Just found on a site that told me to upgrade to IE7 or higher.

ROFL.

kudos to team-noir.net for making me laugh

<snip>
[...]
* 1.3 Google Chrome & new Safari detect added by www.team-noir.net
*/

[...]

// Check for Chrome < Version 2.0
var chrome = userAgent.indexOf('chrome');
if (chrome > -1) {
var snip1 = chrome+7;
var version = userAgent.substring(snip1, (snip1+1));
if (version < 2) {
return true;
}
}

return false;
[...]
<snap>

If you dont find it funny here is a hint

var version = userAgent.substring(snip1, (snip1+1));

get one char from the browser string. chrome was going version+1 every ~half year and now every 2-3 months or so, so it was clear that you hit the two character version number earlier than other browsers (if you assumed 1/2y v+1 => 2012). we are as of this writing at version 14 (stable).

since you know code you build most likely does not receive cleanup or maintenance that is very good coding practice, NOT.

version 10 came out in march.

so for half a year they run this obsolete and poorly thought through script on their own site as well as their customers and/or who ever installed it themselves.

another indexOf('.'); and then just use those two indexes ... naah lets just use one char and screw everybody when they go two digits .... the guys Y2k had constraints but I'm damn sure a javascript var can hold 2 chars ... ok enough ranting ...

if you are using it replace the chrome check with this:

// Check for Chrome < Version 2.0
var chrome = userAgent.indexOf('chrome');
if (chrome > -1) {
var snip1 = chrome+7;

var sub = userAgent.substring(snip1);
var version = sub.substring(0, sub.indexOf('.'));

if (version < 2) {
return true;
}
}

but be aware that there are more then just those five browser out there and so you still show this message to browser that are perfectly fine or people masking there user agent for various reasons.

Civ V released two new DLCs. Korea and Wonders of the Ancient World.

quote: "The Wonders of the Ancient World Scenario Pack adds three new wonders to Sid Meier’s Civilization V: The Mausoleum of Halicarnassus, the Statue of Zeus, and the Temple of Artemis."

Korea was in Civ IV so was Statue of Zeus and the Temple of Artemis. I can't tell if they had proper replacement with other wonders to omit these, since I didn't liked the demo.

But for me this just sounds like Sims3 style printing of money. Recreating what gamers already had. Ok I omit the existence of the campaigns but replay value for campaigns is minimal and the only campaign I enjoyed in Civ IV was Rhye's and Fall.

Civ V currently runs for 30-50 EUR but has already DLC that sums up to 38 EUR.

"2. Consent to Collection and Use of Data.

You agree that EA may collect, use, store and transmit technical and related information that identifies your computer (including the Internet Protocol Address), operating system, Application usage (including but not limited to successful installation and/or removal), software, software usage and peripheral hardware, that may be gathered periodically to facilitate the provision of software updates, dynamically served content, product support and other services to you, including online services. EA may also use this information combined with personal information for marketing purposes and to improve our products and services. We may also share that data with our third party service providers in a form that does not personally identify you. IF YOU DO NOT WANT EA TO COLLECT, USE, STORE, TRANSMIT OR DISPLAY THE DATA DESCRIBED IN THIS SECTION, PLEASE DO NOT INSTALL OR USE THE APPLICATION."
from origin license agreement

oh well...

so i install this on a macbook pro (2008), win7 and os x lion (which origin will not know of), quickcam for better voip, software that origin will install: sims3. software i r
un regular: nwn (sundays), nwn2 (tuesdays), teamspeak3 (sun+tues), chrome+flashblock, vim+tclsh, steam....

other 'software' (=games) i run and usage statistic are hopefully limited to my steam friends.

OK you could call me Google centric or whatever but I strongly oppose sites like Forestle or Ecosia that use regular search engines but display the result on their sites get the advert money and buy co2 certificates.

I'd rather have a company that has an agenda for reducing footprint per standard PC by raising energy efficiency as Google did then supporting search engines like bing or yahoo via one of these outfits. At the end of the day these actions are more worth it IMHO. And apart from this advocacy they don't buy stupid certificates and only talk but also apply it to their own company.

http://www.google.com/corporate/green/

So apart from me not liking supporting MS or Yahoo this also has a greener aspect with sticking to Google.

Ok now to the financial bit.

They only donate advertisement money (80% for Ecosia). I dunno how often you usually click on adverts. I don't or at least it's rare.

So how do revenues work? we have the equation

YOUR-CONTRIBUTION = \SUM_views ( COST_{view} - INCOME_{view} )

or in other words if you don't click many adverts you burn their money/your rain forest or you abuse/steal from advertisers and click more adverts then you regularly would.

Especially stupid would be to have it as your starting page as Ecosia advertises. Every new tab or window burns money.

OK but this is just a stupid rant by you, you could say.

So here are some numbers and why I write this stupid rant:

Forestle claims to have saved 10,093,517.3 sq m.

sq m to acre times 50 per Costa Rican rain forest acre:
(10 100 000 / 4 046.85642) * 50 = 124 788.218 $

Ecosia states 134,633.48 Euro that is currently 176 544.882 so for an upper bound we round to 180000 $.

So both combined adds up to 305k US $

now go read what Google did with their small change in four days to promote chrome; add my rant from above and go figure.

http://chrome.blogspot.com/2010/12/60-million-tabs-towards-good-causes.html

this article http://android-developers.blogspot.com/2010/12/android-browser-user-agent-issues.html is horseshit.

because there are websites that query mobile and provide tiny versions instead of using the resolution of the device, the author asserts that mobile = tiny and therefor for large screens "Mobile" should be dropped.

if websites want to provide proper functioning sites for android they now need to fix this using the android bit of the string. therefor they have to touch their code anyway to provide proper functionality and not a mess that can't be used with a touch based interface.

so these sites need to fix their behaviour except if they don't provide different versions but then dropping mobile gains nothing.

so he advocates that the agent should be changed so sites brake and the site owner has two choices: fix behaviour or screw their customers.

wonder how his stance on the broken itunes/chrome bug would be (bug is that itunes would not open using chromes agent, instead download page is shown. chrome devs say WONTFIX, go complain to apple).