The criminalization of breaking DRM has nothing inherently to do with its implementation, nor did I say anything about a hypothetical one-play deletion.

I'm saying that something functionally equivalent to DRM is required for a rental or subscription on-demand service, otherwise it's purely operating on the honor system and I can't blame anyone for having no interest in that. I find these services to be a good value, so I have no problem with the tradeoff. I'm not paying the price I'd have to pay to buy the content, so it's not unreasonable to get less for it.

I dislike DRM like pretty much everyone else who isn't a content industry lawyer, but I really can't find much to complain about when it's used in the context of a rental or subscription service. How else are they supposed to ensure you can't continue using the content when you're not supposed to be able to anymore?

DRM on stuff I'm supposedly purchasing is another matter entirely, if I own it I want to truly control it, but if I'm renting it or paying for temporary access where it's clear from the beginning that I only have it as long as I'm paying I don't see a problem.

IMO anyone who knowingly chose to deploy new Java-requiring things in the last many years was not thinking straight, nor were any vendors developing new Java plugins or refusing to work on replacements for the ones they already had. It's not like the fact that the Java plugin is a huge piece of shit is news to anyone.

If someone was putting out new stuff that still required Windows XP or IE6 you'd rightfully call them incompetent. I believe Java is in the same category. It needs to go away and anyone who's doing anything that keeps it around needs a slap.

It's been a thing for a while, just connect two compatible systems with any old Thunderbolt cable.

Macs got it with 10.9 in October '13: http://www.macworld.com/articl...
Windows apparently got a driver from Intel to support it in April '14: http://www.engadget.com/2014/0...
I can find a bunch of questions about it on Linux but haven't found anything conclusive about support. It doesn't look like there's been much work at the moment, likely because Thunderbolt systems are few and far between aside from Macs.

Yeah, and also meant my public key.
Derp.

Anyone who encrypts mail to me does it from their own machines. This is for Facebook mail to you. If a user grabs your keys they can also send you mail directly without going through Facebook.

Facebook lets you control your public keys as if it were any other information: public, friends only, etc.

Them having my private key is not a problem. This encrypts email one would normally get. I don't work for Facebook.

What is the problem you are eluding to?

If they have only your public keys, what is the harm in them running a keyserver?

I don't use the gmail web client. I have the a GPG plugin (GPGMail) on my laptop's email and a GPG client (oPenGP) on my iPhone.

There are GPG plugins for the web client but I have not used them.

a) for some things, yes.

b) It's worth encrypting everything. This protects your data not only from the spooks, but from gmail/live/your ISP/whatever free client you may use.

Just added my keys. Not that I care about the notifications that "Billy scored X on Y Game", but anything that obfuscates and encrypts data on the wire is a good thing. It's not just the NSA, how many of you use gmail? This will keep them from scanning your mail.

>In fact I may enable a bunch more useless notifications and set up a rule to delete them at my end as they arrive.

I beg to differ. Some very popular games are also very CPU-bound. GTA V, Kerbal Space Program, and Project CARS are three well known titles I can think of off the top of my head that run a lot worse on the Phenom II X6 1045 (2.7GHz hex-core which I overclocked to 3.5GHz) in my secondary gaming machine than on the i7-4970k (4GHz quad-core, not overclocked) in my main desktop. Both machines have SSDs, 32GB of RAM, and GeForce 970 graphics so the CPU is the only significant difference.

AI and physics simulation still lean heavily on the CPU. Here's some benchmarks from Project CARS (which just came out last week) showing how important CPU performance is when simulating 30 cars on the track: http://pclab.pl/art63572-29.ht... (article is in Polish but numbers don't need translation)

That's certainly a good idea, though I'd imagine that a lot of the software vendors involved wouldn't bother. I mean the betas for Vista were publicly available for over a year before its release. I ran them intermittently throughout that time and filed bugs or posted on company forums where possible, but most of the responses I got were along the lines of "we don't support beta operating systems, we'll start working on Vista support when it's released".

Vista -> 7 was a mostly painless transition aside from a few apps that stupidly have maximum version checks and refuse to install on a new OS no matter what, but then the same thing happened with Windows 8 and Server 2012. The vendors who tend to cause these problems just don't care. I have more than one vendor right now that still in 2015 insists that we disable UAC. Fortunately we've found that we can install it with UAC disabled and then immediately turn it back on, but this is the level of incompetence we're dealing with.

We're basically stuck in a never-ending cycle of stupid when it comes to specialty business software. Businesses don't upgrade because their vendors manage to do dumb shit that breaks when you upgrade things, and the vendors don't have any incentive to fix it until a lack of availability forces their customers to start upgrading.

If it was only working because it depended on a bug or internal data structures that it wasn't supposed to be playing with, it wasn't "perfectly working" ever.

I can write a program that does a lot of things horribly wrong but works on Windows XP because it tolerated a lot of bad behaviors, which won't work at all on a more modern system. Is that Microsoft's fault that I wrote it wrong?

How many user-level apps were writing to system directories without reason all over the place in XP and prior which "broke" when Vista stopped letting them do that? Not a single one of those are anyone except the developers' fault.

I'm surprised he didn't include a "BSD IS DYING, NETCRAFT CONFIRMS IT" in the article.