Recent Posts

4951

Mini-Reviews by Members / Re: Atom - A new editor is born

« Last post by wraith808 on March 03, 2014, 07:46 AM »

Thanks for the post!  Some items from the FAQ that might be of interest.

How much will Atom cost?

We haven't settled on pricing yet, but you can expect it to be competitively priced compared to similar editors.

Will Atom be open source?

We have not finalized licensing on Atom's core (nucleus?), but we're aiming for a common ground between fully-closed and fully-open. Follow @AtomEditor for additional details as they become available.

All non-core Atom packages provided by GitHub will be under the MIT license.

Why does Atom send usage data to Google Analytics?

In the same way that aggregate usage information is important when developing a web application, we've found that it's just as important for desktop applications, especially during the beta program. By knowing which Atom features are being used the most, and how the editor is performing, we can focus our development efforts in the right place. For details on what data Atom is sending or to learn how to disable metrics gathering, visit https://github.com/atom/metrics.

4952

Living Room / Re: Netflix Mocks Amazon's Drone Delivery with Video!

« Last post by wraith808 on March 01, 2014, 05:27 PM »

4953

DC Gamer Club / Re: GoG and Regional Pricing

« Last post by wraith808 on March 01, 2014, 03:13 PM »

And two awesome videos:

and GoG's response

4954

DC Gamer Club / Re: GoG and Regional Pricing

« Last post by wraith808 on March 01, 2014, 03:06 PM »

I thought it was really telling of the maturity level of some of those affected, that one of them actually wrote a perl script to analyze his spending and how that translates to the new model- and found that at least for his case (using Paypal and Euros) that he would have spent less under the pricing model.  Of course, that doesn't always translate- but it does point out that they aren't trying to screw the customers.

Oh... and to see just staff replies (a cool feature of their forum)

http://www.gog.com/f...ses_coming?staff=yes

http://www.gog.com/f...al_pricing?staff=yes

4955

DC Gamer Club / Re: GoG and Regional Pricing

« Last post by wraith808 on March 01, 2014, 02:28 PM »

I don't understand why they're suddenly changing the flat pricing of the older games to regional pricing. Even if the rates are approximately equal now doesn't mean they will be in the future.

-Deozaan (March 01, 2014, 01:43 PM)

I think it's for consistency in the catalog and with the pricing.  It's also b/c when not in local currency, some places couldn't buy from the catalog, and/or couldn't use certain methods of payment.  At least, for good or ill, that's what I understand from following the thread.

4956

DC Gamer Club / GoG and Regional Pricing

« Last post by wraith808 on March 01, 2014, 12:08 PM »

In case you missed the complete firestorm, GoG has announced Regional Pricing for their titles.  (No, that's not what the title says, but the other is just smoke and mirrors).  Then the MD posted an open letter to try to stem the tide.

Let me sum up.  GoG had a few tenets in addition to no-DRM- one was a fair price for everyone, which meant no regional pricing.  I never really paid attention before, being in the US.  But I do know about region locking and such in an abstract sort of way, especially with GamersGate- going to a title and not being able to get it.  As they've grown, and gotten to the limits of what they have to release and get further growth, they've found that one of two things have to happen.

1) they have to be satisfied with their growth in terms of catalog, and realize that their sales will eventually start to die off as people get the majority of what they want from their never growing catalog. (I've personally bought less and less because there's just very little there that interests me, even on sale anymore)
2) they have to change their stance on one of their lesser tenets to get leverage for the big one- no-DRM.

On new releases, the publisher has more rights in terms of what the game sells for.  Its a reality they've come up against.  But their agreements give them more leverage to get older titles, and to get no-DRM in day one releases.  And hopefully spread no-DRM through the industry.

Their prices on their new releases- well, they suck for people that are not USD.  But they are the same as anywhere else (I hesitate to use the word that they used- competitive- because competition has nothing in common with price fixing).  They do add goodies in if your local currency is higher than USD, but that's a faint salve.

For their other games, they are setting a set price in local currency, which might be a few pennies less or more depending on the daily conversion rates.

I see the points of all involved, but I don't see anything inherently evil in what they're doing.  They basically have a rock and a hard place, and are trying to make the situation as best as they can for all.

Just wondering if there are any opinions here.  (Their marketing guy has been fielding some pretty vitriolic things with grace under pressure, I might add- and the thread is surprisingly civil for that).

4957

General Software Discussion / Re: When an arguably free service turns ad supported

« Last post by wraith808 on March 01, 2014, 11:55 AM »

Addenda: Igor Ljubuncic at the Dedoimedo  blog has post regarding some of Mozilla's latest 'monetization' antics that I think apply equally well to some of the transparency and honesty issues raised by Wraith here.

<snip />

Read the whole article here.

-40hz (March 01, 2014, 01:53 AM)

Thanks for this!  It's great!  And sad...

4958

General Software Discussion / Re: When an arguably free service turns ad supported

« Last post by wraith808 on March 01, 2014, 11:53 AM »

In case you missed this about a month ago...

