I had the same comment a while ago when I was having a discussion about how much some companies are willing to pay for the porn urlS. .dev is definately one that would be valuable.

quite.

Fun stat.

over the last 100 years prevalence of smoking in women has halved.
over the last 20 years prevalence of lung cancer in women has doubled.

WIP
http://www.binrev.com/forums/i...

ahhh

but will the sea levels rise?

to what they were a thousand years ago or so......
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...

the only thing that worries me about climate change is the deniers might be wrong and we slump straight into an ice age when we run out of oil in 50 years or so.

ahhh

but will the sea levels rise?

to what they were a thousand years ago or so......

Ive got a chromecast

Horrible. Horrible waste of an HDMI port.

Kinda ok to plug into an old TV and stream downloaded low quality vids from your phone and not much else.

bleh, now. by a smidgen :p

Or its a bluff. And the CIA/NSA was successful getting it's legislation on the chineese books.

having to pay for online play and regular crashes for a start.

->Do you know what DRM is? It inherently restricts you.
Unlike many
I believe the principle to explicitly assign rights to content is vital and important to everyone.

I should be able to say "Only bob can read this"
as much as Ubisoft should be able to say "we didn't get the money for you to play our game so you can't play our game"

That doesn't mean I don't wholly back people willing to say "you can do whatever the f' you want with this" - Its a complete fallacy that DRM negatively affects people that want to say this - quite the opposite imho. The web is a much nicer place because such things have become explicit.

legally speaking, you have no rights to _Other_ peoples things other than those they grant you.
Just because there is nothing really stopping you, doesn't mean putting things in place to enforce what the creators want is evil or restricts me.

Do you think a technical solution that forces people to release their sourcecode with the binary for GPL software would be a bad thing?

->The ends don't justify the means.

So taking security seriously is not something we should do?

->If you're willing to sacrifice your rights so you can avoid the bogeymen known as cheaters, you lack principles.

Don't understand this at all. What rights am I sacrificing?

->DRM-infested consoles and obscurity. This would never happen with free software. Good security doesn't rely on obscurity like this.
That sounds like you haven't actually given it much thought.
Obscurity is as worthwhile tool as any other.
It's not a great tool that will give you strong security.
But it's a hell of a lot better than the alternative of telling everyone everything about your security system.

E.g. automated lights turning on and off are an excellent example of good "security by obscurity" ...Just because you shouldn't rely on something, doesn't mean it's an evil idea or not worthwhile.

There's a place for both, can't say I'm a fan of sony or think they have a great future ahead of them - too many bad business decisions.
But I really don't see the rationale in avoiding any good product because you don't like the brand that makes it.
All you do by doing that is encourage all of them to make worse products, by not giving the market the signals they need to know what you are looking for.
 

->t's pretty simple. I don't want to support Sony's behavior;

I'm pretty sure the same thing applies to large numbers of people who work in every other company.

Why does people talking about the people in Sony make you think they are any different?

->Because there are other companies that don't do such evil things.
Not really imho.
There are other companies who you haven't been told did such evil things, but I very much doubt you will find any hardware/software company on the planet with a clean and friendly past of all it's past and present staff and products.

It seems to me you buy into the idea that a "brand" means something.
It doesn't, it's purely fiction surely?
For the good and the bad.

And anyway, things aren't all that clear cut.
Take DRM for example.
Evil DRM....
So does that mean we should avoid using it ourselves to protect ourselves from government surveillance?

Same applies to the PS3
The fact they did DRM properly, means no hacked games and no cheaters. I like that.
Does that mean I like the Cinavia thing?
No, but that just means I don't use the ps3 to stream movies.

Do you really buy into the whole "good company/evil company" idea? - or was that just a throw away comment?

Kinda nonsense isn't it?

They've been pulled up more than others for some of the shit they do, but I don't see why that makes them better or worse than any other company, maybe slightly more "cutthroat" than some, but they certainly sponsor their fair share of noble goals, and most of what they are doing wrong are simply bad business decisions - that has nothing to do with being "evil" - just a bit stupid and out of touch.

PS3 was a great product, the Walkman was a great product.

the iPhone - in its day - was a great product.

Even Marconi had their fair share of "great" products back in the day.

If a product line does crap things - that doesn't make the company that made it "evil" - it just means the product is crap.

So to summarize - I don't really believe any of these companies are "evil" (some of the people in them are proper pyschos tho), just some have better staff and decision makers than others.

And that changes with the decision makers.

Why is it important?

I hope Satya Nadella can rescue the electronics and games market, it's in a right state.

I suspect he bought it off the back of the success of the ps3.

I would have had a ps4. but I was lucky enough to be too busy to buy one when they came out. then after reading all the shit about them didn't.

ps3 is still probably the best hardware I've ever bought. only such hardware I've ever bought multiple times. think there's about 5 or 6 of them knocking around now in different rooms and houses.

on ubisoft.
aren't they part of the whole Activision / EA games shit brigade?
what did you expect? nothing new here.

yeah there was.
On depression quest, kontaku wrote:

There was no doxxing, no swatting just the author of a really shit game paying for positive reviews with her body. then game media BANNING people with actual depression who played the game and said it was shit from saying so.