I did not see this coming at all. I use Skype every weekend to keep in touch with my family abroad, especially with my elderly mother and aunt. Our computers are connected to the TV, so we have a good image and we can check things online at the same time, using the screen-sharing function to show each other clips and photos we saw during the week. For them it was also simpler to use than anything else, even though guiding them through the process and getting them used to it took a while. Skype has been immensely convenient for many years. Besides the video call function, there are many useful or funny options, like sending large files (300 MB against 25 for GMail), splitting the screen in different ways or having all callers in one background. We had so much fun with it. It's so stupid of Microsoft to replace Skype with something like "Microsoft Teams". Just the name sends shivers down my spine. Skype has a fairly simple, intuitive and engaging interface and is rich with powerful functions; it is a solid, reputable and long-standing brand. Personally, I also used the function to call phone numbers, which is not in Teams. With earphones and via the TV, it was much more convenient than doing this over the phone. So now I don't know what we're going to do. We'll have to move to "Teams" at first, I guess. If we lose too much from what what we had on Skype, I'll have to look elsewhere, probably Google Meet, but I doubt it offers as many options. And the challenge is going to be to explain all this to my mum and my aunt and help them through it. I tried Zoom and Google Meet recently for calls that required them but, at a glance, I was surprised how poor they looked in comparison. I suppose there are hidden functions. Still, the first impression was that of a major downgrade. That's why I thought Skype was safe. Clearly it seemed the stronger, better product, a jewel in the not-so-shiny crown of Microsoft, as is YouTube for Google. There's an article about this in PCWorld entitled "Microsoft is killing Skype and wants you to switch to a Teams app nobody uses". That seems like a good assessment of the situation. If Microsoft wanted to do something entire families are going to hate them for years to come, this is it. (sidenote: I couldn't login on another older browser, Slashdot login looped forever)

They fixed some compatibility issues it seems. I still use Firefox 2 and Facebook looked so "broken" it was pathetic, now it's almost all correct. Funnily they dropped some web 2.0 features, the page reloads entirely when you check another in-page tab. The ads are invading but the design overall is better. First time they actually improve something, at least in my books. But of course, it still is just the same old useless Facebook we could all live without...

Reading comments like these, generously dissing PETA, you'd think the organization was actually set up by people who hate animals and whose only aim is to get them tortured and killed. Seriously, you guys are way off.

Everytime there's a news item related in some way to PETA, anywhere on the web, you can be sure there's a delegation of haters who are going to make these preposterous posts that get more and more implausible as you read: first PETA is described as inefficient idiots, then as liars inclined to cruelty until they are no more than a bunch of sadists and extremists. You would have people believe they eat pups meat or whatnot.

I find this totally bewildering. It's misinformation at its best; they can't just be disliked or disregarded, lies have to be spread about them in a propaganda fashion. Clearly, none of you know what PETA does for animals. All you have is this deep-rooted prejudice made of hate and ignorance, fueled by things you've read here and there online from other people who knew no better and had a grudge against them. It's just a long chain of slanders without actual knowledge of the facts or the people involved. For starters, PETA is certainly NOT against adoptions. Straight from the mouth of their president, Ingrid Newkirk (source):

Yes, they have to make tough decisions like euthanizing animals, because there's overpopulation, they explain it. They also explain that no-kill shelters, that someone mentioned, simply don't work (in short, they reject animals they don't find suitable for adoption or store them in cage until further notice; the lucky ones are sent to normal shelters that do perform euthanasia).

Dogs, cats and others pets are sexually mature within a year, have short gestation periods and easily half a dozen babies in one litter. Do you realize how many animals can be born in a few months time? What do you do with them? Release them all in the wild? That's why PETA has many campaigns to raise awareness on the importance of neutering and spaying, among other things.

I know some people who work for PETA. They're brave and kind, have to deal with a lot of foul-mouthed idiots on a daily basis. The only thing you could blame PETA for is to like animals too much. But this is a hardly a fault in their line of work.

As for the way they spend their funds, think of it this way: they have enough money to do both all the stupid things you complained about (ads, parody games, etc) AND all the other important things, for the animals. How did they get so much money ? Through donations and endorsement. How did they get so much support? By being talked about and known by everyone. How did they achieve that? By doing all the stupid things you complained about. Circle closed.

