Itereus

This might be problematic, not because a hacked device shouldn't be banned, but because banning a user associated with a hacked device opens up a can of worms.
Scenario:
A friend logs onto my Switch. We play some games. Then a month later I hack the Switch and go online. Nintendo detects this, and bans all accounts on that Switch. My friend who has no connection to the hack receives a ban.
 
BUT! Thus far we only have this one(?) article and incident. As far as I know, there has been no public stance from Nintendo on this. Honestly, they should just state their policy regarding this. IMO it's OK to ban a hacked device from accessing the online service of Nintendo. There really is no excuse, you can do as you will with your device, but the consequence is that you're banned from accessing a seperate service not included with the Switch. This is especially true when they launch the paid online service.

I really don't understand how some people think this is good news. From what I understand, the only change this bring, is that you're required to actually use GFE as well as sign in to it. There is nothing good about this change, all it does is give less choice to consumers.
 
Want to sign in to GFE? Great, use it if you wish. But forcing this onto all users  who actually want to have updated drivers is just a silly move on Nvidia's part.

The people behind this seems incredibly naive. Wanting to spread love and all that, while the reality is that this app will most likely be used for trolling/scorned people.

The people behind this seems incredibly naive. Wanting to spread love and all that, while the reality is that this app will most likely be used for trolling/scorned people.

Well this is interesting...
 
A few issues are related to this. A few notes on this, are required, for clarity...
 
When it came time to do the Fury-X reviews, the graphs at Tech Report showed "GTX 980 Ti" when in fact the card used was an aftermarket overclocked model. Tech Report Fury-X review, therefore, showed drastically different numbers than all of the other websites which reviewed the card.  
Do I think AMD is doing the right thing? No. I think that, despite this lack of journalistic integrity on the part of Tech Report, AMD should have still sent them a card.
 
That being said, there is a rather large lack of journalistic integrity PC Gaming Review wide. Reviewers have become, and are nothing more, than 3rd party Public Relations agents for the large tech firms. They tend to, with the exception of a few notable examples such as David Kanter and Joel Hruska (ExtremeTech), lack the critical thinking skills required to question Public Relations and Marketing material being fed to them.
 
A prime example is in how the GeForce GTX 970 memory issue was not discovered by a reviewer, rather, it was discovered by a user. The current big controversy was discovered by myself. What controversy? The controversy surrounding Asynchronous Compute/Shading support on the Maxwell 2 series of GPUs from nVIDIA.
 
Why is it that we, the consumers, have to do all of the heavy lifting? Why do we, the consumers, have to discover these issues? Why aren't those who claim themselves to be journalists doing their jobs?
 
Journalists have always been the guardians of Liberty. They're tasked, and entrusted by the public, to look into various claims being made by those in positions of authority. Tech Reviewers act as the journalists of the Tech world. While I understand that most of them are looking for celebrity and fame, which relies on the acquisition of review samples on day 1, I find it rather curious that their own profit motive is placed before the needs of their viewers and readers.
 
I can't speak for AMD or nVIDIA... but I can speak for PC Gamers and Techies the world over... for consumers. A lot of us are getting tired of this. We're tired of throwing upwards of $1000 on hardware which doesn't function as advertised. We're tired of Tech Journalists acting as 3rd party Public Relations agents in order to retain access to the latest and greatest gadgets. A lot of us want accountability.
 
I'm speaking in general terms. Make of it as you will.
 
Peace.

I really wish people would read the sources. The title is completely misleading (even the thread creator said so himself). For those who drag in Skype etc. to make it apply to everything on W10, Skype is a MS service. They have the right to do whatever they want with it.
 
This does not cover services, games, programs and such that are NOT part of MS. Really, do you honestly think MS is going to bother creating updates all the time for pirated apps and games? Know how much manpower, not to mention hours it will take to stay on top of it all the time?
 
Please, think in a more logical way before posting inane arguments against something that's simply not true.
 
As for the whole piracy debate, my stance is that if something is not available through legitemate means, feel free to pirate it. If it's too expensive, don't buy it.

This hasn't changed, it is how it was written in the last one. 
 
What it means is they will only access your data if they have reasonable knowledge that doing so will protect your data, your data is part of a legal dispute or against terms and conditions, your account information is being used by someone else for nefarious reasons or similarly your account information/personal data is implicated.  If they have no reason or cannot show reasonable cause to look at our data they won't.
 
One thing people need to remember is that:
 
 
 
meaning if you don't give them your name address and payment details you can't purchase from the store, if you don't provide your email address you can't sync your emails to onedrive or other MS calendar services.
 
 
https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/privacystatement/

I really wish people would read the sources. The title is completely misleading (even the thread creator said so himself). For those who drag in Skype etc. to make it apply to everything on W10, Skype is a MS service. They have the right to do whatever they want with it.
 
