TimeOmnivore

The problem with that is that Nintendo was no longer selling the vast majority of those ROMs in any official capacity. Not only that, but Nintendo trying to claim that they somehow had damages from these ROMs being available is completely flawed logic in and of itself - they weren't hurt financially because these ROMs existed, as people weren't able to buy them officially nor does a download equal a lost sale even if they were available for purchase. If Nintendo had an official emulator to replace their old hardware and officially sold copies of their ROMs to work on said emulator, I would completely understand them having a legitimate and understandable case, but they don't. If the law is on Nintendo's side here then the law needs to be changed - as this situation is neither just nor reasonable.

Nintendo makes good games, but fuck the corporate side of them. Over $12 million for 20+ year old ROMs that are no longer being sold is total bullshit. We really need some serious copyright reform over here, as this entire situation is completely illogical and unreasonable.

Because if bananas go extinct, we won't be able to use bananas for scale anymore, which would be a devastating blow to the tech industry.

Yeah... no. I use 15GB a day, if not more. 15GB per month is an absurdly small amount, showing that the people proposing this change have no idea what they're talking about. Even if the 'extra fee' was one-time only (per month), so you'd pay the same extra amount whether you used 16GB or 16TB, this would still be a terrible idea. Also, this: is downright insulting. People can easily use far more data than their cap provides without even going near the content of the people this group wants to compensate. All that said, I'm not Canadian, so even if this was implemented it wouldn't affect me (at least not directly), but this is still bullshit that needs to be called out on.

1 of 2 things (or both) would make be buy a Switch - Breath of the Wild at 60fps, or Atlus and/or Sony let P5 go multiplatform and onto the Switch. If this new revision doesn't give previously existing titles a performance boost or bring in more 3rd-party support, I question the point of buying this 'new' Switch over the old. If this revision doesn't change much, hopefully Nintendo will just lower the price of the current Switch model and list the 'new' Switch at the current Switch's price, rather than raising the price for this supposed revision.

So the dude's salty he made a bad deal because he lacked foresight and wants to retroactively get a better deal? What? Sorry you got shafted dude, but you made your bed, now lie in it. Does he not realize this whole situation just makes him look like a petty child and, if anything, will only encourage people to not support him by not buying his books?

Not sure what you're saying here. Chrome running a Twitch VOD (1080p60, 1.2x speed) and nothing else (hardware acceleration enabled) - 60%-70% CPU usage and everything works. Firefox running a Twitch VOD (1080p60, 1.2x speed) and nothing else (hardware acceleration enabled) - 99%-100% CPU usage, severe lagging, browser freezes, nothing good. Still use Firefox for everything else without issue, but, at least on my system, Twitch just shits the bed with it.

Same, though I still use Chrome when using Twitch, since Twitch in Firefox uses 30% more of my CPU than it does in Chrome... for some reason.

I believe companies should have the right to ban whoever they want from their services for any reason. I don't think you have any sort of unalienable right to use their services provided those services aren't necessary for your ability to survive (e.g. water/electric companies). I can't say I'm particularly upset at Alex Jones being effectively kicked off of the majority of the internet, as that guy's a bigoted prick who regularly spouts harmful bullshit. That said, I also wouldn't be upset if every company decided to just let anyone use their services so long as they don't do anything illegal. In fact I think it would be better for everyone if you knew without a doubt that you wouldn't be censored by media companies for saying whatever you want. I just don't think those companies should be required to have such a policy in place.

Given that preordering video games is a terrible idea to begin with, this change should mean exactly nothing.

This may sound rude, but I value my time far, far more than their ability to make a few cents off of me watching ads on their streams.

September 20th Updated prices from live stream: 2070 - $500 2080 - $700 2080ti - $1000

Well... Hopefully the Pascal cards will go down in price? Cause these prices are kinda ridiculous.

Meanwhile their UI is such dogshit, that you need to use a third-party site (e.g. https://flixable.com/) to actually sort through their catalogue in any reasonable fashion. Also, fuck ads - if this becomes a permanent feature and they, in any way (even if it's just those 5 second ads), get in the way of me watching whatever show I'm watching, I'll find that show elsewhere. There's a reason I use an adblocker everywhere and don't have cable: I value my time far more than I value a company's profits.

That just sounds like an education problem, rather than a problem with the internet itself. We absolutely need more educated people in government to help curb those problems you mentioned, but levying websites/companies while simultaneously trying to regulate internet content based on vague "ethics" and trying to shoehorn in liability for user-generated content is not the way to go about it.

Fuck this part especially - for two main reasons. One being that expecting (particularly large) sites to be able preemptively monitor every piece of content that is uploaded without said sites going bankrupt is about as realistic as walking on the sun without getting burned. And, possibly more importantly, two: the use of the word 'harmful' alongside 'illegal'; given what I've seen of the UK's propositions and attempts at law on just this forum alone, I sure as hell don't want them being the determining factor on what's considered 'harmful' - nor do I trust any other agency with that definition either - they'd probably try to fine sites for normal pornography or swearing or some other equally benign shit. Governments don't seem to understand that if they wanted the internet to be restricted and within their purview, they needed to have done that several decades ago when it was in its infancy - it's far too late now, and any and all attempts to restrict the way people use and/or access the internet at this point will only be met with vitriol and rejection by the masses.

