- Pictures from the Verge -

The moment Tim Cook took the stage and announced the new iPad on March 7th in San Francisco, I immediately started brainstorming on my review for the device. There are clear challenges in comparing generational, iterative products like the iPad — especially when the devices themselves look nearly identical. Looks, of course, are really only half the story with the new iPad (side note: the name is just "iPad," though Apple seems to be using "new" quite liberally). In fact, looks may not be the story at all.

While the device does appear to be physically nearly identical to its predecessor, there are significant changes in the product. For starters, it's boasting that outrageous Retina display — its 9.7-inch screen delivering a whopping 2048 x 1536 resolution. The new iPad is also equipped with a greatly improved camera on its back (a 5 megapixel shooter, not unlike the one featured on the iPhone 4), new 4G LTE options (for both Verizon and AT&T), and a considerably more powerful processor.

After the event last Wednesday, amongst the praise you could also detect a distinct sentiment of disappointment — mostly from the press. Much like the fallout after the introduction of the last iPhone, there were questions: Why does it look the same? No quad-core processor? Has Apple lost its edge? Yet despite the questions, pre-orders seem to be record breaking (just as with the iPhone 4S).

But is the iPad as good as it needs to be? Has Apple made the right moves, or is it slipping behind the competition? Most importantly, does the new iPad successfully defend the last version's reputation as the King of Tablets? I'll answer all those questions, and more, in this review — so read on!

As I said in the opening, there isn't much to note physically about the new iPad. In terms of materials, general design, and even packaging, this device is essentially the same product as the iPad 2. Sure, it's a slight bit thicker (0.37 inches compared to the previous version's 0.34), and yes, it's somewhat heavier (1.34 pounds versus 1.46 pounds for the cell-equipped versions) — but that's about it.

From the glass-covered display to the machined, aluminum backing, this is basically the same device you've seen since March of 2011. Admittedly, you can tell that it's got a bit more heft when you're holding it for long periods, but it's so minor it seems unlikely that only the most particular (and whiny) critics will really have an issue.

50 YEARS FROM NOW, THE IPAD WON'T LOOK OUT OF PLACE 

The question now is: does this thing look dated? Let's be honest here, the original iPad and the iPad 2 weren't dramatically different looking, and there's even less of a step between the iPad 2 and the new model. That said, there's little to fault in this design — everything is pretty much where it should be, and functions as it should. For a tablet device where the display is the only substantial method of input available, you need little more than a screen — and that's what the iPad provides. Much like the classic Dieter Rams Braun products most modern Apple devices are aping, one feels that 50 years ago or 50 years from now, this product won't look too out of place. In the world of industrial design, that's a rarity.

I will, however, take a moment to gripe about two hardware decisions that have bugged me from the start. The first is the placement of the headphone jack. I'm sure there are many reasons why Apple chose to put the 3.5mm port in the upper left-hand corner of the device (in portrait) / lower left-hand corner (in landscape), but I feel like it would make a lot more sense on the bottom of the device. Secondly, it would be nice to be able to dock the iPad in landscape mode, but that would require a second 30-pin dock connection on the side of the tablet. I reported long ago that a version of the iPad which functioned like that was in play at some point at Apple, and I wish they'd kept it around.

Minor gripes aside, the iPad remains best in breed when it comes to design and materials. Other tablets may have more ports or larger screens, but few can match the elegance, sleekness, or solidness of this device.

SPECS DO MATTER, IT SEEMS, AND THE NEW IPAD DELIVERS A SUBSTANTIAL UPGRADE IN NEARLY EVERY DEPARTMENT 
Inside, the iPad isn't playing around either. The system-on-a-chip which the previous iPad used — the A5 — has been retooled and spun into something Apple calls the A5X. At the center of that chip is an ARM-based, dual core SoC clocked to 1GHz, along with a quad-core GPU. Apple has upgraded the RAM in the iPad from 512MB to a full 1GB, and you'll find Bluetooth 4.0, as well as Wi-Fi 802.11a/b/g/n on board.

In North America there are also two versions of the iPad destined for use with 4G LTE networks. In other parts of the world the device is compatible with 3G HSPA+ networks. Just as with the last version, you can buy an iPad with 16GB, 32GB, or 64GB of storage. I tested the 64GB model with Verizon LTE service.

As I mentioned in the intro, there's a new camera around back, a 5 megapixel version of Apple's iSight (or at least, what it's now calling iSight on the iPad). The sensor utilizes backside illumination, just like its iPhone brethren, and shares the same f/2.4 aperture. The iPad's camera software is now more inline with the iPhone as well. Up front, however, you're still stuck with a VGA camera for FaceTime chats. I'll get to more specific camera performance later in the review. 

YES, THIS DISPLAY IS OUTRAGEOUS. IT'S STUNNING. IT'S INCREDIBLE. 
By now you've probably heard all the hype about the screen on the new iPad. If you haven't — it's time to climb out from under that rock.

First things first: the iPad's Retina display measure 9.7 inches diagonal, and has a resolution of 2048 x 1536, making it the highest resolution mobile device currently on the market. The pixel density of that display is 264 ppi, compared to 326 ppi on the iPhone 4 / 4S, and 316 ppi on something like the Galaxy Nexus. The iPad's display, however, makes all other device displays look pedestrian by comparison. And if you're an original iPad or iPad 2 owner... unless you want to upgrade, just avoid looking at this screen.

Yes, this display is outrageous. It's stunning. It's incredible. I'm not being hyperbolic or exaggerative when I say it is easily the most beautiful computer display I have ever looked at. Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that you hold this in your hands, or maybe it's the technology that Apple is utilizing, or maybe it's the responsiveness of iOS — but there's something almost bizarre about how good this screen is. After the launch event, I described the screen as "surreal," and I still think that's a pretty good fit.

You literally can't see pixels on the iPad's display when you hold it at a regular distance, and even up close you have to really inspect the thing to see dots. For rendered text or high resolution images, it just looks otherworldly; like a glowing piece of paper. There were moments when I was testing the device when I would just marvel at a single paragraph of text, or I kept zooming in and out on a particular headline to see how cleanly fonts are rendered on this screen.

The display is so high resolution that it can actually be distracting in some ways. I began to notice just how low in quality and resolution graphics can look in certain apps and web pages. I even started making a list of graphic elements we need to update on The Verge.

As with any kind of screen technology, it really is the kind of thing you have to see in person. When you compare the old iPad to the new one, or to any other tablet for that matter, you'll start to wonder how you were ever able to look at anything else. I'm not saying that the screen alone is reason enough to buy this product, especially if you've got a tablet you're happy with right now, but I do think the quality of this display could make you a sudden convert. It's just really, really good.

