Yeah I completely agree with you on the way Giz is starting to be. There's definitely a reason and an audience to post this to, but yeah the fact that it's like a tweet is aggravating.

Uhm its Star Wars. I think the connection between Giz readers and that speaks for itself.

This looks nice but it doesn't pause whatever you're doing, so it could ruin a game.

A description of one of her novels.

Ah, didn't know that. Well that's a good move then on Apple's part. New MBP owners will get it and then others will want to buy it.

Well at least some companies have more morality than Giz...

I think it's just going to be less adopted because of this. Not like $0.99 is a lot of money, but if people have no reason in their minds to get it anyways, they're definitely not going to download it to try on a whim now.

K what...that makes complete sense..less money years ago is equivalent to more now. $100 was worth more back then.

I'm thinking this is more referring to continuing work on the AppleTV.

Oh yeah gizmodo has no boundaries now

"Erika Stalder is an author and advice columnist who really doesn't think you should cheat on your significant others. Check her work out at erikastalder.com, and buy her books while you're at it!"

Even though this article has no place in any gawker sites, at least something like fleshbot would be a more fitting place than Gizmodo.

Exactly, what's the point of the information if it's not meant to be used? I read Gizmodo for it's articles that aren't just about gadgets but this stuff is just bullcrap.

It's the same deal when they posted stuff on how to steal from the mac app store when it just came out. This is at an even worse level!

Here here.

While the points they do make are valid about technology and the internet, it is just wrong to encourage or endorse. Even if people have been cheating on each other for ever, you didn't see magazines in the past telling you how to do it without getting caught.

@Canon7D-Fanboy: I agree with you completely.

@Quasigizmodo: Well all in all, I'm not really arguing if the Concorde had a statistically high degree of failure, just that saying they were very "susceptible to disaster" is unfair. Did forgoing the flaps, changing the tires, etc, really make it that much more prone to disaster than any other aircraft? And does…

@Quasigizmodo: Ah, both of you have bested me with more knowledge of the actual accident and the statistics.

I'm not sure if saying "and how susceptible they were to disaster" is really valid. The only severe and fatal accident it ever had was in 2000. It was considered one of the safest aircraft during its time. Many other planes have had worse problems than the Concorde.