I love this thing where buying something has been replaced by buying an alterable, revokable license to access that thing. It lowers costs and adds flexibility for producers, which allows them to save money, and they pass that savings on to me in the form of higher prices and my shit that I paid real fucking money for just disappearing one day. Then they explain that I never really “owned” it despite the fact that they use the word “own” in the marketing material, because it’s also legal to use words that have known definitions in agreements and then later explain that you were actually using an entirely different, secret definition of that word that’s actually the opposite of what you very purposefully implied.

“274”

wait, shit…

The requests were made under the guise of anti-terrorism laws

Remember this the next time someone in government says “We need tough anti-terrorism laws”. They also get to define what counts as terrorism, so anyone inconvenient can be destroyed and the public told “We’re just keeping you safe from terrorism.”

can confirm. source: did this 3 separate times

even then, it’s essentially paywalling your rights. you need to go to court, wait for the matter to be adjudicated, hope it works out in your favor, run out any potential appeals, all while paying attorneys and not being able to do something you’re legally entitled to do. If you can’t do all that, then your rights are moot.

which tv manufacturer was it that updated their eula and if you didn’t agree it bricked your tv?

I can’t help but think that if this sort of thing proliferates that it will essentially hamstring reviews. This particular agreement might be just because the game is in alpha, but it’s part of a broader trend of ToS/EULA wishlists that are so restrictive that they’re probably illegal already buy in order to test that you have to go to court against a huge, overpaid legal team which leads to people having their basic rights violated.

I WAS THE FIRST TO ADD A 9 TO A C NOW EVERY ACOUSTIC COVER FROM 1988 TO 2004 OWES ME $6

Sexual assault victims have a time limit. Copyright infringement “victims” do not. Tracks.

honestly at this point bundle the dock w rechargeable wireless controllers and let me convert the deck I already love into a pseudoconsole.

rules aren’t there to be enforced, they’re there so that when you break them you take a second to think about why.

you think that I’m in favor of everything I’m not currently talking about?

who picks what habits are good and what are bad? who decides what happens to data beyond this? can you going to mcdonalds twice a day be shared with your health insurer? can you going to that rally be shared with the local police? with your landlord? are you comfortable with everyone knowing everything? because there’s two things you do with data: analyze, and sell.

https://www.xmanagerapp.com/

*Steal Spotify

https://www.xmanagerapp.com/

Patch your spotify install to get free premium. If they’re gonna raise prices and lower what they pay musicians, there’s no valid reason not to.

Alexa, play John Mellencamp - Ain’t That America

in this case, more like nudelwackeln

I never understood why that phrase was ever used as if it were an excuse.

A thought-terminating cliche is a rhetorical device intended to end a discussion without actually resolving it. The idea is to say something that the other party more or less has to agree to without regard to whether it actually has any bearing on the discussion at hand, and then refuse to discuss further. This makes it seem like the discussion is over and, as the last person who scored a point, you’ve won. “It’s just a few bad apples” is one. “Let’s agree to disagree” is another. Trump almost singlehandedly invented one in the phrase “fake news”, which is ostensibly intended to mean “I don’t trust the source of that information” but is often used in an infinite regression where everything unfriendly to the arguer is fake news. It’s basically a deus ex machina for arguments; a way to escape a corner you’ve been backed into without ever admitting that you were wrong about anything.

this one is just trigger-happy incompetence, but the phrase “a few bad apples” ends with “spoil the whole barrel” and the police are a perfect example of that. The way they close ranks and try to protect one another from responsibility for really egregious shit means that not every cop is a criminal, but that every cop ignores crimes that other cops commit.