THERE'S A CERTAIN KIND OF CONFIDENCE WITH WHICH IT EXECUTES TASKS 
Apple has a long history of making decisions in its hardware which can sometimes compromise performance. The original MacBook Air comes to mind for instance — a groundbreaking design with relatively poor computing power. The original iPhone was a 2G-only device (ostensibly to conserve battery life), and clearly the antenna on the original iPhone 4 had form-over-function syndrome (at least for some users).

The fact that the new iPad touts an A5X SoC versus a completely new generation of chip may give some buyers pause, but in my testing I see no evidence that the processor in the iPad isn't every bit as powerful as it should be. While there's not some obvious speed boost in comparison to the previous generation iPad, there's certainly no stutter, stagger, or delay when using the tablet. Apps opened and closed quickly and without issue, app switching was efficient, and graphically-intensive games played smoothly on the device.

I saw no outstanding performance issues at all, in fact. Whether it's a further optimization of iOS, the new SoC, or a combination of the two (most likely), there's little to complain about in regards to overall speed and performance. What I can say most clearly about the iPad (and frankly, the version before this) is that there's a certain kind of confidence, of fearlessness, with which it executes tasks. With many modern mobile devices, there's this constant, nagging sensation that it's going to jam up, freeze, or otherwise not respond to your commands. That sensation is nowhere to be found on the new iPad — and it's a relief.

On the data side of things, at least on Verizon's LTE network, this thing (unsurprisingly) screams. If you own a Verizon 4G phone, or know what they're capable of, then you'll get the gist of what the new iPad can do. Actually, the iPad seemed faster to me than many phones I've tested. Another nice perk is that if you buy into the Verizon version, not only do you get your LTE service on the iPad, but you also can use the device as a wireless hotspot at no extra charge (AT&T says they're working on it, but they don't offer the same luxury).

In terms of raw speeds, I saw downloads hit more than 22Mbps, while upstream data topped out around an outrageous 21Mbps — and that was in mid-town Manhattan. Of course, a lot of this depends on your coverage and how many people around you are on the network. One other small thing: I did notice the device getting a bit warm when I was using LTE for extended periods of time, but that's pretty common for most 4G products I've tested.

As far as the battery life of the new iPad is concerned, I can say that the device pretty much lives up to Apple's ambitious claims. I ran our battery test on the device using both Wi-Fi and solely on Verizon's LTE network, and in both tests the rundown ended almost (but not exactly) where Apple says it should. The company claims you should get 10 hours of web browsing on Wi-Fi and 9 on LTE. On Wi-Fi I nabbed almost exactly 9 hours of constant browsing, and on LTE, my number was closer to 8 hours and 15 minutes. That's not exactly where Apple pegs it, but that's because our testing methods are slightly different (Apple sets their displays to 50 percent brightness, we use 65 percent).

It shouldn't come as a surprise that Apple is able to achieve this kind of performance; the new iPad has nearly double the battery capacity of the previous version in nearly the same amount of space (the iPad 2 has a 25Wh battery pack while the new iPad crams in a 42.5Wh slab). I assume that's what accounts for most of the weight gain on this device. With battery life like this, I'll take the slight extra baggage — and I'd argue most users would prefer their devices are less lean but have longer battery life.

In all, the new iPad lived up to my expectations on the performance and battery fronts — and I'm not sure how it might have surpassed them. It's everything the previous generation was, and then some. Stable, reliable, speedy, and long-lived. What more can you ask for?

I'm going to start this section by just stating, once again, that I believe 10-inch tablets with rear cameras are a ridiculous idea. An idea, perhaps, best reserved for moments of desperation or raw circumstance — like it's the only camera you have around when your cat begins doing something hilarious.

But the idea of taking this device out into the real world and attempting to snap photos with it is utterly laughable — something I discovered when I took the new iPad out into the world to snap photos with it. I don't care who you are, what you do for a living, or where you come from: it's impossible not to look like a total nerd when you're in public snapping pictures with something that is literally the surface size of four point and shoot cameras.

That said, if you absolutely must use the camera on the back of the new iPad, it will actually produce pretty favorable results. The auto-focus and face detection work excellently here (though tapping to focus is sometimes impossible due to the size of the thing). Thanks to that improved sensor, pictures you take on the iPad now look relatively respectable, with a depth of field shallow enough to pull off rather artistic looking images. Colors looked good to my eyes, if a little washed out, and shadows and highlights both popped appropriately. There's no flash present here, so don't expect explosive results in low light, though that larger aperture definitely allows better photos in darker places, and I saw relatively good results in my testing.

On the video front, the image stabilization is definitely needed and clearly in play when you're bouncing around, and the HD content the new iPad captured looked crisp and stutter-free. Again, I can't see a situation where you're really going to be shooting any kind of long-form video with this device, but if you absolutely must, it does a surprisingly respectable job.

Around front, you can expect the same basic quality of the last generation iPad — which means it's nothing to write home about. It would have been nice to see at least a 720p shooter on the flip side of the tablet considering how hard Apple's been trying to push FaceTime, but you're stuck with VGA here.

It should come as no surprise that the software on the new iPad is basically the same as the software on the last iPad. That is, it's iOS 5.1, which is now available for pretty much all of Apple's mobile devices. The iPad 2 and new iPad are functionally the same, and can both run the same software, including Apple's new iPhoto for iPad, and the updated Garageband.

Overall, there are some very minor tweaks to the way the OS operates (for instance on the lock screen you now have to swipe to bring up the camera), but overall it's exactly like the version of iOS you've been looking at since iOS 5 was launched alongside the iPhone 4S. There are some minor (but welcome) changes though, like the fact that you can now download multiple apps from the App Store without being kicked back to the homescreen every time you select something. Apple has also added its voice dictation (seen first in the iPhone 4S), which is surprisingly fast and accurate. For users who can't adjust to the virtual keyboard, this may be a happy middle-ground.

The overall performance of the software is very, very good. In fact, in terms of fluidity, stability, touch response, and general cohesion, there's no other tablet OS that comes close. Android 4.0 is getting there, though I have yet to use a stock version of that OS for an Android tablet, and the tablet I've used most (the Asus Transformer Prime) has had some issues. Certainly when it comes to completeness, third-party app selection, and overall ease-of-use, there is no comparison.

While much of iOS for a tablet is wonderful, I do have some gripes. For some reason, Apple removed the calculator, stock, and weather apps when it introduced the iPad, and it has yet to replace them. This is especially egregious given the fact that the iPad now shares iOS 5's notification center, which would be a perfect place for a persistent weather report or stock update. The lack of those features actually shines a light on one of the biggest missed opportunities on the iPad since day one: widgets.

