Norgur

Well, that's why raw or flash pasteurized milk is almost impossible to get into supermarkets here in Germany. The regulations are crazy, if it's possible at all.

They have me by the wallpapers!

Glad I could help :)

Okay, there will be people disagreeing with me, but I can't let a new user be misled by us nerds talking distros all day.

So, you want to choose a distro because you expect it to do things differently than your current one? Thing is: Ultimately, they (mostly) don't differ that much, really. There are extremely few things one distro can do that you cannot do in any other distro. Yes, some files will be in different places, they might use special versions for some packages (which often can be overridden) or use older and more stable versions of stuff (Debian). Yet, in the end, they are all the same OS. They all use the same window managers, the same kernels, the same drivers (mostly), the same logic behind many things. Another distro only feels really different, when you know a lot about the ins and outs of Linux systems. If you don't, the difference will often be that you have to type either "pacman" or "apt", or either change /etc/program.conf or /etc/program.d/foo.conf.

Play with the distro you already have and like. You ain't missing anything. Just don't get the wrong idea that Distros are like windows: monolithic monsters that can't be really changed. Like mint but want Gnome as window manager? Go for it. Dislike the way the standard terminal software does colors? Get another one. Don't like how Program X does some GUI thing? There will almost always an alternative that just plugs into your system exactly as the preinstalled one did.

A distribution is basically just a pre-selection of packages that can be changed at will. Hell, you could in theory get pacman on Debian or Apt on Arch. I don't know why you'd want to, but in theory you could.

Don't waste your time reinstalling your machine. Play with the things you already have!

The bug was well documented and we own the git platform it was written on, but hey, we ain't got time for that. Too busy implementing new menus that look worse and do less than the old ones so we have to keep the old ones around anyway.

Furthermore, I don't trust Microsoft to not do a gigantic oopsie and introduce a bug that emails screenshots of porn websites I visited to my Mum or some shit. Their QC is abhorrent.

Close as "won't fix". Easy. That's what their customer service does to your ticket, too, if it's too much to handle, so...

Two things:

1. Do we know if fuels the urge to get real children? Or do we just assume that through repetition like the myth of "gateway drugs"?
2. Since no child was involved and harmed in the making of these images... On what grounds could it be forbidden to generate them?

I got the impression that “removing” means removing before it was really implemented. Like, it was planned and decided upon, but it wasn't ready. He checked the license and went “nope, not having it” and scrapped the feature. It doesn't truly become clear in the text, of course, but that's how I read this.

luckily, most games are easily modded: Just put a 1-2 frames black video file where the brand logos used to be. Done.

oh, it was the racing game? I must have gone through the text too quickly then. Yet, if we're pragmatic: How many people would have really enjoyed that game (which wasn't stellar to begin with) more with properly encoded surround sound, and how many would have enjoyed it a tad less because of the annoying logo spam on startup? I don't think Surround-Sound-enjoyers were the target audience for that one.

You need to toake into account that we're talking about a Kirby game here, which are all 2/2.5/sometimes 3D platformers. So The real effect of Dolby in such a thing would have been close to zero.