Because it places a trackable cookie on your machine, that's why.

Well, I've already stopped visiting Lifehacker because of this and now will do the same here. I didn't expect this idiotic idea to reach here so quickly and partially hoped it wouldn't at all. I'll get my news and information somewhere else. So long.

"...even if you've legitimately purchased the games previously, they're now no longer available for download." Another strike on the list of why I'll never go digital only for gaming.

Why's everyone fixated on exclusives? A lot of great multi-platform games have come out in the last year and if you own a 360, you don't miss out on those, so what's the problem?

Some gamers are dicks. A console company adds in more services to give you more value for money and some of them still find something to complain about. Stop giving us more options and more value! Then, when you do, we'll complain about your product not being worth the money.

No, the Xbox stays the same it has always been, they just add more optional services if you want them.

WTF are you talking about? The additional, optional services they offer has no impact on the consoles ability to play games. Because they offer you more for your money you're going somewhere else? And to a platform you know nothing about too? Genius plan.

" I have seen real expert wine tasters correctly rate Vodkas from cheapest to best..." You've watched an episode of Mythbusters, is what you've done.

Way to comment twice, genius.

Ironic that you're throwing the moron insult around when you're the one unable to comprehend two sentences correctly.

I'm not going to explain it. Motion blur isn't an issue with an exposure of minutes and stars show up on long exposures because it's bright light against dark background, just like night exposures. Do even the most basic of research on it if you want to understand it. It is how this is done.

I think it's for artistic purposes. It even seems to be same person in a few of the images despite being taken in different countries. I think it's more powerful to have one person than none, don't you?

If you look closely, you'll see in almost all of the images there is one person or one small group of people. Those are people I believe the photographer got to pose there for the the length of the exposure so as to show up. This is the most widely known and used method to produce this type of images. If you know of…

Not so. I've seen dozens upon dozens of pictures of busy roads taken exactly in that way and they all look like this. A yellow car is not going to be bright enough to show if the exposure if long enough.

Then I stop coming to Lifehacker now, and then also Kotaku and Gizmodo when the time comes.

Well, opening a fake Facebook page is and they seem to be suggesting that right up there. Hope Facebook admins find out they're suggesting that.

You're a web advertisers wet dreams. Follow instructions blindly, ignore the countless warnings from others and not bother to take 5 minutes to research how this might affect you. Well done.

I hadn't heard of Vox before. Thanks for yet another alternative.

Maybe we're complaining because we understand something you don't. Ever consider that?

They're trying very hard. Shouldn't be too long.