I've been complaining about the lack of quickly accessible, glanceable information on this platform since launch day, and my feelings haven't changed one bit. The fact that Apple continues to ignore the issue (and actually made the experience worse on the iPad) seems just plain bizarre to me. How many years will this weather icon simply read 73 degrees and sunny?

The biggest piece of the new iPad puzzle is one of the apps introduced alongside the tablet. Apple is now offering iPhoto for the iPad (and iPhones and iPod touches, too) — and like Pages, Keynote, and Numbers, it's approaching real-world productivity.

The basic concept of iPhoto is that it takes much of the editing features added into the photo app on iOS devices and just explodes them. This is a much more full-featured application which allows you to do all sorts of very specific editing of photos, including adjusting exposure, coloring, retouching (using multitouch gestures), cropping, rotating, repairing, and more. The app also gives you a handful of Instagram-style retro filters, as well as a way to add a vignette to your images to give them that burnt-in, old school feel.

APPLE SEEMS INTERESTED IN SELLING ITS PRODUCTS AS CONTENT CREATION DEVICES

You're also able to collect your images together (along with dates, maps, and weather er... widgets) into virtual scrapbooks which Apple calls journals. Those journals can then be uploaded to iCloud and shared via a specific URL, sent to iTunes, or beamed to an Apple TV. That's pretty significant since Apple canned the ability to share photos on the web when it introduced iCloud.

IPHOTO AND GARAGEBAND ARE POWERFUL TOOLS

In all, it's an excellent example of the depth and breadth possible in iOS apps, and though it certainly won't stand in as a replacement for Photoshop, it's capable of handling most of the needs of an average (and even above average) user. Even relatively pro shooters may find some utility here, as you're able to import, edit, and export RAW files in addition to the standard crop of JPEG or PNG formats.

Apple has also updated GarageBand (like iPhoto, not a stock part of the OS) to include some interesting new features, most notably the ability to "jam" with up to four other GarageBand users on the same network. It's actually a pretty amazing trick — one of the players leads the group (controls playback, tempo, and recording), while everyone is free to riff on their own part. If recording, each instrument is tracked on the band leader's device, and also duplicated on the player's machine. It's a fascinating way to play music in a group (or even solo with two devices), and shows that Apple is legitimately interested in continuing to sell its products as content creation devices, not just toys for passive, lean-back experiences.

Just a few shorts weeks ago, Ubisoft began to trickle out information regarding Assassin’s Creed 3.  Much like the games before, this one occurs in the past and places the game’s protagonist in a time period and location that is pivotal; the America Revolutionary war.  In fact, this website was born out of Boston, and its founder (me) grew up just steps from where the first shot was supposedly fired.

That said, the first trailer for Assassin’s Creed 3 is here and confirms that the main character is “born of Mohawk and British blood.”  Replacing those wrist ejecting blades, at least so far, is a tomahawk, which is complimented by a knife as well as a bow and arrow – we’re sure there will be plenty of other weapons to come.  Expect more details to flow out over the next few months, but you’ll have to wait until October 30th to actually play it. 

So, what'd you have in the office pool? iPad 3, iPad 2S, iPad HD? Doesn't matter, really. All that matters is that it's here! This is the next generation of Apple's iOS slate and, as usual, she's a beaut -- and yes, she's still rockin' a physical button. As was rumored this thing is packing a Retina display, potentially making this the most pixel-packed slate on the market. The 9.7-inch screen plays host to 3.1 million pixels in a 2048 x 1536 arrangement -- that's 264ppi. It's not just a higher resolution though, the screen also boasts improved color saturation. Of course, what would a new iPad be without some updated guts. The new model has an A5X processor and quad-core graphics chip. Apple even claims its newest sliver of silicon can deliver four times the performance of a Tegra 3 -- we'd say dems fightin' words.

There's also a new iSight camera on board that's quite similar to the version inside the iPhone 4S. It's only five-megapixels, but it does have a backside illuminated sensor with a five element lens. It's also capable of capturing 1080p video, which should come as no surprise. We're also excited to see the keyboard sporting a brand new dictation key that lets you speak instead of type -- yes, just like on Android. The new software inside will also let you use the slate as a portable WiFi hotspot... so long as the carriers are game. It even has the ability to recognize at least some bezel gestures, as revealed during its iPhoto demo.

Perhaps most exciting though, is the new connectivity options -- you guessed, LTE! The new iPad is sporting 21Mbps HSPA+, but it's also rocking an LTE radio capable of pulling down 73Mbps on both Verizon and AT&T here in the US. Outside of the states Rogers, Bell and Telus will also be scoring 4G flavors of the iOS tablet. Amazingly enough, even with an LTE antenna on board, Apple is still claiming to get 10 hours of battery life. That's probably partially do to the slightly increased weight of 1.4lbs, though the 9.4mm thickness is nothing to sniff at.

The new iPad will be available March 16th, starting at $499 for the 16GB WiFi model and scaling up to $829 for the 64GB version with 4G. So, on the price front, nothing has changed. Pre-orders start today in the US, Canada, UK, France, Germany, Switzerland, Japan, Hong Kong, Singapore and Australia, with much of the rest of the globe to follow on March 23rd. For more details hit up the PR after the break.  

Yes, it is the Italian company’s fastest car EVER, rocketing to 60mph in a hair over 3 seconds and reaching 124mph in as little as 8.5 seconds.  Gasp.  Achieving this kind of performance is no easy feat and some of the credit can be attributed to the all aluminum chassis coupled with a 740 horsepower 6.3liter V12 engine.  Ferrari hasn’t released pricing as of yet, but they say that it consumes 30% less fuel than the 599, which is probably equitable to a few extra pennies in the change jar – if you’re buying this car, or any Ferrari for that matter, fuel consumption isn’t much of a concern. 

When you hit the  link you’ll be slapped with a full screen video from Ferrari’s chairman.  After a few minutes you’ll be redirected to a microsite where you can review the F12 Berlinetta in all it’s opulent beauty. 
http://www.f12berlinetta.com/ 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5agUWoxmLQ 

Since Windows 7, Microsoft's been busily honing the interface for Windows tablets, which uses a bold bunch of squares and rectangles in flat neon colors and has been christened "Metro." Windows 8--undoubtedly the biggest change to the operating system in a few generations--finally brings Metro to the desktop. So how does it work with a keyboard and mouse?

