who communicates with gang members -- but it is an entirely different story when the government starts randomly probing into people's lives. The line is very, very fine here...

Pi day is irrational, but at least it's real.

Sorry, I made a bad error with the velocity, multiply it by a factor of 1,000 and then squaring it. I should have known better since I've discussed energy content of getting to orbit before.

Huh? They're offering a cash payout or 33% less money that you can only spend on the site that scammed you?

Better get working now on a decision-making chart if this applies to you.

Because in this case, the "controller" makes it fun. I'd guess the same applies to guitar hero and other music games.

But making such a "specialized" controller the standard controller backfires quickly because they are only suitable to a very small subset of games. I hope you agree that a DDR dance mat doesn't really work for ... well, any game but DDR.

President Bush yesterday

You do realize that Bush isn't the President of the US anymore, right? We booted him out over a year ago.

I pretty much agree, but I think the reason for posting the question on Slashdot, with its technically savvy audience, was probably more about prompting a discussion than getting an answer; it's a question that has no real answer available ('yes' or 'no' don't really cut it in this situation), whereas the discussion might throw up some interesting alternatives, different methodologies or perhaps a couple of sites that might help out with the purchasing process (take 'what you want' into account and then throws up a 'what you should buy,' perhaps).

The problem is that the OP has a fairly clearly defined opinion: he feels that the naming/numbering scheme is too complicated (so do I) and that suggests a bias. So the discussion is likely more interesting than any possible answer.

And, interestingly enough, the 'makers of small web browsers' now want their browsers to be more prominently displayed: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8551317.stm. Random clearly isn't enough.

Sigh. I do agree that all browsers should be given equal prominence/visibility, but at some point, surely, people have to accept limitations in screen real-estate?

On average and probably not full time. Considering kernel hacking is probably (on average) 1/3 of a full job, it's not too bad.

Even if you have good reason to believe John Smith knows your PIN, proving it is going to be next to impossible.

First you have to persuade the bank that someone else knows your PIN through no fault of your own. How do you prove this to the satisfaction of a huge organisation which is set up at every level to assume that this is physically impossible?

Next you have to convince them that not only did someone else find your PIN, that someone was one of their staff. As opposed to, say, the postman who's on a low wage and sees credit cards and PINs in his bag every day.

Next you have to persuade them to do one of the following:

• Admit that their systems are not perfect - there is a possibility that John Smith could indeed have got the PIN.
• Give you sufficient access to determine this for yourself.

Next you have to get somebody sufficiently high-up in the bank to read what you have to say and take it seriously. Though by this point the bank has already either refunded your money or asked the police to investigate what they perceive as you attempting to defraud them of the money.

And why does that matter?

Copyright is an incentive to create work, providing a period of exclusivity (for want of a better word) in which the author/creator/artist is able to monopolize on their created work. Copyright was not intended as, nor should it be allowed to become, a welfare system for artists. Surely the return on investment made in the creation of the work can be made, if it's going to be made, within a reasonable time span such as, for example, twenty years?

And if, in twenty-one years, the artist wants more money the artist should do more work. Why is this wrong?

It's been a while since I've last used Windows (I'm a health professional, not an IT specialist so...), but I was under the impression that parts of Vista's abysmal file-copy/network-copy was due to the DRM embedded in the OS? Also there's the aspects of HDCP, and CSS that preclude easily cutting/copying/pasting/recording of AV on Windows (when last I checked, but this has the caveat that it's been a while...though maybe only eighteen months, give or take).

I'd hazard that, flame-war aside, others might have better responses. For my part I'll apologise for a perhaps ill-thought-out or unsubstantiated post.

Users: No drm!
RIAA/MPAA: drm!

I'm not sure why you've been modded Troll, unless maybe you were felt to have lacked a point, but I only wish that most users were sufficiently interested and educated as to be aware of the DRM. Or the impact that it has on their machines, or its usability.