I really hope, people are going to re-upload all those C64 and Amiga demos that just stutter like hell in 25/30fps in their original 50/60fps glory!

That is 50% better than blindly trusting in the god of your choice.

I absolutely agree! Just in case that wasn't obvious from my posting :)

There are many known painless and very effective ways of killing a human being. For example, suffocation with Nitrogen gas. It will cause a state of euphoria, then unconsciousness, then death. No pain, dead simple (pun not intended), and 100% success rate. It's a no-brainer. Or a simple, massive overdose of pretty much any anesthetic will do. It does not take complicated mixtures. But it would mean, your convict would die "happy". And that thought would be too much to bear for the victims. The death penalty is not about justice. It is about revenge. It is designed to be gruesome, the suffering is intentional. The deliquent is no longer considered a human being, and the pig deserves to suffer. It seems to be consensus even here on slashdot.

It's all about revenge. The american people are thirsty for blood. It's a dark truth that watching people die can be very satisfying, once you've been relieved from the burden of conscience.

Well, if you want to go full-on medieval, let's do it properly and just implent the sharia. Slowly poisoning someone to death ... or stoning them. What is the difference? Yes, the stoning is the more honest option.

Let's take a brief look into the mind of the supporters of the death penality. A BBC reporter investigated a few scientifically proven humane ways to kill a human being, and offered them to Robert Blecker, Professor criminal law and constitutional law at the New York Law School: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... So, with people like these on the spearhead of the pro-death-penalty movement ... can we expect a humane death penalty?

You do realize you're talking about CD Project RED ... who run the biggest distribution system for DRM-Free games on the planet? So, yeah, obviously the original Witcher was a learning experience for them. That was fucking 7 years ago. Get over it. These people are the good guys that brought us gog.com and are just about to release a Triple-A-Title without DRM or copy protection. I mean, what the fuck are you complaining about? That they're not a charity, but an actual company of people who want to earn a living with this?

No. Next :)

Nope, the deal is exclusive, so one you've sold your soul to GEMA, your "Urheberrecht" is gone. Here's the contract: https://www.gema.de/fileadmin/...

That is only partly correct. GEMA indeed owns music written by their members. If you beome a member, you basially sign away all rights of all music you have written in the past and will ever write in the future to them. You literally no longer own your own compositions.

As a return, you get paid according to a convoluted fixed tariff system that heavily favours top-40 producers, deducts up to 80% of fees, gets paid out with up to two years of delay - and the exclusivity of the deal leads to absurd situation like artists having to pay for your own concerts.

In addition to that, GEMA also acts as a collection agency for foreign copyright organisations who have granted GEMA collection rights through IFPI.

Because skilled directors and camera operators have learned in the last 100 years of movie making history which kind of camera movements work, and painstakingly avoid those which don't work with low framerates.

I think it's only fitting, keeping in mind, that in the old Amiga/Atari days, booting directly into your games was an absolutely normal thing to do - hardware resources were scarce, and the last thing you wanted was sharing RAM and precious CPU cycles with an OS running in the background.

You could as well ask "how to deliver a vinyl record online while avoiding piracy". The answer is simple: If you want your business to survive, you don't. You should rather develop a new product that actually makes sense on the medium you are about to move your business to.

"Aren't they also losing money by working with inefficient, outdated systems?"

No, they're not, because these days, newer versions of a software are commonly less efficient than the old version.