How would the project still be useful? By updating with new, unblocked VPNs? Then Iran (or similar country) can block those, too. Assuming the country in question isn't bright enough to automate the process then there may be a window of usability, but even then it would be quite brief.

If you're so sure your comment is good, and only "morons" can complain about the topic, then why post AC?

If the game mode is single player there's no reason to expect to need an internet connection. If EA wants the game to be partially dependent on a remote server even for single player then it's NOT "single player" and calling it that is extremely deceptive.

Single player = local play. If a company wants to redesign that then they need a new name for it so it's clear.

MMOs do not have single player modes, so there's no expectation of local play.

The issue is sort of moot for MMOs. Because of the game's basic nature it's unplayable without an internet connection, whether or not there's a persistent connection to a DRM server as well as the game server doesn't really matter at that point (assuming the DRM servers, separate or not, don't have uptime problems).

It's such a great game that it has a one star rating on Amazon. Only the best of the best manage that!

There's an easy fix to this: Never, ever, ever buy a game that has always on DRM.

Eventually the game manufacturers will learn.

And your post on the subject doesn't help matters. It just brings into clearer relief that you do not, in fact, know what you're talking about.

It may not affect a reader's ability to understand the post, but it does reflect poorly on you, your ability to communicate, and the point you're making. Whether it should or not is debatable I suppose, but generally (especially on the internet) poor grammar and spelling is indicative of someone who isn't worth listening to.

I'm sorry, but from the point of "4 vs 5 makes something Constitutional as opposed to unconstitutional?" you lose all credibility.

You can dislike the holding all you like, and there are a number of legal arguments that can be made about it, but when your route of attack is a whine about how five people can decide what the constitution means you've just undermined all of your remaining points.

That is how the judiciary in this country has worked for a little more than 200 years (Marbury v. Madison was decided in 1803), to complain about it now, because of a holding you disagree with, is facile in the extreme.

Were your errors intentional and making a point, or did you not actually look back over what you wrote?

IANAL, but, the issue doesn't seem to be quite that simple. ISPs argue strenuously that they're not actually common carriers (the legal term of art for basically being "dumb pipes") because there is a feeling that it would bring them under FCC Title 2 regulation instead of Title 1 regulation. Whether or not that's correct is still an open question.

But the other way that being a "dumb pipe" comes into play is with the DMCA safe harbor exception (which is 17 U.S.C. Section 512). There, an ISP isn't liable for infringing material passed through its network if (among other things) "the transmission, routing, provision of connections, or storage is carried out through an automatic technical process without selection of the material by the service provider".

So the bit-torrent throttling Comcast was trying a couple years ago might have put it outside of the DMCA safe harbor, but simple monitoring like this probably wouldn't.

The only part of the safe harbor where knowledge comes into play is when an ISP stores files on its servers at the request of users (so, a webhost, or dropbox). In that case the ISP is only protected from liability if they have no actual knowledge of the presence of infringing material.

Would you also say that the ACLU doesn't back important rights because it advocates for the speech rights of groups you disagree with? Privacy doesn't mean being left alone to do just what _you_ think everyone else should.

The EFF is still fighting for internet privacy. That some people their privacy so they may violate IP laws is immaterial.

You'll need a google account if you want to use the Google Play Store (the app market from google) but you can install the Amazon Appstore (which uses an amazon account) instead if you prefer. Otherwise no, you don't have to have a google account to use the phone. Because it's a Nexus device you should be able to unlock the bootloader in a simple process (usually as simple as checking a box in settings and rebooting) then you can flash it with any custom ROM you want. So if you don't trust the default ROM not to phone home you can use a community created one instead (and also since it's a Nexus device a community for producing these custom ROMs should grow quite fast once it's in people's hands).

ROFL? No, no, not now... not _yet_.

...which was exactly the line with Palm's WebOS. The fact that it COULD change doesn't mean it's LIKELY to, much as I wish it would have with WebOS.

Probably. I heard about it the morning they came out and went looking right then, but apparently nowhere I looked got one (or the employees had already set the one(s) they got aside for themselves).