Disagree. In order to keep those keys secure they can’t publish them, so they’ll have to license some sort of decryption chip. That just pushes the price up as some manufacturer ends up taking a cut from every player sale.
Also means you can’t do what you want with it. You probably can’t play it on an open source device. Etc etc.
I won’t. “Copy protection” is much more about restricting and potentially even removing your access to something you’ve paid for than it is about preventing copying. I am not willing to buy something that can be revoked when alternatives are available.
I know, I modified it to make more sense for video.
I know. I changed the terms. Pray I don’t change them further.
Someone go make Steam for videos and I’ll pay for media again. My stipulations are:
Guaranteed they’d find a way to double dip. Price gouging, restricting content behind further paywalls, adding ads anyway… absolutely they’ve investigated all those and undoubtedly more.
Switch to Firefox, Chrome is their biggest lever to force this kind of stuff onto people. While Firefox exists and it remains uncool for them to block it they’ll have to compete against piracy and adblockers which will limit their ability to aggressively monetise.
Switch to firefox!
It’s pretty common for corporate stuff (legal or otherwise) to start with no payment changing hands, just a contract. Then an invoice lands either monthly or on completion afterwards.
That makes it easier for the work to actually start (otherwise you need to engage the finance dept up front and they’re often slow), and once the contract is signed and the work started that’s the sales process complete.
deleted by creator
One gold upvote costs $2, the recipient might get either $0.90 or perhaps $1. But most likely they’ll get nothing.
So Reddit is now a camgirl site, but instead of weird simps paying girls to show their tits it’s weird simps paying other weird simps to… post shit?
This seems like a bad idea.
But Steam doesn’t have a monopoly. There’s Epic and GOG and whatever Origin’s called now and probably others. They’re all free to exist, Valve doesn’t do anything to stifle competition, and even lets other companies sell games that start their launcher from Steam.
The only thing you have to lose by using a different system is that it’s probably not as good.
All they’ve done is produce a really fucking exemplary product and it’s become really popular because it’s honestly just good. The second it stops being good or Valve stop being awesome there’s plenty of alternative ways to buy games that I’m sure will be there to replace it.
But for now… it’s pretty good.
Isn’t the “take it or leave it” approach to consent considered consent bundling? Didn’t google get fined for doing a similar thing?
Hotmail was 2mb.
Yet more evidence that aggressive adblocking is cyber security.
Surely those broadcasters will pull their streams (it’s not like they’re not already hurting), FireTV will get a reputation of having restricted access to broadcast TV, some people will live with it and some will buy a smart TV and not worry about Amazon any more…
The issue with pugs is not that they’re evil or bad creatures, it’s that humans have selectively bred them for their looks, but that’s lead to the animals suffering because their breeding means they have massive problems with breathing, their knees, spine, eyes, etc. That’s unfair on the animal.
It’s like saying we want to eliminate genetic diseases like Down’s syndrome or Haemophilia. Nobody’s saying individuals with those conditions are bad, it’s that we don’t think people should be born with conditions that give them a worse life.
Now for dogs it’s a bit more complicated because those conditions are afflicted upon them by us purely for aesthetics, and if dogs are banned that inevitably leads to some being killed which isn’t very fair on those animals, but if we can’t find a way to reverse the worst aspects of their breeding is the only way we can prevent further suffering.
Well the black market doesn’t exist because it’s not legal to own a pitbull - as you say, who wants a dog they can’t take outside?
My point is if you ban breeding but you don’t ban owning the dog then you risk creating that black market.
The problem with “don’t ban them but don’t let them breed more” and allow people that have one to just carry on is you just create a potentially lucrative black market for these dogs (in fact you doing that might make them more sought after), which doesn’t actually fix any problems.
Not necessarily advocating killing animals because they’re inconvenient but ultimately if they’re going to be a problem (and it certainly seems like that’s the case) then the sooner they’re banned the less harm is inflicted overall.
I write Perl at work. Supporting an actively developed Perl based application.
It’s honestly not that bad as a language, the biggest downside is that the ecosystem of libraries around it are often abandoned or outdated. The language isn’t perfect and it needs a bit of discipline to avoid creating unreadable code, but honestly it’s not as bad as its reputation might have you believe.
It has quite a few tricks and unexpected bits of flexibility that make it quite a bit more expressive than other languages - you can really craft nice compact, elegant code with it if you want to.
These days I use other languages too (Python, Ruby, JS, etc) but none of them quite match Perl for expressiveness.
Oh also it’s great for oneliners. That expressiveness can be abused for brevity in some really interesting ways.
Yeah I’m not paying for something and it still be illegal. I’d rather stick to piracy. I get your point and if it works for you that’s cool. But it’s not for me.
A good usenet setup with the Arr stack can automatically download basically anything you want and costs tens of dollars per year to run with very little, if any risk. (have there been any prosecutions for people downloading from usenet?)
With a little bit of work and an old computer for a server you can basically run your own automated piracy streaming service.