The "revolt" will be peasants with pitchforks against ED-209.
The boardroom scene at the beginning of Robocop is one of my all time favorite movie scenes.

Well, that clinches it for me. 2020 is *definitely* the year of the Linux desktop.

Even if it's not "on my desktop" it'll be in my router, my server and the box over in the corner that I use to offload effects-processing and rendering chores for my digital audio workstation.

I may not run Linux on my "desktop", but it still seems to have surrounded me.

Since Android is Linux, that has already happened in some markets. Chrome OS is also Linux, and over one million Chromebooks ship every quarter.

And the New Zealand government is a lamb with it's hind legs stuck in the gum boots of the US government getting the ride off it's life in order to gain the questionable benefits of access to US markets (getting paid with what is becoming funny money might not really be all that beneficial after all and likely not pay for all that pain and humiliation). So all of it corrupt from go and still to get there whoa.

However government agencies using inside knowledge of source code to create these attack tools and then being stupid enough to use them ie release them into the wild where organised crime can get hold of them, is not so new. It fact it is totally and utterly mind bogglingly stupid thing to do, how fucking myopically short sighted can those fuckwits be. Government need to bloody wake up to what is going on and create a huge level of separation between attack and defence elements of cyber security. In fact the defence elements of cyber security should actively seek to prosecute the morons on the offence side when they stupidly release destructive code into the wild which goes on to attack what everyone else in the country is trying to protect. Some of those idiots need some rest time behind bars, some levels of stupidity should be punished, OK, rehabilitated in correctional facilities.

I find I'm waiting for the Christmas blowouts typically, and until them I'm loading up on the $20 indie titles.

Heck, last year I distinctly remember buying the new Wolfenstein and Assassin's Creed IV Black Flag for less than half the full price, and I had a great time with both of them. I don't have a problem with waiting a little while. Waiting also has two other big benefits for me. First, by the time I buy a game, it has been patched and tweaked and actually runs properly and second, it gives me a chance to upgrade my PC to play the game as it was meant to be played without getting fleeced for premium prices for new components.

Still only? Beer coasters are thinner than that.

The viewer's sense of entitlement is the single factor preventing them from having a legal way to obtain content.

You might not realize this, but consumers are supposed to have a sense of entitlement when it comes to getting the products they want at an affordable price.

There was a time when companies understood this, but in today's business climate, it seems that the prevalent business model involves making sure your customers don't have any choices. You want to play a game without having a persistent internet connection? Fuck you, pay me.. You want to avoid having intrusive and dangerous DRM on your computer? Fuck you, pay me. You want to know whether a game will run on your computer or is completely buggy before dropping >$60 on it? Fuck you, pay me. You want a choice of internet service providers? Fuck you, pay me.

It a climate of such corporate hostility, I can absolutely understand it when a consumer decides that the best response is, "Oh yeah? Well fuck YOU, too!

I'm not happy with her choice, and I have no power.

There's actually an Emacs command for that.

It's increasingly apparent that the color of "the truth" is green - $$$.

It's like magic.

It's almost as if companies that produce a decent product and treat customers with a little bit of respect are gonna do a lot of business and be successful.

Who knew?

It isn't that different. If my wife is pregnant, it is her choice, and her choice alone, to abort or not. We have two kids. I wanted a third. She said no, and that was that. Even in a marriage, a woman has more reproductive rights than the man. That is reasonable, since is IS her body. But it also, ultimately, her responsibility. Why should she trust me, especially when she knows I would be very happy if she was knocked up.

If that was true, the human species would have died out millennia ago.

According to the plaintiffs, she was not being honest. There is also the matter that, according to the plaintiffs, she was paid (indirectly through her husband's estate) and contractually bound to keep her mouth shut. I have no idea what "the truth" is, but I don't think it is black and white. If she doesn't want to abide by the terms of the contract, she should at least be compelled to disgorge the money she was paid.