And I'll tell you, Z, that your fetishing of an object like this is as creepy as the death of the grandmother is tragic. Get help.

You have an absolutely diabolical way of turning an argument away by attacking the person making the argument, instead of addressing what he said.

When it's done to you, there is a great deal of weeping and fist-shaking, but you are the first one to simply attack when you basically don't have a thing to say. It's twisted and diabolical, smitty. And it speaks of someone who cares not about redemption.

There should be a third option:

3: Ignore Update

I've got an old G5 mac in the back of the house that plays Spotify when I sit on the porch or the backyard. Every time Spotify starts, it tells me, "Restart Spotify to Update". However, the update breaks Spotify because they no longer support G5 or previous. The legacy version works perfectly well, so every time the computer restarts or Spotify restarts I have to reinstall Spotify from a legacy image.

That's NOT how to do it.

So you would rather have Google just sit and wait until everything is ready.

I guess the notion of a company waiting until the product is actually finished and working before selling them is pretty quaint.

So have you thrown out your cell phone?

No, but I've changed the way I use all consumer technology because of all the spying.

And I bet you'd be surprised how many other people have done that, voluntarily.

Only the developer says Google intentionally broken something. Google says the Chromecast SDK is nowhere near ready for release and developers should not rely on it to release apps

And yet, they're selling them right now. While the SDK is "nowhere near ready for release".

You know, when it comes down to it, I trust some developer I never heard of before over Google.

Applications using this preview SDK will work only on Chromecast receiver devices that are whitelisted for development. Google will provide whitelisting for Google Cast receivers for development and testing purposes until the final SDK is released. See Whitelisting your receiver.

In other words, "just use the gizmos we sell you to buy more stuff from us and don't hold your breath for any 'apps'."

Like I said, boardrooms are incubators for evil.

Considering the government's propensity to use any consumer technology to invade the privacy of the user, I'm not all that anxious to use wearable, stickable electronic devices (most likely communications devices). And certainly not "bionic skin".

I never thought I'd say this, but I'm glad I'm getting too old for this bullshit. Good luck with it, though. I hope you do a better job protecting your privacy with the next generation of consumer electronics than we've done with the current one.

On the other hand, if this new technology will allow me to play racing games in a realistic manner without a kludgey steering wheel controller, I may have to take a look, but only if I can disconnect it from the network.

Nobody should use their real name on Facebook.

The Internet has been spoiled. We're due for the next platform soon. I'm glad I got to see what it was like during the early years, before the corporate and government takeover.

It didn't have to go like this, but we were so excited about the possibility of making money that we let the place go to shit, and we let the parts of greatest value get destroyed.

as simple as getting a person to watch a video of themselves with their heartbeat projected onto it.

I want an app for that. Please get right on it.

We have bluetooth heart-rate monitors, so it shouldn't be all that hard.

Hell, when I was in the joint, there were guys who could have fit an LG Optimus up there and still have room for an ounce of weed and a Dremel tool.

We used to joke, "...help me find my keys and we'll drive out of here."

The only web site that I've noticed being down in the past few weeks has been Wikifonia, the wonderful place where crowd-sourced MusicXML lead sheets for all sorts of music are available.

They're back online now, and at least from what I can see, there is great jubilation among musicians worldwide. Where else can you go and search for some old jazz standard and get an immaculate lead sheet, instantly transposable into any key, downloadable as a PDF?

I think Wikifonia has been single-handedly keeping the vast Great American Songbook alive, for which they deserve great thanks.

I thought it was just an issue where some big music publishing group that represents outfits that charge $5 for a lead sheet to a song whose composer has been dead for half a century has been hassling them, but since it's back online and faster than ever, I think it might just have been a technical glitch.

Wikifonia, salute!~

Shows how much you know - my wife and I played the unholy shit out of Mario Kart on an old N64.

I don't mean anything by this question, but...do you have any kids?

Is this a surprise to anyone? Did anyone really think that once Google had control of hardware and software they'd eventually get around to limiting you to content purchased through them (or one of their partners)?

Don't buy a Chromecast if you want to view media you own or have made yourself. There are other similar devices that will let you do what you want to do.

The only thing that can keep a corporation from becoming totally evil is the consumers. The boardroom is an incubator for evil. If you want to keep a company from doing bad, you have to be a strategic consumer.

Minecraft? Portal 2 Team Mode? Draw Something?

If you're playing anything besides hide-the-salami, you're probably co-dependent.

They didn't invent video games to be played with girlfriends.

I do believe people "sale" their copyrighted material.

Let's not make the mistake of thinking the creative work is the same thing as the rights to the creative work.

That's where copyright absolutists go wrong.

If the creator profits from letting someone else control the copyright, even though the creator took a one time lump sum payment, he is still profiting from the monopoly created by law.

And how many times removed does it have to get before we've exceeded the bounds of copyright's original purpose?

If I am the guy who bought the rights from the guy who bought the rights from the guy...times ten...then should I expect the same protections as the creator and his original benefactor? Not if the original intent was to protect and encourage the creator. Remember, the point was to make it so that a creator could get paid, not to make sure the creator got the highest possible price.