Linux may not be the biggest desktop market share. So you'd imagine if all Linux users opted to not use Flash, it would not make a big difference? Maybe. Maybe not. I am unsure because Linux is becoming far more common in the smartphone market (which, I'll admit most does not support Flash either way), and while it won't be this or the next year, Linux's entrance as a variable desktop alternative to Windows or Mac OS X will come eventually. We just need the right people to get on it. And while Ubuntu is certainly the most promising solution, I am still not convinced it is the right solution to beat Windows and Mac OS X.

But all that is speculation and operating systems. Flash itself is terrible. We all know this, many talk about how terrible it is and it is terrible. But unfortunately, other technologies need to mature to replace it. But they are already looking promising. And it's always good to see new reasons for why you should disable your Flash plugin in your browser.

And now, Adobe themselves gave us one more. They have decided only to develop Flash for Chrome on the Linux platform, and Flash will not be available as a standalone package as it has been for years. Meaning, Firefox and Opera and others will no longer be able to use Flash on the Linux platform; well, they can still use the old versions, but eventually they will be discovered to be full of holes and people start saying; 'hey get Chrome for all your Flash needs and disable Flash elsewhere'. Which is good advice, I do the same for Java.

Read on for more...

Then it is when someone threatens you not to comment on it. It's a day and age where everyone can comment on anything, regardless of whether whatever that is is accurate or whether their comment is accurate, they can and will comment on it. And regardless of the truth, this is a huge PR disaster! Internal documents have been leaked that state Heartland Institute is perusing a strategy of discrediting climate science, despite them stating they are impartial. Or at least, so the leaker claim the documents do.

Heartland Institute say the documents have been stolen, but that they are also altered or perhaps even entirely faked. And the reason why this claim is not entirely unlikely (although their response to be expected) is because the person who leaked the documents too has an agenda and is not impartial to begin with. One could expect him to use light of the fact that he did obtain actual documents (which could be confirmed) to therefore alter/create documents that would produce statements that the Institute pursues such a strategy.

I don't know whether the documents being faked is true or not; they might be, they might not be. Times have changed, and Heartland Institute is dealing with this public relations crisis the wrong way. Them wanting to sue whoever have spoken about these leaked documents showcasing them in ill light is not going to help to gather the public's acceptance of their claim that the documents are faked. But that reaction does not convince me that they are faked, it only convince that the PR people at Heartland Institute are idiots.

Most corporations in the computer industry are usually rather upfront about details or advancements in technology. They love to brag and they love to inform others about their advancements. Not so much Apple. Apple loves keeping secrets. Well, they sure like to brag about the same experiences users are going to have, but little else.

And while this sort of talk about Apple is nothing new, something did strike me while reading a story about why Siri was restricted to the iPhone 4S.

But while the article it self does contain some technical details about how Siri gets your voice so clear and some technical stuff that certainly will be interesting to some who has little particular interest in Siri or the iPhone, it highlights something striking about Apple.

Read on for more...

In a somewhat unusual move, Jay Wilson of Blizzard Entertainment spoke out about major changes in some of the new features for Diablo 3 late in its development. But rather than just listing what had changed, he gave some concrete and understandable arguments. There are certainly bound to be people not pleased with these changes, but for the game itself, I do believe that these changes are good.

But my intend here is not to detail through each of Mr Wilson's arguments and the new changes, but rather discuss the principle in general. It is apparent from his entry that Blizzard wanted to be bold with the changes for Diablo 3. They wanted the classic foundations for the series to remain, but they wanted to make it substantially different from Diablo 2. Whether it was experimenting or just 'change for change's sake' is unknown, but one thing is clear, this is not an overnight decision.

For one thing, most of the changes are already implemented or partially implemented. I assume for a long while, the developers and game designers looked over playthroughs and how the players were reacting to certain elements of the game, realising that it was not a numbers' game, but a game game. Changing mere numbers for these unviable elements would not do any good, as it was the elements themselves that were the problem. In none of Mr Wilson's list of changes, does he describe minor changes like these. They are all major. Of course not 'ground breaking' like changing the game from real time to turn based.

Read on for more...

Recently, BASF decided to move its GM Plant from Germany to the U.S. because of the anti-transgenic sentiment in Europe. And it is not for religious reasons (well, you might argue that it is after this entry).

Europeans are very dedicated to the preservation of life, the natural of things. There is a reason why Europeans are so in favour of clean energies, why they are against nuclear power (despite being the most clean and efficient energy source we know of), they prefer organic food and they are vocal in climate change talks. Europeans like things to be as unmanipulated as possible.

It is only natural that the whole incarnation of this, in order to strengthen Europe's people's 'good taste' in food, fair trade, etc., has lead to anti-transgenic sentiment in Europe. Europeans don't like the idea of food being manipulated to create better meat, create better crops, create better whatever. Because most of them, do not believe it to be better.

Read on for more...

This is my first in a series of me preparing meals, so you can enjoy them as I do. A handy guide with images of what's happening. Although, I apologise in advance for the terrible image quality.