I doubt that price is accurate - if it was, then the 1160's performance has to be absurdly higher than the 1060's for anyone to buy the new card over the old one. And I doubt Nvidia would just leave that much of a gap in the market, since if they want people to buy their new cards, they have to have a competitive equivalent (price-wise) to their old generation. They can't increase the prices of their "low-end" cards by that much unless they want their consumers to stick with the old generation for a longer period of time, which wouldn't make much sense, as far as I can tell.

Yes that's just my opinion, but the reason I called them unnecessary because every game gets pirated, regardless of any DRM, so all DRM really accomplishes is annoying regular consumers and potentially worsening the problem by pushing some to pirate a clean version of the game without the DRM. Yes, DRM prevents pirating for a short period of time, and it's up to the publishers to decide if that short amount of time is worth whatever it costs to add Denuvo's DRM to their games - but that doesn't mean I have to like, support, or otherwise respect their decision. I'm confused as to what part of my comment led you to believe that I thought my dislike of their products changed reality it any sort of way? I said I acknowledge their right to sue under the current laws (nor would I revoke this right if I had the ability) - my point was only that just because they have the legal authority to behave as they did, I don't have to respect their products or their company and can say "Fuck Denuvo" without any qualms. Similar to how Nintendo's practices make me say "Fuck Nintendo"(at least their business side of things - games are still good), despite the fact that everything they do is also legal and within their rights.

Don't know about you, but I can still confidently say, "Fuck Denuvo" for creating and releasing shitty and unnecessary products, while still accepting that they have the legal grounds to protect their IP. Something being legal doesn't necessarily mean its justifiable or reasonable.

Fuck Denuvo. Unfortunately, I can't imagine that Voksi is going to be found innocent and/or not punished (although I'm completely unfamiliar with Bulgarian law). IMO, you shouldn't be penalized for unfucking games and making them not only run better, but also ensuring they can still be played once the DRM servers go down (an inevitability). Hopefully more people keep fighting the good fight until DRM companies finally concede defeat. It's like they don't understand that putting that shitty bloatware into their games only encourages people to pirate a clean version. Hell, if publishers really, really want to bog down their games with DRM no matter what, I'd honestly be fine with even a half-ass victory where publishers would sell a no-DRM version of their games after like 3-5 years after release or something.

YouTube loads much faster for me on Firefox. Though that's most likely due to the fact that I use an addon that reverts YT to the old style. So compared to the new redesign on Chrome, the old design on Firefox is the faster of the two.

That's because, legally, Nintendo's almost definitely in the right with all of their asinine and draconian business practices - the problem is that ethically (by many people's standards) and in the court of public opinion, Nintendo is completely in the wrong here and in several other places. Unfortunately, Nintendo will continue to fuck over its consumers and fans so long as they keeping making money. Even if their profit starts to take a downward trend because of the way they treat their players like criminals, I'd wager that Nintendo is more likely to just fuck over everyone even more rather than actually change their polices for the better, though I'd love to be proven wrong here. Just because Nintendo is legally allowed to do what they're doing, doesn't mean what they're doing should be considered reasonable or acceptable. Side note: the amount Nintendo is suing these sites for is completely ridiculous and unreasonable - even if these old games were easy to purchase and play (they aren't), there's no way in hell Nintendo would be losing anywhere near the amount of money they're suing for.

When it comes to streaming services, competition would only be always better if all they were competing in was streaming quality, ease of use, compatibility, availability and various other quality of life features - but since they're competing in content exclusivity, competition just drives up the price consumers need to pay to legally access all of the content they want to watch. But there's only so many quality of life features you can have with a streaming service (unless you're Netflix, in which case you can just say "Fuck it." and actively make your user experience terrible), so they can only really compete with content, which makes most competition in the legal streaming market anti-consumer and annoying.

It would be nice if this means I'll be able to get a more up-to-date security patch for my phone. Before, the update service would just say "network unavailable", whereas now it seems to be working - although no update is available yet (currently on the Feb2018 security patch). Guess we'll just have to wait and see, but given how infrequent updates were even before the ban, I don't exactly have high hopes. Regardless, I'll probably refrain from buying from ZTE in the future so I (hopefully) won't have to deal with this kind of thing again.

Given that YouTube is still in the red (i.e. running a video sharing service on the scale of YT is extremely expensive), and the fact that ~400 hours of video are uploaded to YT every minute, the chances of a new company creating a competitive service that doesn't crash and burn due to the sheer costs of running and maintaining (let alone making sure everything uploaded is inline with their policies/not illegal) is already very, very close to 0%. And then convincing the billions of people who already use YouTube to switch? It would take a company the size of Google to even attempt that feat - and we all know what companies of that size do just from looking at the direction YT has gone in: if they want money, they need to please the people paying them, which means the advertisers, which just means fucking over the creators yet again. I truly believe that it is practically impossible for a competitor to arise to take on YouTube and actually be even remotely decent for any prolonged period of time. Most people simply don't care about the problems of creators and will just keep watching/using the site regardless. The only semi-realistic solution would be for several, smaller sites to arise that each focus on specific subjects/genres so they don't get overwhelmed. But even that's kinda fucked, since people like having everything bundled together all in one place and YouTube already exists.