Windows 8 integrates Metro with what in reality is a barely-changed version of Windows 7, with all the programs and behavior we've gotten familiar with for the past decade or two. It sounds disjointed, but functionally, after using it for a minute, I see what Microsoft is doing here, and it makes sense. For tablet users, Metro is everything. For desktop users, it's essentially Microsoft's new Start menu.

On a tablet, Metro is highly touchable, with big buttons and swipey gestures and pretty bright colors. Apps run in full-screen, with the additional option of sticking an app in a quarter of the screen on the left or right (great for stuff like Twitter or an instant-message client). On a desktop, Metro's still useful, but it's not where you'll spend most of your time. A desktop user triggers Metro by clicking, from anywhere, on the lower left-hand corner of the screen (or by hitting the Windows button on your keyboard), and there you are: home base.

Metro is where you see basic updates. You can go into a pretty weather app, check your email, look at photos, listen to music (no longer called Zune, which is smart; despite Zune being reliably excellent throughout its tenure as Microsoft's most-mocked property, it was also reliably unpopular), play some quick games, or do a little light messaging. It's also the spot from which you'll launch all your apps. Here's where it gets kind of tricky: there are two kinds of apps, Metro apps and regular Windows apps. You can "pin" both of these types of apps to your Metro screen, anywhere you want, but the Metro apps will launch in Metro and the Windows apps will launch in regular Windows (which, as I said before, looks pretty much exactly like Windows 7).

Metro is pretty simple to use. A right click brings up a sidebar on the bottom (bottombar?) with context-sensitive options. You scroll through your Metro thumbnails with the mouse wheel (or, once Windows 8 is optimized for laptops, with the trackpad). The hot corners, to borrow a phrase from Mac OS, work whether you're in Metro or not. Stick your cursor in the upper left corner to see a little popup of your most recently used app, which you can click on to be taken there. Or you can move the cursor down to see more of your recently used apps. At the bottom of this list is always a thumbnail of Metro--your new Start button. (I imagine many desktop users will stick to the tried-and-true Alt-Tab method of app switching--it's quite a bit faster.)

Over in the upper right-hand corner, you've got what Microsoft calls "charms." These are a couple quick, important keys: Search, Share, Devices, Settings, and another Start button. Not sure why there are two Start buttons available at all times, but there they are. The search function is Metro-fied and works well, but it's not universal--you have to tell it whether you're looking for an app, a setting, or a file. Mac OS X's universal search "Spotlight" is better, I think, but this works pretty well.

Tablet users, I imagine, will stay pretty much entirely in Metro. It's just right for touch-based interaction on a small screen. But desktop users will be just the opposite: you might look at the weather app in Metro, or use the Metro calendar, or maybe check your email (though the email app has some issues; read more below in the "apps" section), but I can't imagine a desktop user wanting to use, say, a Twitter or instant-message app in Metro. For one thing, you'd have to keep leaping between your desktop and Metro, which is kind of jarring (Alt-Tab includes both Metro and regular windows apps)--even more than heavily using widgets on Mac OS or gadgets in Windows 7, and those are nowhere near as involved as Metro apps. For another, Metro apps are designed to be super lightweight and speedy and simple. That's fine for some stuff, but the email app is basically a touchscreen email app--if I'm using a desktop computer, with a keyboard and mouse and an ugly black tower filled with space-age components, why wouldn't I just use an email app like Thunderbird, or even a web-based client like Gmail, both of which are more powerful, flexible, and better suited for keyboard-and-mouse use than Metro's email app? 

Given that this is a preview and not a finished product, it's expected that there's a very limited number of Metro apps. There's no Twitter app, no Facebook. The only IM client is Microsoft's own, which doesn't support Google Chat or AIM, only Facebook and Windows Live Messenger (good for 14-year-olds and Europeans, respectively, but I am neither). There are a few simple games, and the Xbox app has some interesting possibilities--looks like you'll be able to send videos to your Xbox 360 in addition to the expected access to Xbox settings and friends.

The email app is super pretty, as is basically everything in Metro, but it's also super simple. When I'm on a desktop, I can't imagine using this app over a regular email program or a decent web app. There's not enough room left for the actual message, not enough controls, not enough information on the screen, compared to the alternatives.

The calendar app is excellent, much cleaner and simpler than previous Windows calendars or even Apple's iCal, with its silly digital leather stitching. The music app is far too basic for desktop use--I have a keyboard and mouse, why do I need to scroll through a billion giant thumbnails? (The Music and Video apps are tied in pretty thoroughly with the formerly-named Zune store.) On the other hand, the photos app is simple, but works nicely--I like having a simple photo app that just shows me my photos. It's not going to replace Picasa, which has much more robust uploading and editing and management tools, but to just take a look through some photos? Great.

There haven't been any real major changes to the "normal" part of Windows 8. Windows Explorer is still Windows Explorer. There are some slight granular differences in the menu bars and things like that, but nothing will really be shocking to anyone who's used Windows 7. The Start icon is gone from the taskbar, but otherwise it looks exactly the same--you right-click on any app in the "all apps" section of Metro, and hit "Pin to taskbar" to stick it right there. All of those great Windows 7 previews are still here, so you can hover over the items on the taskbar for a preview and things like that.

Internet Explorer does not suck. I'm as surprised as anyone. It's pretty and fast and minimal. It doesn't have a killer feature like Firefox's scores of extensions or Chrome's search bar, but it does not deserve scorn, which is high praise for this particular dinosaur of a program.

The Control Panel is still confusing as all hell. You can use the new "PC Settings" area in Metro for basic stuff--accounts, personalization, notifications, updates--but it's a pretty shallow set of options for a desktop, and you'll definitely have to close your eyes and plunge your arm into the toilet of Control Panel at some point. Microsoft promises that they've vastly cut down on the quantity and incomprehensibility of error messages, but as I didn't see any, I can't vouch for that.Or can I?

All of my Windows 7 programs worked. Actually everything seemed to work a little better than before--maybe it's just that Metro is so ridiculously smooth and fast, but the whole computer felt snappier than I remembered Windows 7 ever being. (For reference, I'm using a few-years-old Dell desktop with 8GB of memory and a triple-core AMD Phenom processor--faster than your average workstation, but by no means a speed beast. As a side note, I had to dig it out of my closet, where it was entirely covered with dust, and plug it into my HDTV, because I no longer have a monitor, so all things Metro seem impossibly bold and bright. I tried to install it via both Boot Camp and Parallels on a Macbook Pro, hoping to try out some multitouch, but had no luck in getting it to run in any reasonable way. This will probably change soon.)