-app103 (March 01, 2014, 02:36 AM)

Nope... didn't miss it.  Indeed, I posted it.  This is *totally* different.  The extension hasn't changed hands.  It's actually quite solvent.  It's just a change in direction.  Which is to some extent, even worse IMO.

http://www.wisestamp.com/

And the bad thing is- no one is talking about it or complaining about it in such a high profile extension!  And it's not like they couldn't have warned me... they send adverts to me about specials and changes all the time.  Why not this?  I even did a search through my e-mail to see if I just missed it.  Gave them a chance by trying to contact them... and they're silent.

I even checked the privacy policy and the terms of service to see if there was any mention of this change:

http://www.wisestamp.com/privacy-policy

http://www.wisestamp.com/terms

Don't see anything there either.

The only thing they *may* be trying to stand on is this part:

You acknowledge and agree that: (a) WiseStamp may remove any User Generated Content and/or discontinue your use of the Platform in its sole discretion with or without any reason; (b) WiseStamp may integrate commercials and advertisements, whether within or beside the Site and/or the Platform. All the information contained in such commercials and advertisements belongs solely to the advertisers and WiseStamp makes no warranties or representations as to such advertisements, whether or not WiseStamp has control over such advertisements. WiseStamp, advertisers, publishers and/or other third-parties may be entitled to certain shares of the earnings for such commercials and advertisements. You agree, acknowledge and consent that you have no rights to receive any compensation whatsoever with respect to any revenue share or other monetary amounts pertaining to commercials and advertisements on the Platform.

But I totally understood they could have ads within their platform.  But the whole browser is not their platform.  There were ads in my signature for the service.  Even though I could remove those, I never did- it was just a simple unadorned link so I didn't really see the harm- and they gave you the ability to remove it.  There were ads in the settings dialog- and that was fine too.  They were unobtrusive, and I didn't go in the settings often in any case.  But injecting ads into another unrelated page?

4959

Living Room / Re: silly humor - post 'em here! [warning some NSFW and adult content]

« Last post by wraith808 on March 01, 2014, 11:37 AM »

^ Ok, that's just hilarious!

4960

General Software Discussion / Re: When an arguably free service turns ad supported

« Last post by wraith808 on February 28, 2014, 06:04 PM »

Well, even product vs paying customer concerns aside- the fact that they go outside of their interface to insert ads seems... smarmy.  If it was in their settings interface, or even if they started adding links into the signature... that would be grey.

But... just because they couldn't be limited to gmail because of permissions (which I think that now chrome needs... the ability to have domain based permissions), they take advantage of those elevated permissions to put ads in the other pages?  And what kind of exploits does that open you up to?

The more I use Chrome, the more I wish I could use Firefox.  It's coming to the point when its getting as bad as IE.

4961

General Software Discussion / When an arguably free service turns ad supported

« Last post by wraith808 on February 28, 2014, 04:32 PM »

I used the chrome extension WiseStamp for a while, and have toyed with paying for it- I've come really close a couple of times- just for support purposes, not because I needed any of the 'advanced' features.  WiseStamp is basically an email signature manager, i.e. it keeps track of e-mail signatures, and pastes them into your e-mail.

Recently, I started seeing some ads in the top of pages.  I went to MSDN... there was this banner inserted.  It wasn't all pages... but it was troubling.  Had I picked up some sort of adware?  Or malware?

Apparently I had... Wisestamp now inserts ads in every page if you use the freeware version.

Shouldn't they have to advertise this sort of switch?  And even moreso- if they change their functionality, shouldn't chrome reauthorize the extension?  Needless to say, it's gone.  If they had been upfront about it, I would have evaluated whether I wanted this... but as it stands, they basically slipped it in, and lost my trust.

4962

Living Room / Re: YouTube finally forces creation of google+ A/C to comment

« Last post by wraith808 on February 28, 2014, 02:45 PM »

Exactly.  There have been several times that I've been about to click to reply to something... then it asked me to link a FB account.  Or link my google account.

It's saved me a lot of brain cells in engaging in a debate.  And in many cases, saved me a location to go to in order to read things too.

4963

Living Room / Re: When you make your 100'th Post

« Last post by wraith808 on February 28, 2014, 12:52 PM »

Tooting my own horn here, nothing to get excited about:  (see attachment in previous post)

-Edvard (February 27, 2014, 08:16 PM)

But now your 2,323 toot is your 2,324 post...

4964

Living Room / Re: YouTube finally forces creation of google+ A/C to comment

« Last post by wraith808 on February 28, 2014, 12:49 PM »

Yes I have. I meant you can't escape giving your real name if you own Android.

-rgdot (February 27, 2014, 08:23 PM)

Ah... I guess any thoughts I had of switching have now gone out the window.  Makes me feel better.

4965

Living Room / Re: Against TED talks

« Last post by wraith808 on February 28, 2014, 12:48 PM »

@Deo - you probably are. 

