The grandparent was listing jokes, not actual malicious software.

Of course I jest, but which other Windows program anywhere near as popular brings up UAC prompts out of nowhere in the way Java updater does without even being "opened"? I bet Java is partially to blame for a huge number of users blindly clicking "Yes" to all UAC prompts - in the average user's eyes it just won't stop prompting until you accept its damn update.

I was too young for the ICQ era but I can vouch that MSN Messenger was definitely the most popular one in Britain in the 2000s. Never once had to use AIM to talk to someone who wasn't America.

No one IM protocol compares with Facebook on a global scale.

IANAL but a lot of that sounds like it'd might fall foul of the EU-wide Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations. The bricking definitely.

If I wanted a 3DS I'd still get one regardless. If they bricked my device I'd see them in small claims. Call me overconfident if you want, but living the lifestyle where you're worried about terms that don't look like they'll stand up is quite boring and sometimes expensive.

I recently bought my first Steam game and didn't care about the ToS for the same reason - nothing that looked threatening seemed valid. Yeah they're a US company, but I'm sure they'll have enough presence/assets in the UK to hold accountable (notably there are quite a few terms say things like "May not be valid if you're an EU customer", so it seems they do feel threatened to comply with EU laws at least somewhat).

I think you completely missed the point of the grandparent. He's saying that thanks to there not being an 18+ rating ("bureaucratic red tape"), banning the game was not a "poor decision", as the only other decision that could be made at the time is to make it 15+, which shouldn't be acceptable (something you don't seem to contest)

He never said that the lack of 18+ rating wasn't a poor decision - it's simply not the decision he's referring to (Unless when reviewing a game the ratings board have the power to instantly introduce the 18+ rating so they can rate that game as such, but I think it's safe to say that's impossible). I imagine he probably agrees with most of what you just lectured him on. Not sure how you got +3 insightful for poor reading.

I imagine you've probably also been replied to many times that not updating "removes" other functionality. I'm not a PS3 owner but I've heard this includes using the PSN, playing new games, potentially playing new Blu-Rays, and of course any advantages that come with software updates. At least two of those are very easy to justify as advertised features (Games & Blu-Ray).

So either you lose one feature or you lose (at least) one other. I think the GP's comment applies perfectly, Sony cannot escape their "asshatness" by the fact that you can choose between two unpleasant outcomes.

Please don't mention anything to do with EULAs by the way. Whilst I would happily justify against Sony in a legal discussion of the matter, all we're talking about right now is Sony being an asshat.

To be fair, there isn't too much wrong with living in your parents' basement if you're 14 years old ;p

.....Madness?

THIS
IS
SPACE BAR!

I cannot believe there are so many comments with a lack of understanding of what 100/1 is. I cannot believe one of them has been modded +3 interesting.

100/1 means if you bet £1 and the bet wins, you get your £1 stake back and your winnings of £100. Their winnings aren't 1%, they are 100x i.e. 10000%. So if contact was made, the bookmaker would lose £100 on a £1 bet, and hence would have somehow had to turn that £1 into £101 beforehand in order to not make a loss. Forget the people talking about how 3% is impossible, there is NO savings account or bond that'll let you do that in a year.

I thought it was obvious I already knew that...?

Huh?

More black and white viewpoints from you, that all kids are either angels or devils. There are plenty of children who will attempt to do many of those things and then just give up if they fail, meaning the existence of the law had an effect.

The rest of your post I'm not going to even individually comment on as it shows you pretty much ignored half of mine. For the parents to be able to take action over children having these items requires the parents to know their children have them, and I already explained that for the parents to know about them oversteps the boundaries of freedom that British teenage children generally have.

One more time: over here it is normal for children to go out on their own with friends at a young age, unsupervised. Thus it is only appropriate the duty of care for some things like sale of unsuitable goods temporarily shifts from the distant parents to the adults around them.