Am I taking crazy pills here? They were suing Apple. The entire lawsuit was against Apple, not Google.
They sued both over the same issue.
Apple won, Google lost, in spite of the fact that Google had the more open ecosystem and the better case.
Just because we can't magically address all causes of CO2 and pollution in general doesn't we should blindly ignore the issue.
Indeed. We should also, however, recognize that emissions reductions can never get us to net-negative CO2 and that is where we need to get. We should be investing heavily in research into carbon capture and sequestration, because it is the ultimate long-term solution to greenhouse gas emissions, the thing that will allow us to actually reverse global warming.
In the meantime, as you say, we should start by looking at the CO2 emissions sources that allow us to most quickly and cheaply reduce our emissions. The easiest area is electricity production... made even easier by the fact that wind and solar are the cheapest technologies we have for producing electricity, in many cases even when the cost of battery storage is included. And of course as we convert electricity production to non-emitting sources, we should electrify as much as we can the other areas where we burn fossil fuels.
But we also need to be investing in carbon recapture, because some things are going to be hard to convert and, as I pointed out, only recapture can get us to net-negative. We should also be researching geoengineering techniques, such as methods of reducing insolation. Geoengineering isn't a solution (e.g. reducing insolation does nothing to fix ocean acidification), but it may be a necessary short-term measure, and we should be prepared, having already done what we can to understand it in case we need it, and before we need it.
Carbon reduction is good, but it's insufficient and I worry that we're not putting enough into other approaches. A large part of the reason is that people are afraid that attention on anything other than carbon reduction will harm the emissions reduction efforts. That's not a ridiculous concern, but it demonstrates a lack of understanding of the scale and scope of the problem.
Good observations, though I am Gen X so after a childhood of editing config.sys to get retail games to run on the PC I have an incredibly high tolerance for putting up with that nonsense.
On the 5 year post. Don't want to think about how much time I've spent commenting here since then. Damn, I've been here almost 30 years. Still spending my work day in Linux.
Who's this old guy in the mirror?
The game server is in the domain of the seller. -- Irrelevant.
No, it's not. Nice of you to cut away the part that already said so. It is HIGHLY relevant if something you purchased becomes unusable due to an action of the seller or not.
Why should you be allowed to? Because you gave them money?
If you are new to this planet, this might be news to you, but otherwise: Yes, that is how commercial transactions work. You pay for something, you get to use it.
Just because you paid money doesn't give you permission to do whatever you want
No, but it absolutely DOES give me not just the permission but the RIGHT to use the thing I paid for for its intended purpose and for any other purpose I see fit. First sale doctrine and so on.
If refunds for a disabled games were to be a thing, they'd have to figure something out, because it's not the store's fault.
That is correct. But the store could either sell the same game again (in your case where the buyer personally was banned for whatever) or demand a refund from the manufacturer as is common practice when defective goods are returned. Really, there's not much to figure out, this is already a solved problem.
[the word "buy"] does not automatically mean you are now the owner of something.
Actually, that is exactly what it means.
Merriam-Webbster: (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/buy)
"to acquire possession, ownership, or rights to the use or services of by payment especially of money : purchase"
Seriously, why are you trying to defend an indefensible position ?
The only way it could work fairly is by having an independent unbiased group making the determination on what was clearly misinformation.
That would be ideal, but I don't think it's really necessary. Just keeping the list a subject of public debate is sufficient to prevent things from getting too skewed.
That basically all of the people in the Western governments turned out to be raping minors and eating children
There is zero evidence of this, and the fact that you seem to believe it makes me dismiss everything else you might say out of hand, because you clearly either lack or don't engage critical thinking skills.
A dependency required for the software to function no longer exists (like when a game's servers get shutdown) is essentially the same as an object breaking naturally over time due to wear and tear.
There's where your mental model is just wrong. The game server is in the domain of the seller. Some hardware breaking due to wear & tear or abuse is NOT. That is an incredibly important legal distinction.
f you spent $50 when the game launched and played for 500 hours, should you get a refund when the game shuts down 4 years later?