-40hz (February 28, 2014, 03:57 AM)

Poor Deo... looking at such silly things like dates

Anyone heard of TEDxTeen?  I'd not seen it before until a group I followed said something about being there.

http://www.tedxteen....-unlocking-the-truth

http://www.tedxteen.com/

4966

Living Room / Re: YouTube finally forces creation of google+ A/C to comment

« Last post by wraith808 on February 27, 2014, 01:07 PM »

If you own an Android you don't have to have given your name in the sense that you do when signing up for gmail or other service ... they have it and will use it

-rgdot (February 27, 2014, 12:59 PM)

I don't have an Android device... but haven't you actually given it during setup?  I mean- it has to get it from somewhere.  So either your cellular provider is giving it to them (bad) or you did it during setup.

4967

Living Room / Re: YouTube finally forces creation of google+ A/C to comment

« Last post by wraith808 on February 27, 2014, 12:00 PM »

I've never given google my real name.  And because of that, I'm not affected by that part.  But yes, I can see how it would be annoying.  I remember when they had their 'real name' kick being concerned about that (and YT still asks me to link them... but I don't).

4968

Living Room / Re: YouTube finally forces creation of google+ A/C to comment

« Last post by wraith808 on February 26, 2014, 06:56 PM »

Basically, when you follow someone, you can by default see their public posts.  They can block you, but this is very much a singular and manual process.

When you share something, by default you share it publicly, so that anyone can see it- even those that are not following you- because it's public.

You also make circles from the people that you are following.  You can put as many or as few people in circles- those not in circles don't really mean anything to you.

If you change the default share to point to one of your circles, then the people in that circle can see the content; it's no longer public.  You can share with more than one circle at a time.  And people can be in more than one circle.

So I might have you in a DoCo circle, and skwire in a DoCo and Development circle.  He doesn't know what circles he's in of mine... only that I've circled him.  you, skwire, and mouser follows me.

If I share to public, all of you can see my posts.  If I share to Development- skwire can see them, but you and mouser can't.  If share to DoCo, you and Skwire can see it... but mouser can't.  If I add development to that share, nothing changes as far as you are concerned.

Does that make a bit more sense?

4969

Living Room / Re: Netflix Mocks Amazon's Drone Delivery with Video!

« Last post by wraith808 on February 26, 2014, 06:50 PM »

I personally thing we're looking at an acquisition in the not too distant future.  Yay us.

4970

Living Room / Re: Dropbox and privacy (or lack of)

« Last post by wraith808 on February 26, 2014, 06:49 PM »

I wouldn't go as far as to call it 'spyware'- they're using the business intelligence of what you voluntarily give them with your account, with what you involuntarily give any site.  I just hate conflating the term 'spyware' with other practices.

4971

Living Room / Re: Dropbox and privacy (or lack of)

« Last post by wraith808 on February 26, 2014, 03:18 PM »

I think that if you want no information to be passed, you'd have to do more than that.  But it could possibly work for identifying information.  It might not even work for that, depending on how they correlate.  When you use the dropbox for PC app (or are logged in for pretty much anything) the IP is there and can be recorded.  If they correlate that to your account, then they have the information, even though you might be currently logged out.  Some sort of anonymizing connection would be your defense.

4972

General Software Discussion / Re: Licensing Software: Version based vs. Time-Period Based

« Last post by wraith808 on February 26, 2014, 02:39 PM »

No... I'm trying to be obscure.  The part that I'm talking about in regards to the server actually relates to a different service that it uses to sync.  It has zero to do with the software intrinsically- it's just screwing up the sync and overwriting valid files.  Thankfully, because I'm using the sync, I could get backups.

They have a software bug in the version of the software that I have.  They released a minor point release that fixed the problem.  Because time had passed, I didn't get access to the bug fix.  This bug that (as I said) destroys data.  This bug that (as I said) was in existence for 2 months before it was fixed.  And because it was fixed after the two months... you don't give a fix?  It's not really a license for a specific version either, considering that it went across major releases.

4973

Living Room / Re: Netflix Mocks Amazon's Drone Delivery with Video!

« Last post by wraith808 on February 26, 2014, 02:35 PM »

The government is firmly on Comcast's side, a handful of vocal but impotent individuals aside.

-Vurbal (February 26, 2014, 02:30 PM)

This.  +1000

4974

General Software Discussion / Re: Licensing Software: Version based vs. Time-Period Based

« Last post by wraith808 on February 26, 2014, 02:00 PM »

Broken down very succinctly, Vurbal!  And it really highlights what I was feeling.  If you sell them version X, and say that your license is good for version X come what may... and then are able to branch the code for X, so X.1 or X.1.1- you're able to support your users, then come out with version Y with sparkling new features... well, I can see licensing them separately, as you're able to support both bases of clients.

Doing it on a drop dead date means that after that date, your clients that are licensed before that date are out of luck.  No matter if it is a security update... they're still out of luck.

That's just wrong.  As you said, they license a product (and a version if you want to take it that far).  Not code.

4975

Mini-Reviews by Members / Re: Tray Management Utilities Mini-Review

« Last post by wraith808 on February 26, 2014, 12:55 PM »

One other bit of advice (that it's time for me to do right now... *sigh*) is to do spring cleaning on your installation every so often.  As you do it more, it will be less intrusive (getting rid of startup items you don't use is one big one)... but if you don't do it, sometimes its faster to just reinstall (that's what I need to do now... but it's very disruptive to say the least).