In this first piece, we are going to make a pizza. Our topping will be mozzarella, general tomato sauce and pepperoni (sausages; salami). Of course, beyond mozzarella and tomato sauce, you are likely to pick some other topping of your own. Feel free to experiment.

I strongly encourage you to read the entire recipe before beginning. There are some important notes I relay as we move along.

Many things are progressively becoming easier and easier for consumers to do with their own hardware. It is true that smartphones and laptops are still on the closed end of the scale, but laptops are becoming far more modifiable than they were years ago and some progress can already be seen to be taken shape in the smartphone market. Desktops, however, have for the longest while remained the best place for complete control over your hardware. Well, except two places.

The CPU and the motherboard remains the two unchallenged truths in one's computer once they are picked and inserted. For most people, when they decide to change motherboard, they need a new CPU and vice versa. This, however, is not what I consider a problem for desktops, but it should be considered a problem for more specific hardware.

Imagine breaking new ground by making a new console today. A next generation console. In two years, it will be old compared to the PC market. And a console generation usually lasts for four years (and this one has almost lasted for six!), meaning not as capable machines once we recline on their hay day. But how about if the CPU was easy to upgrade as to purchase a memory stick to your PS1 was back in the day? Like the Extension Pack for the Nintendo 64, but in regards to the CPU.

Read on for more...

Prior I have spoken about my discontent about how words which used to have clear and precise meanings, now lack the intended meaning, resulting in confused users of the words and incorrect usage. Those further evolving the uselessness of having distinct words. Let us take the difference between nationalism and patriotism. Because while many may consider them similar, if not synonymous, they have certain important differences, which results in - at least in my view - a negative connotation of nationalism and a positive connotation of patriotism.

Let us start with nationalism. It is is - like patriotism - a relatively new concept, from around the French Revolution. Although, I cannot deny that its existence in some form or another can be traced back to Roman times and perhaps even prior to that. But both concepts did not play a major role in international politics until the Napoleonic Wars. Napoleon I spoke of speaking to the hearts and souls of soldiers, rather than having them die for pennies a day.

Nationalism is feeling a national superiority towards other countries. Something patriotism is not. A nationalist will gloat at other countries' expense on every issue where these countries are not steeping to the same level as one's own. Any sense of nationalistic feelings will obvious diverge the topic should one engage with a foreigner whose country was better at something than the original speaker, or try to play the argument to their favour. In essence, a nationalist like to gloat and do not like to be attacked on their position; which is that their country is better than other countries.

Read on for more...

If there is one thing that psychopaths cannot handle, then it is a PR disaster. Take this whole Ocean Marketing's Paul Christoforo episode. A well-intended but frustrated customer (whom have already given the company a big benefit of the doubt by paying up front, before there even was a product to ship), asks its customer service for information on the product. The guy at the other end, Mr Christoforo, snaps and begins to belittle and insult the customer.

Always a bad move. So after having the episode posted on Penny-Arcade by Mike Krahulik, the Internet explodes. Quite naturally. The Internet loves teaming up on a 'bad guy'. And Christoforo has shown all the tell tale signs of such a guy. Even his apology lacks actual remorse.

What Paul Christoforo is then, is a psychopath. And a classic one at that. An important attribute of a psychopath is that it is never their fault. His e-mail correspondents reeks of this. He is never really apologetic, he focuses mostly on the compliments (such as when 'Dave' mentions that his rice rocket is pretty cool, Mr Christoforo starts off his otherwise bad tempered response with a 'thanks' for that compliment). He also tries to steer Mr Krahulik into undoing the damage by saying 'I love Penny-Arcade', even after having asked Mr Krahulik 'who are you?', even when he suggested himself that Mr Christoforo should search for his name on Google. It's not that hard.

Read on for more...

Government's task is to meet its citizens' interests. Uphold them and guarantee their rights. Government is not about morals any more, and neither should it be perceived to be. Just because something is legal does not make it moral. Those two need to be put aside and understood as distinct characteristics. There are plenty of things we accept to be legal, but certainly not moral, yet on some issues, some people fail to make the correct distinction.

And drugs is the next issue queued up. However, when the issue of drugs is usually brought up, the proponents of legalising it tends to argue that drugs are not more dangerous than say alcohol or cigarettes. But this is falling into the trap that the opponents argue that drugs are dangerous. But this part of the discussion for whether drugs should be legalised is irrelevant. Yes, it is good to know that users of drugs will be able to get their fix in a safe environment and doses if it was legal, but it is not the reason for why we should legalise it.

Laws are about social practicality. Whether or not you should take drugs (or how you think about the aspect of doing so) is up to you. I care not either way what you think of them. I don't care much for them myself. But I do believe that legalising them is the next step. People are not going to stop taking drugs any time soon. In fact, I doubt they ever will. So rather than completely criminalising these people (whom are not criminals in my mind, they just want to get off at times), government should be meeting them half way.

Read on for more...