I like Windows 8 a lot! But it's important to remember that while Windows 8 is a huge, game-changing step for tablets, in the desktop world it'll be more like the step from Snow Leopard to Lion on Mac OS. It brings a whole bunch of tablet ideas, but it's still a desktop OS, and it's really not as different from the previous version as it sounds or looks at first. And, by the way, Windows 8 is going to freak the hell out of a lot of people--Metro is the first thing you see, and you'll keep going back to it for settings and launching apps and things like that, and it looks like Microsoft burned Windows to the ground and built a new OS out of neon construction paper and a T-square. But it's really not a huge deal--desktop users will treat Metro like the fanciest, best Start menu/app launcher there ever was. And it is, too; Metro's changes are infinitely more modern and welcome than Lion's weird, useless iPad-like app launcher and all the other mobile-inspired ideas Apple crammed into the latest version.

I have no hesitation in recommending an upgrade; I've had absolutely no hiccoughs or errors after my upgrade, everything runs perfectly smooth, and Metro is, though not a gamechanger, really, really cool. Especially if you haven't played with other Metro products like the new Xbox homescreen or Windows Phone, it'll be a shock--but after you figure out what Metro is and what it isn't, it'll be just fine. Better, even.

You can download the Windows 8 Consumer Preview from Microsoft here, for free. It'll expire in late 2013.

Despite operating within the profit-driven world of consumer technology, Apple has often maintained a distinctly rebellious public persona. Launched by two former telephone hackers Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak (in addition to Ronald Wayne), Apple forged their own path by ignoring the status quo and offering such innovations as the first widespread GUI and desktop publishing software which was easy for anyone to use.

As Apple lost a series of running battles with Microsoft over market share and the company faced a number of vicissitudes, Apple embraced their underdog status and turned their near destruction into a rallying cry. Never had a technology company made financial disaster seem so cool and owning an Apple computer could feel like being part of an exclusive club. However, as Steve Jobs and co guided Apple back from the brink to renewed success, there is a perception that perhaps they lost something of their free-thinking spirit along the way, that Apple have become part of the establishment which they once so gleefully ignored.

Consider the following piece of text taken from the ‘Crazy Ones’ poster as part of the Think Different campaign of around fifteen years ago.

"Here’s to the crazy ones. The misfits. The rebels. The troublemakers. The round pegs in the square holes. The ones who see things differently. They’re not fond of rules. And they have no respect for the status quo. You can quote them, disagree with them, glorify or vilify them. About the only thing you can’t do is ignore them. Because they change things. They push the human race forward. While some may see them as the crazy ones, we see genius. Because the people who are crazy enough to think they can change the world, are the ones who do. "

This was more than mere marketing spiel and though brash advertisements have often been seen something of a tradition at Apple, the text makes a rather bold statement in itself about the kind of company who would pursue such an advertising campaign – with all due respect to the firms in question, it’s hard to imagine such values being extolled by Microsoft or Hewlett-Packard, for example.

Now let’s contrast this with the almost maniacal control wielded over designers, developers and even users in Apple’s iOS App Store – there are no misfits, troublemakers or round pegs to be found on an iPhone, though there is a boatload of fantastic software to be sure. Clearly Apple have either had a change of heart, or perhaps the rebel act was just that, an act?

In the past, Apple acted like the underdog because they were the underdog and in a typically gutsy move, they embraced this. However, while those working at Apple back then will have genuinely (and rightly) considered themselves outsiders in a world dominated by beige PC’s, I’d argue that this was more of a means to an end than any inherent desire to be cast as in the role of a rebel of computing.

We can see Apple’s aims toward putting their computers and devices into as many hands as possible when considering their efforts to popularize the first widespread GUI and we can also detect it in Apple’s admirable work toward making OS X accessible for all people, regardless of physical abilities. iOS is merely an evolution of this, a form of hassle free computing, without the worry of malware or complex decisions on the user’s part. The question is not if Apple has grabbed hold of the controls, because they most certainly have, but if they’re using their new power effectively.

In the pursuit of technological greatness, Apple is steadily growing into a more controlling company, increasingly concerned with the content their users are digesting and keen to keep a clean platform fit for all. Never exactly an open platform to begin with, Apple’s computers and devices have become steadily more closed – though at the same time, have also become that much more compelling to use. Whether the tradeoff is worth it is a matter of opinion, though I’d personally be inclined toward thinking it is, so long as OS X doesn’t go the way of iOS and become completely closed, which seems exceedingly unlikely.

Apple has certainly moved away from the rebellious attitude it once had and evolved from the role of plucky rebel to caring big brother, but the negative connotations of this have been mitigated by Apple’s will to wield their new influence and position to change the way we all interact with technology, which, in its own way, is really quite revolutionary in itself.

IF HE could have done one thing to avert his plunge from front-runner for the Republican presidential nomination to also-ran, Newt Gingrich told the press on the eve of the Iowa caucuses in January, he would have “pulled the plug on Romney’s PAC”. As it was, the super PAC backing Mitt Romney, a rival candidate, spent millions on advertisements rubbishing Mr Gingrich, causing his support to wilt. This new breed of electioneering outfit, brought into being by a Supreme Court ruling in 2010, has already reshaped the presidential campaign—and its influence is only likely to grow. 

Laws passed in the 1970s in the wake of the Watergate scandal strictly limit the amount individuals and groups can give to campaigns, to $5,000 per election cycle in most instances. The intention was to eliminate gifts big enough to be seen as bribes, while still allowing candidates with broad support to raise plenty of money. But determined donors with clever lawyers have long found ways round the limit, largely by spending money through groups that are notionally independent of any campaign and concerned with “issues” rather than elections. Thus in 2004 admirers of George W. Bush spent millions to depict his Democratic opponent, John Kerry, as a cowardly subversive—and fatally damaged him.


Was this legal? One of the outfits behind Mr Kerry’s tarring was fined. In 2010, however, in the name of free speech, the Supreme Court not only declared this sort of electioneering legitimate, but also freed unions and businesses to engage in it along with individuals. As long as they are independent of all parties and candidates, super PACs can raise unlimited sums and spend them urging the election or rejection of particular candidates.

Moreover, the Federal Election Commission (FEC) has defined independence so narrowly that it is almost meaningless. A candidate’s former staff members can (and often do) run super PACs backing them, and the candidates themselves can appear at the super PAC’s fund-raisers. When asked recently if a super PAC would run afoul of the independence rules by running ads that featured a candidate, were “fully co-ordinated” with his campaign, relied on his website for inspiration and were intended to win him re-election, the FEC could not decide. The three Democratic commissioners thought this would break the rules; the three Republicans thought not.

