DRM doesn't hinder someone who doesn't license the game at all. It's a mechanism that only incoveniences paying customers and kills the second-hand market. I'm rather baffled that any of you would think otherwise.

That's why the whole DRM is because of piracy line is quite obviously b.s. DRM is to prevent casual sharing, and kill the used market under the excuse of big bad internet piracy.

It can't be very efficient at all. You can see the lost energy with the bounceback as it slams in to the ground after moving only a few inches.

From the link: "For adults only. - These are so super strong, they should be kept away from children."

I have to agree here. There is no substitute for an e-ink display when reading. I end up with horribly bloodshot eyes if I read an LCD non-stop for hours (whether for lack of blinking or something else, I don't know). I suffer no ill effects from reading off an e-ink display though.

They didn't start doing this recently. This is a process that has been used for decades.

Not really. Selling at a loss means that you're selling each item for less than the cost to produce that item. It has nothing to do with making up your investment to create the product (R&D time in the case of a physical product) and is based entirely on manufacturing/distribution costs. For software to be sold at a loss, that would mean for less than the price of the box/media and the distribution of the media, or less than the price of electronic distribution.

Yes, yes it does matter. You have just begged the question (by the real meaning).

Friends don't let friends rely on Oracle support.

Shame on you. Or maybe you don't know how useless it is.

No, it most certainly should not. That forced nomenclature is worse than what it ostensibly tries to solve.

They have been doing it quite successfully in Europe this year, so I don't know why you're citing a 17 year old case.

Seriously... Who was under the assumption that our jobs were to make things cost more and require more people? It's pretty cut and dry that the role of technology is 3 fold.

1. Create better outcomes
2. Cost less (in capital, opex, or both)
3. Take less time (this ties in with part 2 heavily, but I split it out anyway).

None of these factors beyond number 1 could ever result in more jobs. If you begin a project and at the end all you've done is created jobs, you are wasting money. Sometimes a massive increase in the first role can lead to an increase in jobs, but for that to be the case, you typically need a massively better outcome than before (which means likely that the prior function was not adequately staffed anyway).

Jobs would be more like John Delorean. All flash, no more substance than anything else available at the time, and much worse in many ways.

Then actually be informative?

Well, that just means that individuals ignorant to the actual details of what they are discussing self-identify so that we can dismiss what they say? ;)

I can't really agree with you there. It's similar to saying that since all modern OSs have telnet and ftp clients that they are insecure. Yes, there are inesecure methods to communicate, but those are user beware.

When bberry security is being discussed, no one is focusing on the consumer methods of email retrieval. It's all about the BES design. Sadly, nothing else comes close yet.