Yeah, that sounds like what would happen if SecuROM couldn't contact the activation servers. I remember it was very late in the install process, and if it failed you had to start all over again. If this was anytime near launch day, their servers were wonky for days, so you may very well have had been suffering alongside myself.
Ugh... I just had flashbacks of just how much SecuROM sucked... My first encounter with SecuROM was way back in 2007. I had purchased an honest to goodness physical copy of Bioshock from an old-fashioned brick and mortar store (which I walked to barefoot in the snow uphill both ways).
I brought it home, unwrapped it, popped the DVD in my computer and installed. That is, I tried to. This being launch day, their activation servers were overwhelmed, and I couldn't reach them. I give up for the night, and try again the next day. This time I manage to activate it.
I then try to launch the game. It does not. Instead, I get a SecuROM error message with an obscure error code, Error: 5024. After doing some research, I find this. (I'm a bit surprised that page is still up, actually.) So it turns out, it wouldn't launch because I was running Process Explorer. I mean, seriously, wtf? I quit process explorer and tried to run Bioshock again, but apparently process explorer leaves a trace on the system SecuROM could detect, so I had to restart my entire machine. Except I forgot process explorer was set to run at startup. So I had to disable that, and restart again. Finally, finally, I got it to run, but at this point I was too angry to actually enjoy the game, so I quit after 5 minutes.
I also sure as hell wasn't willing to go through that each and every time I wanted to play Bioshock, so I found this obscure program called ProcexpUnloader from a shady looking site. I spent 15 minutes throwing antivirus scans at it, poking at it with a hex editor, and wondering whether it was worth the risk. I decide to try it, and lo and behold it did exactly what it said on the tin and nothing more.
Anyway, sorry for the rant, but that was my first (and only) experience with SecuROM.
It depends on the specific content. You first need to realize that 99% of all media (including books) is crap. Acknowledge that and it becomes a matter of personal preference, not the platform.
E.g., I prefer the Walking Dead TV show over the books, it works much better as a animated (ha!) visual medium. The directing of the show does a much better job of presenting the fear and despair than the graphic novels manage. On the other hand, I prefer the Song of Ice and Fire books to the Game of Thrones show. The books do a much better job at delving into individual character perceptions and motivations, while the show tends towards gratuitous sex and violence (which are much more subtle in the books).
TV is not better than Books, and Books are not better than TV. They're just different.
Ignoring for a moment the sheer absurdity of needing a separate law for online acts (are these acts illegal in person, as is implied?), I'm curious about what the exact definition of trolling is, as far as the law is concerned.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A minor can't agree to a contract
This is why I feel it is important to talk about the crap that either side gives us... talking about each sides problems helps to break down barriers not build them up. Not talking about them and acting like they are not there is exactly what keeps them going.
I'm actually of the opinion that attributing general human failings to a political affiliation worsens the partisan divide. "Politics" is very damaging. Call out individuals on their failings, rather than fueling non-productive bickering. There should be no sides to matters of governance, and reinforcing that mentality just makes it more difficult for rational debate to be had.
So, yes, please pretend that there are no sides in our country.
You don't think so? In the past decade, IBM Research has made significant contributions to the fields of Artificial Intelligence, Cryptography, Telecommunication, Public Infrastructure, Data Analysis, Biotechnology, and Quantum Computing. And those are just the ones I'm aware of offhand.
Although well attested, this term is widely regarded as a nonstandard and incorrect. Its use is discouraged by many speakers, who consider it inappropriate in virtually any formal setting, except quoted dialog.
None of that is related to jailbreaking, though. Those are existing security issues.
As for no OTA updates, that doesn't mean you have to leave your system unpatched (in fact, jailbreaking often means you get patches sooner), you just have to do it yourself.
Side loading apps can be potentially harmful, yes, but that decision should be made by the user. Any apps from the app store are exactly as secure on a jailbroken or stock device (including code signing).