This does not cover services, games, programs and such that are NOT part of MS. Really, do you honestly think MS is going to bother creating updates all the time for pirated apps and games? Know how much manpower, not to mention hours it will take to stay on top of it all the time?
 
Please, think in a more logical way before posting inane arguments against something that's simply not true.
 
As for the whole piracy debate, my stance is that if something is not available through legitemate means, feel free to pirate it. If it's too expensive, don't buy it.

I really wish people would read the sources. The title is completely misleading (even the thread creator said so himself). For those who drag in Skype etc. to make it apply to everything on W10, Skype is a MS service. They have the right to do whatever they want with it.
 
This does not cover services, games, programs and such that are NOT part of MS. Really, do you honestly think MS is going to bother creating updates all the time for pirated apps and games? Know how much manpower, not to mention hours it will take to stay on top of it all the time?
 
Please, think in a more logical way before posting inane arguments against something that's simply not true.
 
As for the whole piracy debate, my stance is that if something is not available through legitemate means, feel free to pirate it. If it's too expensive, don't buy it.

I really wish people would read the sources. The title is completely misleading (even the thread creator said so himself). For those who drag in Skype etc. to make it apply to everything on W10, Skype is a MS service. They have the right to do whatever they want with it.
 
This does not cover services, games, programs and such that are NOT part of MS. Really, do you honestly think MS is going to bother creating updates all the time for pirated apps and games? Know how much manpower, not to mention hours it will take to stay on top of it all the time?
 
Please, think in a more logical way before posting inane arguments against something that's simply not true.
 
As for the whole piracy debate, my stance is that if something is not available through legitemate means, feel free to pirate it. If it's too expensive, don't buy it.

I really wish people would read the sources. The title is completely misleading (even the thread creator said so himself). For those who drag in Skype etc. to make it apply to everything on W10, Skype is a MS service. They have the right to do whatever they want with it.
 
This does not cover services, games, programs and such that are NOT part of MS. Really, do you honestly think MS is going to bother creating updates all the time for pirated apps and games? Know how much manpower, not to mention hours it will take to stay on top of it all the time?
 
Please, think in a more logical way before posting inane arguments against something that's simply not true.
 
As for the whole piracy debate, my stance is that if something is not available through legitemate means, feel free to pirate it. If it's too expensive, don't buy it.

The whole issue is really weird to be honest. Why are we supposed to be happy that a CEO of a company answers a costumer support issue? It literally makes no sense to be happy that he responded, and even to go as far as say that he shows us how customer support is done? If by terribly, yes. But the reality is, if a CEO has to respond to an issue a costumer has, the whole system is broken.
 
I've heard a lot of bad things about Steam's costumer service, haven't interacted with them yet myself though, so I'm going by second hand information when it comes to this topic. But please people, instead of praising Gabe, grill him. Ask why he responded to the issue. Why it takes so long to get a response from CS. If he really is supposed to show how it's done, organize a proper CS, one would think that with their dominance in the market, they would have the best CS, at least they should be able to afford it.
 
And the whole "everyone here at Valve is in support" is just silly. Sure, if a costumer rep can't figure out an issue, talk to the developers. But I imagine that most issues can be easily fixed by a bog standard CS with an FAQ.

The whole issue is really weird to be honest. Why are we supposed to be happy that a CEO of a company answers a costumer support issue? It literally makes no sense to be happy that he responded, and even to go as far as say that he shows us how customer support is done? If by terribly, yes. But the reality is, if a CEO has to respond to an issue a costumer has, the whole system is broken.
 
I've heard a lot of bad things about Steam's costumer service, haven't interacted with them yet myself though, so I'm going by second hand information when it comes to this topic. But please people, instead of praising Gabe, grill him. Ask why he responded to the issue. Why it takes so long to get a response from CS. If he really is supposed to show how it's done, organize a proper CS, one would think that with their dominance in the market, they would have the best CS, at least they should be able to afford it.
 
And the whole "everyone here at Valve is in support" is just silly. Sure, if a costumer rep can't figure out an issue, talk to the developers. But I imagine that most issues can be easily fixed by a bog standard CS with an FAQ.

Since the case has been updated with some information of the group behind, does anyone really know what their goal is? From what I can tell, it seems like a thinly veiled disguise to hack Sony for the fun of it. "We want equality" is a really ambiguous statement to make without context of what they want equality in.

Since the case has been updated with some information of the group behind, does anyone really know what their goal is? From what I can tell, it seems like a thinly veiled disguise to hack Sony for the fun of it. "We want equality" is a really ambiguous statement to make without context of what they want equality in.