Yeah, the normal game costs $60. The collectors edition costs $140. I'll grant you that I really want that sucker, but it's a hard buy at that price point.
Minkind Divided also has microtransactions. Heck, one of the key issues people have is the in game digital goodies are gone after being collected. Start a new game and you have to buy them over again, with real money.
I saw this in Rome. A patrol would come through and the vendors would all grab everything. When the police were gone everything was back in place. It's so strange to us country folks. I've lived in a city of 300k people, and street vendors were the exception not the rule.
Germany doesn't have the 1st Amendment, but they are part of the EU, which has some free speech protections.
It is the primary duty of every US judge to determine if a law is in compliance with the constitution. This was deliberately set up as a check and balance to prevent a simple majority from becoming tyrannical.
From things like this it certainly looks like German judges don't have that ability.
I was going to buy one of these, but not with that attitude.
Can anyone recommend a good competitor? I'm in need of something like the nano as a PGP keystore for my laptop. It needs the standard features, wipe on too many bad attempts, and anti-tamper protection.
Youbikey would have worked, but they didn't make it easy. Well, now to do research...
Lets see here, if Oracle wins any re-implementation of an API would be illegal.
Dennis Ritchie, and Bjarne Stroustrup probably never transferred parts of the C and C++ API copyright to the standards body. Mostly because they, like everyone else, assumed it doesn't exist. A straight reading of an Oracle win is those two could hold almost the entire software world hostage. Almost, everyone uses C and C++. Microsoft, Google, Oracle, the US Government.
I really wish they would too, just to prove the absurdity of such a ruling.
The only problem is the legal term for protection racket is extortion. The Yelp ruling says it's not extortion to say, "Suck a pity this (possibly true) information is there for anyone to see, why don't you pay us some money/buy some ads and we'll make it go away."
Restricting obscene speech or actions is a quagmire of laws that might be on the books, but may or may not be legal. Take for example indecent exposure laws. If a woman goes topless in the NY library it's not allowed. Unless, she notifies the media that she's protesting. Then it's all legal....
You get the same things with these trademark laws. Let's say the KKK comes up with a new slogan. It's obviously protected speech, but if a sports team used it then it's no longer protected?
Ehh, I like the decision but this was probably more of an issue with policy and training than anything else. I'm perfectly willing to believe the officer was following poorly written instructions or not even thinking about how he turned the phone off.
I'm glad the court didn't go with a 'just this one time' it's ok decision though.
It's already started. Cisco saw a drop in sales after the pictures of the NSA intercepting their boxes in transit were released. If the FBI goes that route and wins, then the NSA don't even need to intercept shipments. They can just modify the source code and secretly demand Cisco sign it. Same goes for Windows.
It's been shown before that they can man-in-the-middle just about any network traffic. The next over the air, or mandatory windows update might contain all sorts of goodies from the NSA.
The interesting thing is this is about a laser printer. The laser printer segment has typically not actually run using the razor blade model. That's why a laser printer with the same features as an inkjet costs several hundred more dollars.
Thing is, these printers are typically bought by businesses or prosumers. While some businesses might stick to buying only brand name, everyone else who hears about this might re-evaluate if Lexmark is someone they want to continue doing business with. Brother makes some pretty good and inexpensive lasers after all.
Well yeah, but you run into the same issue that self encrypting drives have. The data in flash memory is encrypted with a huge key which is kept on the encryption chip. There's no way to read the key without de-encapsulating the chip, and that carries with it significant risk. Those things are meant to be tamper proof after all.
If apple did this correctly, the encryption chip is a separate component, that can not have its firmware changed. It can even still be in the same package as the CPU. By tightly defining the security element's inputs and outputs you can create an extremely hard to crack system, even if it can't receive firmware updates.
My fear is that the checks, including the counter for number of retries is handled by upgradable firmware. That would mean not only could apple crack any phone, but the next time a bootloader jailbreak is found everyone else could too.
It really makes me wonder just how much power the supreme court has. I mean if the CAFC keeps doing so badly, does SCOTUS have any options aside from continually smacking them down?
To be fair, SCOTUS is powerful enough that they could wipe out entire categories of patents or copyrights with a pen stroke. The question is if CAFC keeps it up can they just explicitly say that they don't consider anything that court does as binding?