It cut both ways.

Are you saying that banks should also NOT refuse to open accounts directly for terrorist organisations, drug lords, government of Iran, and North Korea?

How about their representatives? Or known associates? Or some front business that don't seems to do transactions like the business they claimed to be, but more like they are just a front for the drug lords?

How about just some normal foreign rich people (e.g. from the US, or China) who had no other business in that country (e.g. Switzerland) but wanting to put millions of dollars (in cash) into the account? BTW, through a company registered somewhere else (e.g. some country in South America)?

How about some no so rich foreign people doing the same for just a few hundred thousand dollars?

How about some random business (e.g. Mega) that the US government just told you not to (or else your bank's will feel their pressure... *hint* *hint*)?

Yes, it is a slippery slope. So, where do you draw the line?

Sure, that automatically disqualifies them from selling to any China banks, which means all the money that would have gone to foreign software companies now go to local Chinese software companies, thus kickstarting their growth and eventually they will grow big enough to compete outside of China.

It would not surprise me if that was the real goal here.

That's the first thing that came to my mind also.

Isn't Android being "open" supposedly one of its major strength? Now someone came and actually try to make use of it "openness" and they are now a "rogue" company?

Since when did "paradox" became a synonym for "unknown"?

Yeah, nobody knows how space expands, but how does that make it a "paradox"?

Do your company also do real life security "fire drills," supported by executive management should be conducted regularly in organizations, in order to understand the appropriate course of action in advance of a physical security breach. This includes recovering evidence, identifying and resolving the root cause of the incident (not just the symptoms), and undertaking a forensic investigation?

No? Then perhaps you don't need to do IT security fire drills for the same reason.

You know what could completely stop identity theft? Holding banks responsible for the loss when they were tricked by some thief pretending to their customers. You will see them tightening their authentication and fraud detection overnight.

You know why some countries don't have any identity theft at all? They held banks and companies responsible when they were defrauded, and won't let them pass the loss to their customers by claiming "identity theft".

Then, in the future you described, you may continue to do so in "driving parks" dedicated for human driving or some restricted area where human driving is specially allowed. I.e. much like what you have to do now to enjoy riding your horse around.

Simply because the banks are not responsible for the losses?

The summary said "nearly $24 million in bank account takeovers by hackers", see? The banks simply pass the loss to their customers by calling it identity theft! Hey, you account has been taken over by hackers! Your loss.

In countries where the banks themselves are responsible for these losses (they called these, rightly, fraud against the bank), you see banks taking measures to stop these thefts. In the US, the banks simply don't care.

I played it on a console, guess that's why I have basically no problem (only had once lost all sound effects during a massive fight) and didn't know about any of the DRM problems.

Correct, I missed the "not" in the most important part of the post. *sigh*

It certainly reads like one.

I got the game and played it for some 30-40 hours now, certainly did see any "fundamentally different approach" in the gameplay so far, compared to, say Kingdoms of Amalur, or Farcry 3, or the Fallout series, etc.

Not the say the game isn't fun, but not really groundbreaking either.

Because that's how large corporation lead by non-tech management works. Two developers, one said "I added a new feature X", the other said "I fixed Y number of bugs", guess which one got more bonus? Guess what would developers flock to do after that?

Perhaps because of the huge logistics advantage and cost efficiency of fulfilling preorders compared to normal orders?

With preorders, you knew exactly how many boxes you need to make, and where to deliver them to, and exactly how much revenue you are going to get. That's basically pure profit.

Compared to guesstimating the how much you will sell through retail, and guesstimating how many to send to which retailer, and how many each one might sell, and worrying if the game would be a dud and the boxes would go to landfill, while also worrying if the game would be too big a hit and you can't make them fast enough... preorders is a logistics heaven!

So, if you were a game publisher, wouldn't you try to get people to preorder?

Exactly what I thought also.

That's the point of using DMCA, it didn't require "doing it right". Even if ROT13 was used, DMCA still applies.