The article says that Amazon called it "accidental," and that access has already been restored for those who already bought it.

The most likely explanation is that Disney wanted to stop selling it through Amazon, and nobody really considered the fact that that customers should retain access to what they've already bought.

If you're going to flame somebody for not reading, you probably should read the post they're replying to.

This is most certainly not "informative" and you most certainly are an idiot.

So you tell them "I'll leave it on the doorstep for you to pick up." Or whatever else works for you with minimal inconvenience.

Yes, it's their responsibility to make it convenient for you. If they can't or don't want to do that, then your responsibility to them ends.

So you tell them to send you a pre-addressed box for shipping, which you'll leave at a place that's convenient for you. If they don't want to go to the effort to make it easy for you, then you'd be justified in keeping it.

This isn't rocket science.

It would be a perfectly reasonable response to tell them "it is too inconvenient for me to ship it back to you; you come pick it up." What is not reasonable is to try to profit from somebody else's honest mistake -- a mistake that doesn't harm you -- at their expense. That's what this is really about, and the arguments over legality, or inconvenience, are just an attempt at avoiding that.

I hadn't heard of that -- but hopefully where they're going, other sports will follow. I'm completely uninterested in watching baseball, but at least they've got the right idea.

The situation with sports broadcasting is ridiculous. It would cost me well over $100 per month to get TV service with the additional extra "packages" to be able to watch all the games for the team that I follow. There is no chance that I will ever pay for that. If they had any halfway reasonable pricing for a streaming option, I'd be all over it.

There is no PRNG, Yarrow included, that we can say with 100% certainty that is not (or will not be) broken. The point of using multiple PRNGs is so that even if one or more of the components is compromised, it doesn't compromise the entire system. To use your metaphor: if your options are a padlock and a keyed lock, and there's a 25% chance each that a burglar could bypass them -- wouldn't you use both locks to reduce the probability of being robbed to 1/16 instead of 1/4?

Unfortunately, the actual correction should be "more."

Easy there, neckbeard. Don't want to get your cheeto-encrusted heart moving too fast.

You're a fuckwit.

That only works if you can cut it in half first.

pavon did not "incorrectly describe" anything. You formed an incorrect definition of what "chat" means, which led you to misinterpret what he said. The fact that most "chat" via computers used to be text-only communication is an artifact of the technology that was available, nothing more.

(Note that he didn't even say "web chat", but that's beside the point.)

Somehow you seem to have come to the conclusion that "chat" means "digital communication using text." It doesn't. The verb "chat" predates digital text communication by a very, very long time.

Because not all of us can read lips?