That's so offensive! They're called "Little People". Not "0.10's"

I voted D-Link. I assumed the poll was asking about favourite router for personal use - thus consumer grade routers.

For me the poll was really a choice between D-Link and Linksys, as these are really the only brands I have experience with. I have a D-Link DIR-655 and a Linksys WRT600N.

The D-Link is not only rock solid, the UI is one of the nicest I've ever come across. It's intuitive, well organized, and frankly nice to look at.

The Linksys on the other hand is a little flaky, and the UI is one of the shittiest I've ever come across. It's not intuitive, it's poorly organized and it looks like shit. I hated having to go in and change any setting.

HOWEVER...I've since flashed the Linksys with DD-WRT, and it is now AWESOME. Up till now, the router (as in any router) has always been my least liked piece of hardware in the house, but now I love it.

tl;dr: With native firmware, D-Link is great and Linksys is shit. But with DD-WRT Linksys rules.

We have more than one computer, but my wife and I both share the main PC. We're both logged into Google+, at the same time, on the same computer...but using different Windows profiles. No problems at all.

Yes...you're over thinking the circles concept. Each circle is just that...a circle on your "circles page" that you can drag and drop any of your contacts into. They don't interact with each other, nor do they take away any of your contacts from the general "contact pool" once that contact has been added to a particular circle.

If you really wanted to, I'm sure you could create a Vann Diagram to show the relations between all circles, but Google doesn't do that for you.

Agreed...the key word in the title is "above". Not "across" not "through" but above. I mean, the wingsuit is cool and all, but I don't see this as any more interesting as "Jetman flies above Canadian Tundra". Actually the latter might be more interesting if they included data on the perfomance of the suit in cold vs warmer climates.

In defense of the article, it did have some concrete conclusions, e.g.:

"There are conflicting reports, however, as to whether its graphics will be comparable to those on the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 – meaning it could surpass or fall short of those systems.

Seems to me a similar story was posted not too long ago. Summary of the discussion: graphical calculators serve as an anti-cheating tool, as they cannot be programmed, except that they can be programmed if you're smart enough, and therefore actually serve no purpose. The only practical solution seemed to be providing students with a school owned graphic calculator at the beginning of the test (thus taking away any opportunity to pre-program the calculator).

Technically correct, except you forgot to mention that a link then appears, which you can click to "Show Details". The total size then appears.

Lemme guess...if MS had allowed you select 20+ objects, requiring a few seconds each time to calculate the total size each time you did that, you would be the one screaming how slow and laggy W7 is. Some people you just can't please...especially the ones who have decided to hate you no matter what you do.

Actually, I think your post does a great job of reinforcing the point I was trying to make. All the examples you cite are kinda cool little projects in themselves, but why are these game changers? All I saw was a bunch of half baked UI projects, but how do they come together to significantly improve the way we interact with computers?

To cite an opposite example, take similar Apple PR videos. I'm no Apple fan, and own no Apple products, but I can't ever remember watching a promo video from them and not grasping the point right away. It is immediately apparent why they consider their product/feature to be a game changer.

Not the case with this video. I'll admit there were a couple "neat" moments, but between the half baked projects, the recycling of features they have been showing off for years (e.g. Surface), and the ability of the narrator to make zero points while prattling on for over three minutes ("we're ready for the future" How? "By having a vision" What fucking vision?), I was left with a big fat "SO WHAT"?

Did you watch the video? I found the summary's weaknesses much more palatable than the ridiculously vague video in TFA, which was filled with corporate-speak, and showed off a bunch of interactivity projects without demonstrating how any of these would be used in real world applications, let alone how they would improve the way we currently interact with computers.

Suggested Form Letter:

Dear Sen. Susan Collins:

Fuck You. No.

Respectfully,
Your constituent

So while I'll admit I know very little about Autism and the proper manner of raising a autistic child, am I the only one that found the mother's defense somehow wrong? When we notice a shortcoming in our kids, we attempt to find a solution for them to overcome it. As I understand, the most difficult action for most autistic children is interacting with the real world...so how is accepting "xbox is his only real friend" and "the only thing he ever does" helping him to overcome the issues he'll have to face in later years? It would seem to me allowing him to immerse himself in a virtual world, where no communication is required, would only exasperate the problem. That video did not make me feel sorry for the kid because the mom claimed he was being unfairly treated by Microsoft...it made me feel sorry for him because he might be treated unfairly by his mother. What really is the lesson here...fight the evil corporation who took away achievements or that achievements have no real value in the real world?

This! I really liked the movie too, but every time that kid opened his mouth, I cringed a little. Whiny little runt.

I had the same experience. But for me the reason wasn't so much a "change in myself". It was being stuck in city traffic for the entire game that made me hate Liberty City. San Andreas had a huge and highly varied landscape...hill country, desert, little towns and big cities...and a huge variety of vehicles to travel with. Going from one side of the map to the other was a lot fun and usually involved a mixture of air, sea and land vehicles. But I actually found myself groaning during Liberty City when I found out I had to drive across the map for a mission. Fighting city traffic, paying tolls...these things aren't fun in real life...why would they be fun in a game? And almost completely dropping all air vehicles? That was the final straw. Who cares if you can explore all you want, if there's nothing interesting to see and no interesting way of seeing it?

This analogy fails because all those products are all commodities. A TV, CD player, car, and light bulb can all be easily replaced by another model or even another brand that performs almost identically. Fallout: New Vegas cannot.

Sure there are other RPGs out there that share the same basic gameplay as FNV, but none offer almost an identical experience (except Fallout 3 of course, but I suspect most FNV players that are willing to buy the game despite the well known bugginess of it have already played through all of Fallout 3 and its DLC).

While I did find the constant crashes very annoying, the gameplay was still exciting and fun enough for me to prefer restarting and continue playing, rather than setting it aside and waiting a few months for the bugs to be ironed out. This coming from a 31 year old gamer with years of PC gaming experience, and not just an easily impressed teen.

Actually, the more I think about it, the more this kind of behaviour on the part of the game publishers makes sense. There's plenty of examples where people are so excited about something new, they are willing to accept a substandard product in exchange for the ability to experience it as soon as possible. Why do you think cam recordings of movies are popular, or why apple fans line up for first-gen releases of a gadget that even they know will likely be buggy, or even why people eat cookie dough before it is cooked? The game publishers are merely pandering to our human nature.