

Congrats, dumbest take you could have on this.
Congrats, dumbest take you could have on this.
So, hilariously, if you never had connected them, you’d still retain the offline features, since they couldn’t push that update on you?
Although I assume they push you hard to connect them at first use.
Don’t have a link to underline this but it was just a proposal and was not endorsed officially. This is not going to happen.
So, is there any consensus if secure boot is even needed at all? I’ve read so many different opinions about this the past few days and have no idea.
No. Carbon offsetting is a scam and does not do shit for the environment.
Yes, you almost got it. Well done. I’ll leave you with that.
No, the point is that just because you pirated it, it doesn’t mean you would have paid for the content if there were no way to pirate it.
Hell no. Too much drama.
You basically wrote what I did, but from a different viewpoint.
Your example with the cinema is also a typical apple and oranges example comparing a digital distribution with a physical service. Yes, when you sneak into a cinema the cinema provider is losing revenue because you take a seat someone else might have paid for. So at some point the cinema is full and cannot accommodate any more people that paid which would prompt the provider to check tickets.
There is no such scenario for digital distribution. You are not taking anyone’s space. The provider can sell their product infinitely often. You even already pay for the traffic you cause with your internet connection. It is a very different situation but is always equated because online piracy is of course the worst problem ever.
“The pay-TV provider suffered damage in the millions as a result,” the ZCB announced without providing further details. The content providers speak of high revenue losses due to piracy on an “industrial scale”.
Natürlich. Jeder hätte auf jeden Fall das legale Angebot abonniert, gäbe es da nicht diesen illegalen Service. Klar, macht Sinn. Gibt auf keinen Fall die Möglichkeit, dass die Leute dann einfach nichts abonnieren, natürlich nicht, nein.
Edit: sorry, didn’t realise this might be an English community. Just wrote sarcastically that obviously everyone who subscribed to the illegal service will now certainly go for the legal alternative. Which is why it totally makes sense to mark these as lost revenue. Absolutely not possible that people might just no subscribe to the legal service, nope.
Valid question. But this article is a physical book in your own hands. I am not saying this is safe or anything but has nothing to do with Amazon besides that they sell it.
Almost none of that seems relevant for tourism. I also as a tourist in France on several occasions never noticed anything shutting down middle of the day, but I was never in rural France. I assume OP may not start their adventure in rural areas either.
Am I too European to understand what this is about?
If that is stated somewhere openly before signing up, I honestly see nothing wrong with it. I wouldn’t sign up there, but if there are any tangible rules associated with what is banned and what is not, and you can check those, fine.
If its erratic banning and random rules not written down, then eh, bad stuff.
Top export Switzerland: Gold.
TIL Switzerland “makes” gold.
So, first of all:
Pretty sure any “reputable” flight company is already doing that. I am not sure any consumer can really get clear evidence though. They don’t need bots for this, they just tell their booking portal to lie.
Moving on:
Reselling means people book flights via what, eBay? Is there a market for reselling flight tickets? Depending on the country involved, destination and so on these bookings require you to leave a name or even passport details.
I’ve stopped reading after this paragraph. Is this just an AI written article of made up issues?