Usually the way this works with a company that spends the time to do it right is that the Payment Gateway/Processor will store the card in perpetuity and give you a token you can reauth against. Since the token itself is useless and can be revoked, it's vastly safer, barring any issues with the Gateway/Processor/Token (Heartland....)

It also means you are somewhat locked in to using that gateway.
If you are doing a lot of volume you will also probably want to use multiple gateways and process through whoever can give you the best rate at any point in time.

Day one server issues for a AAA release??? STOP THE PRESSES!

I think it is newsworthy. While it is inevitable from a technical perspective it seems strange to me that companies (whether Apple or Rockstar) aren't more creative at managing the demand side so that people don't have a bad experience.

How about:
1) Conservatively work out how many people you expect you can serve.
2) Auction off that many "Early Access" entry tokens with the proceeds going to charity.
3) Continue to sell more tokens (again with proceeds going to charity) for the rest of the week as you find you have spare capacity and work out any bottlenecks.
4) Let everyone in.
Everyone wins. Company gets good press rather than bad, people super keen to access the content get a good experience and a charity gets some resources.

Guess that will be next year's model

Next up is the 1000 blade shaver, perfectly moulded to your face. One quick stroke and your whole face is clean shaven.

Either that or you are bleeding to death.

\c obviously

No way to "use dbname" for switching DBs inside psql - must quit and restart with different dbname

/c dbname

These clowns don't have anything more important to work on?

Of course. No doubt right now someone is drafting directions to rename the "Black Russian" to the "Black Freedom" at all congressional events.

Vote with your money

This is the crux of it, however it raises an issue that I haven't seen mentioned yet, the price of games.

It has long been argued (largely unconvincingly admittedly) that piracy "costs" developer money. If the MS DRM is shown to "work" then there is an argument to be made that the games released on both platforms should be cheaper on the Xbox (especially if the opportunity for earning more money on resale is there)? If the publishers buy into that theory and the Xbox One is cheaper to run then I think, for a lot of people, the question will become muddier. Similarly if publishers begin to see better rates of legitimate purchases on Xbox they may favour it with more exclusives (or at least release the Xbox version first).

All theory of course, but as someone who only uses a console to play games and has little time to do anything that would require more freedom than the Xbox allows the practical differences between the Xbox One and PS4 are negligible and other factors are likely to take greater sway.

I think this will be an interesting test. With the consoles releasing more or less side by side and with similar capabilities it will perhaps help show once and for all whether DRM can be done in a way that makes customers prefer it.

Less SHOUTING. Too often they seem to try and create a sense of excitement through the sole mechanism of having the Doctor get excited and shouty. I don't think it Matt Smith's fault, he does do some of the darker, more ponderous moments very well. I think the situation should be exciting in itself and the Doctor then rising above it.

It was a 'clue' for the 50th anniversary special.

There is a clear difference between a company deciding how it sells shares it currently owns in an IPO and restricting someone from buying shares from other parties.

The article isn't entirely clear though, at first glance it makes it sound like Icahn is being frozen out from buying the company, however I think his offer as far as that goes is still on the table. This agreement seems to be more about preventing a hostile takeover, ie Ichan gaining enough shares/influence in the meantime to control the process and have his offer approved with less oversight.

As it's an agreement Ichan is presumably OK with it though if you were a Dell shareholder you might be annoyed that the company has taken someone who might buy your shares out of the market for a while.

Awesomely creepy!

Ie is there a practical difference between 30%, 50% and 90% of people's browsers being exploitable with a particular exploit? In any case it a phenomenally large number of people.

And you have never copied files from one device to the other.

He does, he's just ultra paranoid and routes it all through TOR.

Remember back when the EOLAS patent was being waved about and it was suggested that browser makers may have to implement "click to play" to avoid it.

Strange that a year after EOLAS gets their arse handed to them in a Texas court we get to a similar place for entirely different reasons.

Do you operate purely on cash?

Of course not, he clearly operates purely on sarcasm.