As a result, says Trevor Potter, a former FEC commissioner, PACs have become “wings of the campaigns”. In fact, in some respects, they overshadow the campaigns. The super PACs promoting the four remaining Republican presidential contenders raised more money in January than the campaigns themselves did. They also have more cash on hand, and less debt. Barack Obama, meanwhile, has stopped discouraging outside spending on his behalf, and now says he will send cabinet secretaries to fund-raisers for his super PAC.

Most of the presidential super PACs rely on a handful of extremely wealthy individuals. Mr Obama’s received $2m from Jeffrey Katzenberg, a Hollywood mogul. A vast share of the money given to Mr Gingrich’s comes from the family of Sheldon Adelson, a casino tycoon. William Dore, an oil-services magnate, and Foster Friess, a wealthy mutual-fund manager, are the principal donors to Rick Santorum’s. Ron Paul also has a wealthy benefactor in the form of Peter Thiel, one of the founders of PayPal, an online-payments firm. Mr Romney has many well-heeled backers—97% of donations to his super PAC were of $25,000 or more.

Sudden dollops of cash from such donors have helped revive dying campaigns. Mr Gingrich’s prospects improved enormously when the Adelsons stumped up $5m for his super PAC just ahead of South Carolina’s primary. That money was chiefly spent bashing Mr Romney, who promptly began to slide in the polls, paving the way for Mr Gingrich’s subsequent victory. By the same token, Mr Friess’s largesse is widely seen as having salvaged the campaign of Mr Santorum, the current front-runner, during a fallow period.

In theory, super PACs must reveal who their donors are. But the requirement is easy to evade. One businessman who gave $1m to Mr Romney’s super PAC did so through a shell corporation which disbanded shortly after the donation was made. It was only when NBC News revealed the manoeuvre that he identified himself.

Another tactic involves giving money to an outfit classified by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) as a 501(c)(4). These groups, whose main purpose is supposed to be “social welfare” rather than electoral politics, do not have to disclose their donors. In practice, the IRS seems to take a rather lax view of what constitutes electioneering. American Crossroads, the biggest Republican super PAC, and an affiliated 501(c)(4) together spent more than $70m during the mid-term elections in 2010.

The super PAC backing Barack Obama’s re-election, meanwhile, has an affiliated 501(c)(4) of its own. A related provision of the tax code allows chambers of commerce and other industry groups to spend money on politics without disclosing their donors, provided they are not explicitly promoting or discouraging a particular candidate’s election—another stricture easily overleapt by crafty lawyers.

Business advocates and other “outside groups” are much more likely to get involved in congressional races than rather the presidential one, argues Anthony Corrado of Colby College, since their money is likely to carry more weight in less expensive contests. As it is, in 2010, when super PACs were in their infancy, spending by outsiders on congressional races exceeded that by the political parties. In fact, it more than doubled compared with 2008, to $280m. Outside spending in general has grown massively in recent years, and is on track to hit another record this year (see chart). 

Almost all that money goes toward negative advertisements, notes Mr Corrado, and whereas almost all of it used to be devoted to the general election, some is now seeping into primaries. The result, he says, will be to further polarise politics. Parties are keen to build majorities, after all, so are relatively tolerant of the occasional ideological lapse; outside groups are not.

Others, including John McCain, a former Republican presidential candidate and champion of campaign-finance reform, say the profusion of super PACs will inevitably lead to a scandal of some sort. The Supreme Court blithely dismissed that idea in 2010, arguing that independent spending, by definition, is not corrupt, and that the risk of corruption was not sufficient grounds for curbing free speech.

Many Democrats, including Mr Obama, want a constitutional amendment to limit spending on campaigns. Tom Udall, a Democratic senator from New Mexico, has proposed one, but it has almost no chance. A bill that would have required 501(c)(4)s to disclose their donors narrowly failed in the last Congress, but its chances have become bleaker since the Republicans picked up so many seats in 2010. As for the FEC, it is too stuck in partisan gridlock to tighten its own rules.

Many Republicans resist reform in part because they see super PACs as a possible counterweight to Mr Obama’s overwhelming fund-raising advantage in 2008. By the same token, Democratic incumbents hugely outspent Republican challengers in 2010; the Republicans could only compete thanks to outside spending. Far from usurping the democratic process and narrowing voters’ options, super PACs are actually adding to them, argues Bradley Smith, another former FEC commissioner.

But the current muddle also endures because there is little agreement about what should replace it. The system that prevailed before the Supreme Court blessed super PACs was just as despised, Mr Smith points out. Some see improved transparency as a guard against corruption; others think only more all-encompassing fund-raising limits will do. There are those, including Mr Romney, who believe that campaigns and parties should be free to raise and spend unlimited amounts just like everyone else. And to defend each of these points of view, there will doubtless soon be a super PAC.

BioShock is a survival horror first-person shooter video game developed by 2K Boston (now known as Irrational Games) and designed by Ken Levine.

Set in an alternate 1960, the game puts the player in the role of a plane crash survivor named Jack, who must explore the underwater city of Rapture, and survive attacks by the mutated beings and mechanical drones that populate it. The game incorporates elements found in role-playing video game and survival games, and is described by the developers and Levine as a "spiritual successor" to their previous titles in the System Shock series. The game received overwhelmingly positive reviews, which praised its "morality-based" storyline, immersive environment and its unique setting, inspired by Objectivist philosophy and rhetoric.

Title: Bioshock 
Uploader: @Nahu3_l 
Links: 31 of 195mb and 1 of 170mb aprox. 
Server: Mediafire 
Pass: "Nahu3_l"

How to install:
1º - Unrar. Use the pass.
2º - Double click setup.exe and install.
3º -After the installation , the game shortcut will be in your desktop.
4º - Play!

Title: Bioshock  2
Uploader: @Nahu3_l 
Links:  37 of 195mb and 1 of 170mb aprox.  
Server: Mediafire 
Pass: "Nahu3_l" 

How to install:
1º - Unrar. Use the pass.
2º - Double click setup.exe and install.
3º - Copy the content from the "Crack" folder (2 folders , SP and MP) and paste them in the installation root.
4º - Double click "Bioshock2launcher.exe"  (Local Disc C /2kGames / Bioshock / SP / Builds / Binaries )
4º - Play! 

It’s difficult not to talk about Limbo’s artistic vision in hushed reverie. It’s horrible, but startlingly pretty. A 2D puzzle-platformer built in black. The boy you control has a twee outline, all floppy hair and short trousers. Fill in that outline with colour and a toothy grin and he would fit right in with the Bash Street Kids. Here, he’s filled with dark nothingness, punctured only with searing white pinprick eyes.

