The licence grants: "A worldwide, transferable and sublicensable right to use, copy, modify, distribute, publish and process, information and content that you provide through our Services and the services of others, without any further consent, notice and/or compensation to you or others. These rights are limited in the following ways: You can end this license for specific content by deleting such content from the Services, or generally by closing your account, except (a) to the extent you shared it with others as part of the Service and they copied, re-shared it or stored it and (b) for the reasonable time it takes to remove from backup and other systems."

What doesn't that legally allow exactly? IANAL but that looks like "anything goes" as even re-sharing under identical terms is permitted.

A small UK startup operating out of a shed managed to sell cheap dowsing kits intended for "finding golf balls" as bomb detectors only a few years back: https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.bbc.co.uk%2Fnews%2Fuk-...

I'm hairy enough to cosplay an Oozaru, so clothing is limited to the bare minimum to avoid indecent exposure charges should I need to answer the door to collect a home delivery. There's no way anyone would want me on video chat and I'm fairly sure this is the case for most men and women working from home.

Red Bull sponsored the development of Wipeout 2097 and last I checked games like Gran Turismo still obtain sponsorship deals with tyre companies to offset licence costs. This new feature is not about sponsorship (which consists of brand names being featured prominently) it's about spying on all of us through individually-profiled advertising. The only viable solution to this is to take your use of the platform offline and bow out of paying subscription fees.

Now that the web is ceasing to become a viable advertising platform (due to everyone and their dog deploying ad blockers) companies like Microsoft will be capitalising on the ability to embed invasive spyware into native apps again. It isn't just Microsoft though. Seen Apple's platform lately? Now chock full of crap advertising in core apps like News and Stocks, regardless of what you pay for your iCloud+ subscription and regardless of the fact that you paid for those apps as part of buying your device.

We can expect a lot more of this sort of thing (even with paid products) going forward. It's up to us to say no.

Whether it's physical or digital, we only own our specific instance or copy of software/firmware. That copy could be rendered unusable by its runtime environment at any time and we've made it illegal to supply workarounds, lest we be accused of circumventing copyright enforcement measures and end up sued into the ground.

The closest we will get to a solution is to use platforms without DRM like Steam (where Goldberg emulates the APIs, just avoid Denuvo and uPlay) or Good Old Games (using standalone installers) but even then, your operating system could betray you at any point. Thus, one should reward multi-platform software and shun single-platform solutions where it makes sense to do so.

I have no issue with optional Microsoft Accounts but I have a big issue with them being mandatory for logging in, here's why:

1) This will fundamentally lock people out of using old computers. In 20 years time, you will have to crack your OS just to be able to use the hardware you paid for.
2) It's like using Azure AD. If someone compromises your MS account, they can potentially lock you out of your own PC. That's an unnecessary risk at home.
3) Microsoft can actually tie the data they collect to a person (as opposed to a device). Microsoft has a worse track record than even Google for privacy.
4) You're no longer bound by just the stupid EULA. Microsoft can alter their ToS to ban anyone for anything they don't like, for any reason, no ifs or buts.
5) Developers will just use the Microsoft Store if they know everyone has to have an account. This means DRM, forced updates and no rollbacks.
6) Website developers will just have users sign in via Google, Meta, Apple or Microsoft if they know this covers 100% of their intended user base.
7) Microsoft can just be court-ordered to grant access to your computer in the Home version if you use an MS account (as BitLocker is TPM-only for Home)
8) Look at how Microsoft can and does ban Xbox users for anything, do you want them to have the same leverage over PC users? (everyone, not just gamers)

...there are many more reasons than this, these are the immediate few which come to mind. Again, I don't mind if these accounts are optional, it's when they become mandatory that I have a big problem with them.

It tried to force me to use a Microsoft Account, so I had to immediately upgrade it to Professional using Shift+F10 and setup.exe with /Pkey to bypass the requirement. A day later it gave me a full screen OOBE-like interface at login time with a "remind me in 3 days" which looks disturbingly like a grace period, so I've gone into Local Security Policy and gpedit.msc and banned Microsoft Accounts from being added using the two relevant policies.

If it tries to force the issue further, I will plop in some spare MSDN keys to make it into Enterprise. I don't care what the EULA says because there will be no "production use" possible anyway if Microsoft's BS doesn't leave me alone.

This "deal" only makes sense if you don't own any games and just want to play whatever they choose to include in the offer. Otherwise, this announcement essentially means the cheapest PS5 available costs $999.99 over its intended lifecycle before you've even purchased games for it. To get backwards compatibility with older games (most of which you'd likely already own), with what will be an inferior streamed experience, they want to charge you a whopping $1699.99 all-in! For that price, you can buy a pre-built PC with a decent graphics card from the likes of HP or Dell and get constant access to new free and "pay what you want" games which you get to keep forever. This is completely ignoring the "hidden savings" one can make by downloading games from alternative sources, which can add up to way more than the cost of the hardware in a very short period of time.

This legislation will not harm end-to-end encryption. If anything, it makes it more likely that services will implement it using free and open standards (e.g. double ratchet) in order to address GDPR issues which arise from complying. This is the same kind of scaremongering we had when the EU wanted services to scan what they had on their servers for illegal content. In neither case was any client-side backdoor required. All these pieces of legislation exist to create decent excuses for companies to cease storing data they did not need and to put an end to encryption methods which aren't zero knowledge entirely. Of course, big tech companies would never do that lest they lose all that precious advertising data...

Then it'd be Goolag for them!

A joke is a joke is a joke... and no, this scenario is no different. Alopecia is alopecia and the fact it's more likely to happen to men does not make it any more or less off limits when women are the butt of the joke. The argument that a woman suffering from baldness is worse off than a man is laughable given it's infinitely more socially acceptable for women to wear wigs and extensions (whether they have decent natural hair or not) than it is for men to even wear as little as a toupee. Men are essentially told to suck it up when they suffer from alopecia, while women get boatloads of sympathy from all sides (as per usual). Women are showered with encouragement by marketers and large assortments of products are available for them on the open market, while men who tried to fix the problem were (until very recently) openly ridiculed for trying. Besides, there are plenty of positive examples of bald women throughout media too; the Bene Geserit mothers in Dune (the older one) and the Royal Guard from Black Panther immediately come to mind. In reverse, you have people like Katy Perry showing that artificial hair is in many ways better than the real thing.

Claiming women have it worse when someone dares to treat a woman the same way men have always been treated is pretty much a meme at this point.

Following the Single UNIX Specification allows you to refer to your system as being UNIX. The certificate gives you trademark rights. Apple used to say Mac OS X was certified UNIX on their website if you look at it through the wayback machine.

Try a3ob. I made the mistake of using the mobile version of the site⦠which clearly cannot handle unicode properly.

Use the desktop version of the website, you do not need to turn anything off then. This is not a case of telling the user what to do but for the website developers to fix the code powering the mobile version of the website, as they clearly did for the desktop version.

The west likes to airbrush away inconvenient facts too. We just do it using information overload instead!

Remember: A search for âa3obâ(TM) on YouTube or even a trip to the wayback machine (to look at what our own media published a few years back) debunks what our own news pushes as being the truth today. Reality is that both Russia and Ukraine arenâ(TM)t countries we really want to support but arming far right militia groups might happen to be the lesser of two evils right now.

The irony is that due to the airbrushing, the same people who insisted on âoepunching nazisâ now cheer them on. Give it a decade or so and they will go back to punching again because some stupid newscasters told them to. With any luck, maybe the Russian army and Azov battalion will both wipe each other out, taking Putin to his grave with them. Then both sides can live in harmony!