Hmm, it's almost like the city knows it's collecting money it might not deserve and doesn't want to let a simple piece of technology stop that gravy train... This sentence summed up the reasoning perfectly.
"And, really, how do the folks who work at the USTR sleep at night knowing that they're doing this for no reason other than to help out the profits of a few giant companies at the expense of the public?"
"We've talked about this a few times before, and the head in sand approach the government takes to pretending that publicly available leaked classified information is still secret." Which is precisely why Purdue, nay, every American, isn't overreacting in these situations.
Between overzealous prosecutors (both state and federal) and any law enforcement agency itching to shoot first and ask no questions later, this reactionary (and protectionist) fear is completely justified.
Gellman shouldn't have taken this path. Instead, he should have shown how it's a clear example of instilling fear by government abuse.
Journalist gets 25 years for "password hacking". Aaron Schwartz took his own life. Snowden is a traitor, not a Constitution defender.
If these few examples don't give a valid reason why Purdue is justified in its actions, well, someone isn't paying attention to the abusive roles authorities are using to quell the information, public or not.
Assuming the NSA has access, it's still a moot point. You can bet if the NSA has access on our side, the GBHQ has access on their side, making the whole privacy issue pointless.
What's at stake here is far more important than whether or not government agencies has access to the data.
It's more important to focus on the ruling's complete and utter ignorance, because it's just a first step toward more asinine and ignorant law making.
We work with the Safe Harbor all the time, so I'm well versed on what we need to do to capture and protect EU data. Not only is our transfer encrypted, but the data itself is twice encrypted, which actually exceeds the recommendation.
If the NSA/GBHQ has access to that, everyone is fucked and no law will change that. Ever.
Let's get the obvious out of the way. DLC != micro-transactions. I believe this is a common understanding.
DLC is used by publishers because "Micro Transactions" on a menu isn't going to be well received.
Now that we've clarified this, let's move on.
These locomotives aren't DLC. They're micro-transactions. Individually, they're on par with other things I've seen in games offering micro-transactions.
Often referred to as "horse armor" (after Bethesda charged people $5 for a visual change to the in-game horse that did nothing else), gamers have learned the difference and quickly voice their opinion when the offering(s) are priced foolishly, if not stupidly.
This game is offering additional locos which doesn't have any impact on the game other than a visual change from the game's base engine.
The pricing makes sense, when you realize it's not designed to allow a single player to download every loco, but rather, allow them a few options if they choose to want them.
If you think these prices are outrages, then head over to ZoS' Crown Store, where a single motif will cost people $49.99 in real, cold cash if they can't wait to find it in the game.
Outrageous? That all depends on one's definition of value.
You see, I've purchased quite a few things from the Crown Store because I don't look at the item as being "$25".
Instead, I look at it this way: "$25 to support this game I'm having a blast with, and look, they're giving me a lioness for free!"
ZoS doesn't require a subscription to play the game (it used to for PC players, but this was lifted when the console versions were released).
Thus, one has to ask: does value mean bitching about a few optional micro-transactions to earn revenue to keep several servers online so people can play the game or does value mean an entitled gamer is supposed to own everything the game offers for little to no cost while expecting companies to earn revenue selling.... t-shirts?
There's only one logical choice in the above, that is, unless you're Tim or Alex, who can't tell the difference between DLC and micro-transactions.
If you want clarification on this, I suggest hitting up on the latest gaming news where the headlines are shouting how Destiny is going to offer micro-transactions in its game.
I find it rather comical none of these titles are calling the new items "DLC".
Has anyone read the fine print on Charter's website?
There's a little caveat, in 1px font: "Our services cover the entire state, except when any or all of the following conditions are met: -The serviceable area is covered by one or more internet service providers
-The serviceable area is locked out due to state or federal restrictions, such as military bases.
-New housing developments, but only after construction is near or has been completed.
-Three kilometers, or less, to a pole servicing a node.
-Customer has a beating heart.
-National parks or recreation areas owned by state or private parties.
-Fourteen steps, due south, of any gas or electrical utility box, not painted green, and within a neighborhood of 1 or more homes.
-Areas with increased risked of severe natural disasters, such as "Tornado Alley", flood zones, and solar radiation exceeding 12SPF.
We reserve the right to update this list without any notice, because we often do."
What's funny about the above "string" attached, it's still better than Verizon, Comcast, and AT&T combined.