The boy’s task? To find his sister. That’s all you need to know. There is no back story, no dialogue or cutscenes. Just the drive to push on through the shifting mists and silhouettes of the game’s environments and puzzles.

What’s brilliant about Limbo is developer PlayDead’s refusal to let the art style become a crutch. It’s unfathomably striking, but its shadows are cast to horrify and misdirect in the context of play. Part of the grand puzzle is figuring just what lies ahead, to the right of the screen. This is what makes Limbo so unsettling; tree branches that twitch and flail, before impaling you with a gruesome thud that shatters the pervasive silence; snatches of ground that look like buttons to activate the giant crushers above, but don’t quite behave as you’d expect. It’s a world built to confound you at every turn, where nothing is quite as it seems.

And Playdead take such macabre pleasure in twisting and torturing the player. You’ll die a lot in Limbo. And you’ll die horribly. The boy is a flimsy rag doll, cut to ribbons on whirring buzzsaws, gored by spikes or squashed like an accordion when tumbling into a deep pit. It’s darkly comic too; finally solving a puzzle to reach that zip line, only to speed straight into a wall of spikes is grotesquely funny. It’s a joke that Playdead never tire of. It should get old, but it doesn’t, the promise of progression and generous checkpointing keeping the game light and manageable through even its most oppressive moments. And just because death comes often doesn’t make it meaningless, with every boy’s demise greeted with a grimace or nervous laugh. 

Trial-and-error makes up a large chunk of Limbo, a game where death isn’t just likely but often a prerequisite to understand the mechanics of a puzzle. But these Sisyphean tasks delight more than they frustrate. Most are fiendishly clever without being obtuse (besides the times when they are deliberately so) and the satisfaction comes in pulling each apart piece by piece. They’re tremendously varied too; some play with perception, while others see fit to flip gravity. There’s a cornucopia of puzzles that run through the game’s short but perfectly formed running time of around four hours. And underpinning them all is good old-fashioned twitch platforming, with you manoeuvring the boy; jumping, moving crates, and swinging across bottomless ravines. So while all the puzzles are driven by the physics at the core of the game, there’s no central theme to tie them together. 

Which, outside of that art style, is true of Limbo as a whole. The opening half is incessantly creepy, burrowing into your mind, unsettling you with the suffocating air of death and decay. Corpses crumpled into corners bathed in an almost heavenly pool of light. Shudder. Press on. The puzzling isn’t greatly taxing here, but it’s the game at its most morbid and visually intoxicating. The boy eventually moves on to more industrial climes, wherein the puzzles are given more room to breathe. Here, your mind is bended more than your soul, but with it comes a noticeable dip in atmosphere.

Other complaints are more mundane. Some puzzles can be overly fiddly, rather than a test of brainpower. This is when frustration seeps in, fuelled by occasionally pernickety platforming. This is rare, however, with the majority of tasks on your journey set with due deference to Limbo’s strengths and limitations; a triumph of craft.

Limbo is a game that cheerfully deals in oxymoron, its awful beauty framing macabre humour. But for all its disparate elements, for all the varied puzzles and shifts in tone, there lies a game of a single, unwavering vision. When lost in Limbo, the seams become invisible, washed out in a bewitching blend of darkness and light. And with the end comes a harrowing realisation, one that will have you reaching for ‘Start New Game’ the minute the credits stop rolling. That’s Limbo all over, a game that drives you to try and try again; an integral part of its dreadful brilliance. 

http://www.mediafire.com/?5v05s95xi03fgf2 
RAR Password: byjosep 

We all love to paint the town red; whether it’s fast-flowing drinks or easy women you’re after (or both), there’s nothing quite as brilliant as a night out on the town with your closest buddies. However, sometimes a trip to your local spit-and-sawdust bar just doesn’t cut the mustard -- after all, there’s only a certain amount of times you can chat up the same barmaid, play the same pool table and listen to the same faulty jukebox. Yes, sometimes a trip further afield is the only way to get the party truly started, which is why we’ve compiled a list of the top 10 nightlife cities across the globe, from Miami to London.

Included for their array of nightlife hot spots, their up-for-it locals, their late-night last calls and their excellent après-party transportation systems, we couldn’t think of a better way to spend a boys-only weekend then in these top-notch nightlife cities.

We said we’d bring you the top 10 nightlife cities, but we never said all of them would be classy. The mother ship for spring-breakers everywhere, Cabo San Lucas, on Mexico’s southern tip, is where young revelers from across the world come to gyrate against each other, down tequila shots and sleep in their own pools of puke. Party animals should head to downtown Cabo, where the heady mix of sun, surf and sand lowers inhibitions from dusk 'til dawn. Check out El Squid Roe or Sammy Hagar’s Cabo Wabo Cantina for live music before carrying on the night at the Giggling Martin or Rio Grill. Tanked-up and ready to dance, finish the night at the provocatively titled Body Shot, Cabo’s largest nightclub, where you’ll rub shoulders with the likes of Tommy Lee and Pamela Anderson.

What was once crushed by communism has now risen from the ashes to become a mecca of glorious hedonism, with high-rollers from across the globe descending on spire-laden Moscow to splash the cash on vodka and other sinful things. While you may need to dress to the nines in Moscow due to the strict face-control policy on many of its nightclub doors, once you’re past the velvet ropes it all becomes worth it. Head to Fabrique first, where you’ll be able to soak up the slick décor from the on-site restaurant before moving onto the dance-floor for a full-on club experience.

If you get bored -- though we highly doubt that will happen -- move on to Club First, which is where Roman Abramovich and his hard-partying pals like to kick back. If you’ve enjoyed a night of debauchery and still can’t find the woman of your dreams, head over to Doll’s, Moscow’s high-end strip club, to watch a harem of Russian beauties shake their "thangs." With every club in Moscow packed with sharp-suited businessmen and six-foot blond model look-alikes, this certainly isn’t what you’re used to.

They call it the city that never sleeps for a reason; open 24-hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year, New York’s throbbing nightlife will never run out of, um, throb. Whether it’s Sex and the City-style cocktail bars you’re after on the Upper East Side or Coyote Ugly-esque dives in the meatpacking district, you’re sure to find New York one of the most diverse clubbing capitals in America. The birthplace of disco, famed for clubs like Studio 54 and Bungalow 8, New York is where the party originally began. For the loudest clubs and hippest bars in the city hail a yellow cab to downtown, but if you’re looking for live music or jazz, bar-crawl between hole-in-the-wall bars in the East Village.