What EXACTLY do you mean with "the game shuts down"? That is the whole point. The game SERVERS shutting down is not the same as disabling the game. If it's an online-only game, there could still be OTHER servers, not run by the seller. Official or unofficial. That is the whole point of "stop killing games".
If your license was revoked because you were cheating, breaking rules, and generally being a complete cunt in some online game
Again, this is relevant for online games only, and is not about the game at all, but about access to a specific community or server. Even if I am the biggest asshole on the planet and every ban was absolutely justified - why should I not be able to set up my own server, invite my equally assholish friends and play there? There is no reason to disable the GAME, only the access to a specific server. These can be two distinct things. You buy the game, but you subscribe to a server.
Come to think of it, how the fuck are they supposed to issue refunds accurately anyway?
They shouldn't create the need to refund. You're making up a problem here. Every refund ever was done at the point of sale for the price you paid. That's why invoices and receipts exist.
You can't steal a contract, which is all the license really is. Your payment gets you a contract.
But that's not what it says. Every shop ever treated games as a SALE. Steam doesn't label the button "buy" anymore, but most other shops still do, and even on Steam everything else is handled exactly like a sale of a product. Shopping cart and all.
Because they want to eat their cake and have it, too. I'm sure players would be more hesitant to part with 60 bucks if it clearly said: "temporary, revocable at any time for any reason, permission to play".
That's the thing though. The biggest source of misinformation in ol' Blighty is Nr.10.
I don't think that would matter in practice. This law wouldn't let them specify what *news* is allowed, only what news sources, and there would be a huge stink if they tried to block the major real news outlets. They'd like to, I'm sure, but I really doubt that they'd succeed.
It does demonstrate the problem with "misinformation" though. Some people will continue to insist it was true even years after it was proven false.
Russiagate was absolutely not "proven false". Mueller's report and both the House and Senate reports (from committees led by Republicans) thoroughly verified it.
There is no way the businessmen involved in building these reactors are going to want to spend the time and money to properly maintain them let alone decommission and shut them down when they are no longer safe to run.
This is the actual problem with nuclear power. And by the time it comes around, the people who made the decisions have already safely moved elsewhere or into pension.
Correct. Breaking is entirely irrelevant to this discussion.
If something breaks, it's on me. This is about companies being able to take something away that isn't broken at all, at any time they choose, without any refund.
For any other item that'd be theft and would land them in jail.
The purpose of a factory is not to provide jobs.
It's intended to made widgets that can then be sold at a profit.
It's not a social welfare program.
The way things are headed, the only way people are going to be able to obtain money to pay for those widgets is via social welfare programs.
All true - but also a young arrogant engineer who completely failed to read and learn from people who have entire closets full of computing awards (including Turing Awards) for a reason.
Well, not just one young arrogant engineer, also most of the maintainers of the major Linux distros in the world.
If it's really a bad idea, the blame doesn't really fall on Poettering. Many young, arrogant engineers have built things that were stupid, and their things got ignored by the world. Some smaller number of young, arrogant engineers have built things that were stupid but were able to convince their PHBs that they weren't stupid and they got deployed. I don't think that's how I'd characterize the leadership at Red Hat (I never worked there, but I have good friends who did), but let's suppose that they were clueless and that's why they deployed Poettering's stupid idea.
But then how do you explain why so many others looked at it, experimented with it for a few years, and then decided to adopt it, and even extend it?
The systemd opponents are loud and forceful on social media. The people who actually build the systems, however, disagree. And It's not just one or two groups who are somehow beholden to Poettering, nor is it people who don't know anything or have no technical stake in the decision.
You might want to consider whether you're living up to your nick here.
I don't personally care that much. I find it mildly annoying that the old scripts my finger muscle memory still wants to type by default don't always work... but honestly I rarely need them any more, because my systems Just Work. And I have to consider the possibility that systemd is part of the reason Linux requires so much less maintenance than it used to. There are multiple contributors here. A lot of it is that drivers have gotten a lot better and other aspects of the system have matured (like the audio subsystem
But given its broad adoption by nearly all open source and commercial Linux distros, Occam's razor says that it's probably better than sysvinit. Or BSD init. Or Upstart. Or OpenRC, or... <insert favorite system manager here>.
Elliptic paraboloids for sale.