Isn't it 500 million, like the movie proclaims? Even for Facebook, an approximation of 100 million is quite significant.

Maybe I've known, but I certainly didn't remember, at least I knew he didn't have wings of his own. Do you really think this is common knowledge? Frankly I don't think so.

Icarus had wings built for him (by his father Daedalus, says Wikipedia), he didn't fly on his own. But this line ticked me off too, there must be earlier examples of men flying without mechanical aid or even natural wings.

Haha, I thought the same. Since when The Lawnmower Man is a classic movie? It's been panned by the critics of the time and rates poorly at 5.0 with 11.000 votes on Imdb. Still, it made money back in 1992; I guess for some people that all it takes to make a classic!

This is an oversimplification. When you say "people would rather use prisoners for medical research than animals", I know what you're referring to, I may even agree with the idea, but this is not about using ANY kind of prisoner, you're wording it so that it would sound inarguably wrong. The prisoners we're talking about would be the most deviant, vicious kinds: murderers of children, serial killers, those who enjoyed torturing, etc. The question is, in the balance of life, is an innocent sentient being (an animal) worth less than a wicked human being (a murderer)? I'm sorry, but siding automatically with the human being because you're of the same species doesn't seem like the best of arguments to me. For a misanthrope, you seem to hold your species in quite high esteem. ;)

Anyway, some people say this out of sheer anger when reading about animals being tortured, I don't think all of them mean it and would actually support the process throughout. Their ideal being that no living creature should have to suffer for the prosperity and comfort of humanity.

About the second case, you were probably right to criticize the family if it was indeed a "100lb carnivore that was bred for aggression", I've heard of that before, small children left almost on their own with rottweillers, this is pure madness. I'm not sure though why your co-worker was mad at you instead of the family, might have been something else, I'm kind of careful with stories like that told from a single perspective.

The content is rather shallow for an article entitled "History in Video Games", it's just a few recent cases. History plays an important part in several old video games: the majority of wargames (Civilization, Ages of Empire, Centurion Defender of Rome, Nobunaga Ambition, Romance of the Three Kingdoms, North and South, Napoleon), which he did not even mention once, semi-educative games like the Carmen Sandiego series and even your occasional action game !

I was reviewing SNK's Guerrilla War on NES last week on my website. The Japanese version, entitled Guevara, is clearly a depiction of the Cuban Revolution, all the key names and some locations have been retained; you play as Che Guevara and Fidel Castro and the final boss is Batista.

And a better example than Final Fantasy, among old RPGs, would have been The Battle of Olympus on NES set in Ancient Greece. Not to forget all the games from Japan who have references to their own history and myths, like Samurai Shodown.

I had heard of Pluto before but I've never read it. There's a difference though, Naoki Urasawa isn't appropriating Tezuka's universe, it's a reinterpretation, he expands on an existing story, the drawing has nothing in common and it's not even bearing the same title. The film claims to be the Astro Boy. I wasn't outraged when Disney did The Lion King, even though it's supposed to be a rip-off of Jungle Taitei.

Everything you said is true or consistent and this is why I didn't want to write a message in the first place, because it's so easy to dismiss what I said, perhaps rightfully, as the overstated ranting of the inevitable narrow-minded fanboy. I haven't even seen the movie and just basing my argument on a trailer, for Pete's sake!

In some cases, trailers tell you all you need to know, but regardless of that, what I meant by Japanese identity is that Astro as it is could not have come from a different country. Or if it did, it would have been altogether different and surely not as peculiar and charismatic; its about cultural identity and how it imprints on the artist's work. You can't deny popular culture from Japan has its own, strong personality; whenever artists from a different country try to write a story in a manga form, it never feels quite right, the dynamics are wrong and it fails to engross the reader. The filmmakers of Astro Boy seem to have turned the original characters and narratives into stereotypes of American animated movies. Just have a look at the characters they added. Why didn't they keep Tamao and Shibugaki, the clumsy kid with big glasses and the stupid bully? Because they didn't fit in THEIR vision of Astro Boy. But every bit they remove from the original is not just a detail, it's a component part of Astro Boy and a reason why people loved it.

(sorry for the typo in the title)