It’s not all about the clubs and bars in Manhattan either; here, sophistication is key, and much of the partying takes place in super-sized restaurants, where drinks turn into dinner and dinner turns into dancing. What’s more, when you don’t feel like plying yourself with alcohol, you could always take in one of the dazzling shows at Times Square -- there’s always something showing. While there may be an air of arrogance and a "you’re not good enough" attitude about New York’s nightlife, it wouldn’t be New York without a few bouncers telling you "no." 

The Irish know how to drink (just ask bad-boy actor, Colin Farrell), so it’s hardly surprising that their capital, Dublin, is also the capital of Ireland’s party scene. While it’s certainly not cheap, you’ll get a lot of Guinness for your Euro, that’s for sure. Head to the appropriately named Temple Bar area for hundreds of pre-club bars and pubs, such as the Temple Bar Pub and Doheny & Nesbitt, where you’ll mingle with burly rugby team members necking as much ale as they can get down their gullets. You’ll also be able to jig to traditional Irish music, mimicking the wonderful dancing exhibited by Jack and Rose in Titanic.

If you like something a little more civilized, Dublin’s probably not for you, but seeing as you’re here already, head to the Octagon bar tucked inside the Clarence Hotel or the No27 bar at the Shelbourne. Here you’ll be able to sip on stylish cocktails without being dragged into an unbecoming drinking game.   

Driven by the fickle natures of fashion and celebrity, Miami’s hot spots are as interchangeable as the weather. What’s hot one week might not be the next, but revelers are guaranteed that there’ll always be somewhere fabulous to cut loose and kick back with a mojito or two. With Art Deco clad to every façade, a distinct Latin vibe pulsing out of speakers and more expensive pouts and poses than on Victoria Beckham’s face, South Beach is where the jet set go wild until their well-heeled feet can’t take it anymore.

One of the most long-standing hot spots is Skybar, which sits pretty in the Shore Club hotel and comprises four equally sumptuous bars (usually propped up by famous faces). If you’re feeling the cool factor, you may also want to check out places like Nikki Beach or Mansion, where you can rub shoulders with A-list chums until the wee hours. Extravagant and exotic (thanks to its proximity to Cuba), they certainly don’t call it Miami Vice for nothing.

While Brits are known for their stiff upper lips, there’s nothing remotely stiff about clubbing in London (apart from the numerous members standing at attention at superclub G.A.Y., of course). From the fashionable haunts of Mayfair to the rough ‘n’ ready pubs of Camden, London is rampant with those with an appetite for a good time. If you’re on the hunt for local celebrities, head to Boujis in swish South Kensington, the favorite club of British princes William and Harry. While the discreet members-only venue may be one of the hardest places in the city to gain access to, inside is a world of high-earning splendor, with hedge-fund managers clinking champagne flutes with couture-clad society girls. If you're bounced back at the entrance, head to the equally fabulous Mahiki or Cuckoo Club, both of which omit the same hedonistic vibe.

If you like your bars with a few more rough edges, however, Dr. Dre's favorite hangout, The Hawley Arms in Camden, may be just the ticket (just make sure you’ve had your jabs before entering). Finally, if you want a taste of Vegas in the British capital, check out The Casino at The Empire in Leicester Square, where you’ll be able to enjoy fine dining, expertly mixed drinks and the best damn poker tables this side of the pond, James Bond-style.

You wouldn’t think it to look at it, but behind Amsterdam’s beautiful architecture lies a city of complete and utter sin. Whether it’s the drug-filled cakes on offer at the cozy bars and cafes that line the streets or the women-for-rent on display in the windows of the Red Light District, the Dutch capital has become a top destination for strictly adult-only entertainment. Here the drink is strong (most beer is around 5%), the women are easy and, more significantly, the drugs are legal. What more could any night owl want from a trip to Europe? For cocktails and designer décor head to the packed-out bars around Wolvenstraat and Leidseplein, but if local ales and wood-paneled bars are more your thing, you’ll be better suited to the venues in Zeedijk. 

Sex is brought out of bedrooms and onto the streets in Brazil’s heady capital, where horizontal dancing can often be seen taking place in some of the city’s darkest clubs -- if you look hard enough. Full of passion, soul and spirit, Rio’s party season doesn’t stop when the annual carnival does; the idea here is to flirt, dance and drink year-round, all with as little money as possible. While there are certainly nightclubs to feed your social addiction -- if not a little scattered about -- Rio’s nightlife tends to revolve around street parties, smaller bars in squares and plazas and gatherings on the beach, such as the famous Copacabana. Of course, if you do crave hip hangouts rather than plastic chairs and tables set in streets, head to the upscale area of Ipanema. More about getting laid than getting blind drunk, the sexy Brazilian women sure know how to have a good time with their caipirinhas and innate sense of cool.

Those who like their clubbing fast-paced, frenzied and frenetic will love Ibiza, an illuminated Balearic Island that sits just off the coast of Spain. Renowned for the world-famous DJs who flock here every summer to play its clubs, and for its party-goers who spend most of their week-long holidays in Ecstasy- and alcohol-induced hazes, Ibiza certainly isn’t for the faint-hearted. Nevertheless, the island itself is a natural beauty, with long stretches of beach, rustic architecture and more U.N. World Heritage sites than revelers can spoil. Space, Pacha, Privilege, and Amnesia are among some of the island’s most famous clubs, and are perfect for trance lovers looking to sweat ‘n’ sway until noon the next day. For those who like their clubbing experience just a little bit more serene, Ibiza also offers chill-out bars, such as the iconic Café del Mar, where you can watch the sun set behind the shimmering Mediterranean. Spread across Ibiza Town and San Antoni, Ibiza has become the European capital of getting up to no good.  

The undisputed No. 1 nightlife city, Las Vegas has become the go-to place for raucous bachelor parties across the world. Whether it’s drinking, gambling or stripping you’re after, you’ll find every sinful whim catered for somewhere along The Strip -- a glorious stretch of neon-lit hotels, casinos and clubs in the heart of the Nevada Desert. Highly recommended is The Palm, where you can relax in the Playboy Suite before heading down to the casino for a flutter and partying it up at the hotel’s celebrity-filled Ghostbar or Rain nightclub. Oozing tacky glamor and flamboyant Elton John-approved style, Las Vegas is the place to get your wallet (and any body part you want) sucked completely dry. A debauched, guilt-ridden, gilt-edged trip is guaranteed. Just remember, with sex tapes and incriminating photos now popular forms of blackmail, what happens in Vegas doesn’t always stay in Vegas…

When you need to have a blowout, there are no better cities on earth than the ones above to do it in. Whether it’s chill-out hangouts you’re looking for or four-floor superclubs pumping hardcore raves, you’re sure to find the kind of party you’re looking for. Disco’s back, baby, and you’re the star of the dance floor.