Saying that a jailbroken device has no security is blatantly false.
jail breaking (which means there's no security on your device, so take your chances)
That is... just... false. Even on a jailbroken iphone, apps still run in sandboxed mode by default. You need to explicitly give root to specific apps (which usually isn't necessary). Every single security feature is still active. The only real difference is no OTA updates, and Apple support will just look at you funny if you mention you've jailbroken. You also might want to eyeball apps before installing them, but that's nothing new.
A contract is an agreement between two (or more) parties. As such, each party must receive consideration for the contract to be considered valid. By its very nature, it is impossible for a contract to benefit only one party. The question of which party wrote the actual wording of the contract is irrelevant (unless they try trickery, but that is fraud), what matters is the agreement reached by the parties. The written contract merely codifies that agreement. Saying that contracts only serve one party is short-sighted, dangerously self-fulfilling, and just flat out wrong.
Further, there is no point to including anything in a contract that is unenforceable. If it can't be enforced, not only does it have no value or meaning, it also lessens the standing of the entire agreement.
Lastly, under no circumstances is anyone ever forced to sign a contract. It is always a choice, an agreement. If you disagree with the terms, change them. Strike out clauses you don't agree to, provide a counter offer. If there is a large disparity in negotiating power (e.g. consumer contracts), then you need to make the value judgement of whether the benefits outweigh the costs, and if not, go to a competitor. In most other scenarios (employment agreements, business agreements, etc.) you have some negotiating power, as you have something the other party wants. If you didn't, there wouldn't be a contract. Determine how much negotiating power you have, and apply it as best you can to change the agreement to your benefit. The only time you will ever have zero negotiating power is when you believe you have zero negotiating power.
What I am seeing (living in a society who are absolutely addicted to smart phones) is that people are using them more and more to build walls and to excuse rude behavior. People use them as reasons to duck out of a room, to leave a conversation, or to put up that barrier of "don't talk to me" with the phone up, headphones on, and the blank stare at the screen. That people do this directly in front of their friends and family is particularly anti-social, as it eats into the time where social behaviors would have occurred.
I think this is the real crux of the matter. I agree, people are increasingly using their devices as an excuse for anti-social behavior. An excuse. Think about that for a second. The impetus for the anti-social action was not the device, was not the technology. That impulse was always there, the technology just facilitated.
Thus, I would argue that technology is allowing people to be more true to themselves.
One could, instead, argue that the mere existence of an item which can facilitate "negative" behavior is a moral hazard, and should thus be reined in. However, besides the fact that prohibition is almost always a bad thing, and ignoring the possible economic, productive, and scientific costs associated with removal of commonplace omni-connected devices, and just covering our metaphorical ears and screaming "LALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU" when confronted with the overwhelming humanitarian benefits enabled by the globalized communities provided by these devices, you are still, still left with the question of who gets to dictate the definition of "negative" behavior.
(I apologize for the run-on sentence, but I hope it got the point across.)
From your story, it sounds like the couple in question "hooked up" because the other one was attractive, but soon found they had absolutely nothing in common with each other, and each was using their phones to avoid what would otherwise be a forced social situation.
Phones and other pocket devices might give people an easy means out of a social situation, but they do not inherently make people less social. When with friends or other people you actually want to talk to, devices either fall completely by the wayside, or become a central conversation piece for the group ("Hey everyone, check out this cool thing on my phone!").
A propellent-free drive is a major milestone for sustainable space travel.
In a zero-g vacuum, the only (tested) means of self-locomotion is to expel some manner of matter in the opposite direction than you want to travel. The problem is, matter is hard to come by in space. Energy, however, is fairly easy to obtain if you're anywhere near a star. However, as far as I know, there are no means of converting stored energy into thrust, without also expelling matter. So while energy can be restored in situ, and can be used to augment the thrust gained by matter expulsion, at the end of the day, something is coming out of your thruster. Which means that, eventually, you will run out of that something.
I'm skeptical, but if this thruster pans out, it would be a major breakthrough in sustainable space travel.
Personally, though, I'd put my money on solar sails.