https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Highly suspect, at least.

Uplay integrates into their games, and it's their DRM/game platform thing. They don't use Steamworks, which is Steam's DRM system, they just make a release on Steam because a lot of people prefer that platform. But it just uses Steam for distribution, their DRM system is still Uplay, which is why you need to log into it.

Well, I am a pirate. And I bought the game, and even all the DLC shit for it: roughly about a $95 purchase after tax. So they're not far off. I just generally use piracy as a means of figuring out which games are or are not worth my money. But with Watch_Dogs, I'd been following it since it was revealed and I've been planning to buy it since about as long.

Also Uplay used to be buggy, but I haven't had any problems with it lately, and I do like their "micro-DLC" system as someone I know called it. You do stuff in the games (mostly just play them to completion, though there are usually one or two challenges you need to complete) and you can unlock stuff. Usually nothing major, I think AC2 had a wallpaper, some costumes, and an interesting DLC mission (that was probably the best reward I've seen from it), Watch_Dogs has an avatar, I think a wallpaper, and some unlockable items/a vehicle. I think Far Cry 3: Blood Dragon had a skin for your profile and some music, but I don't remember. It's a neat system that rewards you for actually playing your games more than just having achievements (which also exist), and I like it enough that I buy Uplay-native games on the Uplay platform instead of Steam because I like to support it and Ubisoft/Uplay haven't sufficiently pissed me off to avoid them.

There was some weirdness with my payment (their system double-charges you before revoking the second charge for whatever reason), but the guy on the phone was friendly enough (hour and a half queue though).

Just a reminder that calls within the US are free through Gmail's voice and video plugin thing (which doesn't work with 64-bit browsers because reasons). I don't even bother with a cell, since I'm already at a computer most of the day anyway.

That's the exact same for me with my face but the exact opposite with my hair. If I wash my face with soap or shampoo, I get acne problems. If I DON'T wash my hair with shampoo, I get all sorts of scalp problems, presumably from the excess of oil. It's worse when it's longer, slightly better when it's shorter.

I think most of us here agree with the EFF's mission, but we don't really know what to do aside from donate to the EFF to help. What would be the most important thing that we can do to help change things for the better?

No, fuck that. Forking is awesome. When the people managing a project, he mentions GNOME, that's a good example, when those people get their heads too far up their asses and no longer serve the interests of the people who actually USE their software, forking lets us take back control by making an entirely new project without their shitty management. Is he really arguing that projects like MATE and Cinnamon are somehow bad things? Because a substantial number of users would disagree, and many developers, too.

Likewise, OpenSSL is a huge mess. The folks at OpenBSD have a track record of doing shit right and making it very secure (some would say to a fault, but this is supposed to be core software used to secure nearly every web server on the internet, I don't think there's such a thing as "too secure"). Their philosophy is perfect for a project like this, and I think their OpenSSL fork, if it ever branches out from being OpenBSD-specific, will probably be a lot better than the original.

Obviously, forking has other uses, as well. Sometimes someone just wants to take the software in a different direction that's outside of the scope of the original project. That's perfectly fine. I don't know if he's implying that's a bad thing, but if he is, fuck that. He's wrong.

I agree with his overall philosophy that GNU/Linux has some good and some bad shit about it. That's to be expected, it's not perfect, and we absolutely do need to acknowledge the suckage. But forking is a good thing, not part of that suckage, and it pisses me off that he would even insinuate that it's a bad thing. Now, the fact that things so often get to the point where forking is necessary, that is most definitely suckage.

Keep in mind Google Voice and Video won't work with 64-bit Pale Moon. Learned this from experience; spent a considerable while trying to figure out why it wouldn't work before I pinpointed that as the problem. I keep a portable 32-bit install handy just for making voice calls in Gmail.

In the US, at least, there are a lot of weird laws on the books that are unenforced and largely forgotten.

Then it's irrelevant to what's being suggested, or at least how I interpreted it. What he's suggesting is that, if it comes down to an option where someone's going to get hurt regardless, the vehicle should opt to protect the driver. Obviously, in other situations, it should do both when that option is available.

Maybe that's the best solution, really. Is it the vehicle manufacturer's job to play moral philosopher? They're just trying to sell a useful product, and the most useful behavior in that regard is to do whatever benefits the owner the most. Of course, if your ex-wife is trying to run you down with your car, it may not be able to detect that...

A slightly different take...

It was Bjarne himself who said that there are two kinds of programming languages: those everyone complains about, and those that nobody uses.

I'm sure that was said more or less as a joke, but it rubs me the wrong way. The basic suggestion here is that no language that reaches sufficient usage is going to be without its problems. That's fair, but I'm reading from it an implication that the criticism is purely due to its popularity, and that's not fair. There are a lot of problems with C++; some are fixable, some are too inherent in the design to be fixed. A lot of what could be fixed has been, and that's fantastic, but there's still plenty of room for legitimate criticism that has nothing to do with hating what's popular.

Regarding languages that "nobody uses," that doesn't necessarily say anything about their quality; some things just don't take off for whatever confluence of reasons. It remains to be seen whether D specifically will or will not, but from what I understand, it is very well-designed and avoids a lot of the design issues present in C++. That's really cool if true and I'm looking forward to seeing if those claims hold up.

On the other hand, the people behind it seem to be pretty active and passionate about it, which is a good sign.

When I'm working on any project of significance (which isn't often anymore), I tend to write in C, so what you said is about as far off-base as you can get.

I don't know why you're fanboying about a language like C++ (or any language, for that matter; being a fanboy is stupid, and that is what you're doing), but I was just airing my thoughts on the topic, which is what TFS asked for. If you can't possibly comprehend why someone would deign to suggest your glorious C++ is anything but the result of angels crying tears of code, here's one perspective on some of its issues; it's certainly not the only one of its kind (but it's more in-depth and better-written than anything I'd come up with in a comment on /.).