TWeaK

I was looking for a new TV last month, the salesman said it was “sacrilege” when I told him I had no intention of connecting the TV to the internet or using its online functions since I will have a media PC connected to it. I was just interested in the quality of the screen.

Thankfully mandatory arbitration isn’t a global problem.

Lol setting aside the joke, and of course if you don’t pay you won’t have a case, but if you had paid I think there would be some statutory rights that would make a claim straightforward and wouldn’t require a lawyer. Small claims is a pretty universal concept regardless of jurisdiction, the limit varies but everywhere has some similar avenue. Filing fees are small and lawyers are not usually involved, just two parties and a judge, and these days it can be done remotely.

What if you downloaded an iso from Microsoft and typed a simple command into powershell to activate it? 🏴‍☠️

But yeah all I’m saying is Microsoft are definitely on shaky ground with their sales claim here. However it’s no less shaky than things they were already convicted of years ago yet seem to be doing yet again, eg bundling Internet Explorer/Edge as the default browser - which has now expanded into occassionally resetting your default apps to Microsoft ones with system updates.

Project PRISM has matured.

They’re selling Windows and one of the selling points is that it includes full disk encryption. Thus they are selling full disk encryption.

Exactly. I remember reading an article about a Nazi who was tried in the UK, apparently Winston Churchill himself vehemently defended this guy because he was a Nazi who fought the Soviets, and Churchill really hated the Soviets. He pushed hard for the charges to be dismissed, had his life sentence reduced to a few decades, and then eventually had his sentence commuted so he was released. I found this article around the time that the main guy behind the Nuremberg trials, Benjamin Ferencz, passed away, however when I went searching for the article a couple months later it was nowhere to be found.

I suspect the article was deleted under Wiki’s general rule where they don’t like having articles about individuals, and instead prefer articles about events. However this individual’s story was the event, and this could have been an excuse by those looking to colour Churchill’s history how they felt it should be presented.

Let’s not forget, it took years for Wikipedia to even notice Neelix, the Wikipedia admin who made over 80,000 pages/links about titties.

This all started with Theresa May and the right for rich people to curate themselves online right to be forgotten.

Probably a captcha puzzle, or some other thing that requires you to connect to them and surrender your data for free for their commercial purposes.

And this appears to be the Reuters article your image is referring to: https://www.reuters.com/investigations/meta-created-playbook-fend-off-pressure-crack-down-scammers-documents-show-2025-12-31/

Can’t have a smart TV if you never connect it to the internet.

That’s not the point I was making. She argued that opening the box was tantamount to agreeing to the terms, but the full terms aren’t on the box. You can’t access the full terms until after you’ve opened it, thus you haven’t agreed to them yet as you haven’t had the opportunity to read them. And, even then, the agreement is far from iron clad.

On the subject of ownership, Peacock claimed that video games being licensed to consumers, rather than sold, was not a new phenomenon, and that “in the 1980s, tearing the wrapping on a box to a games cartridge was the way that gamers agreed to licensing terms.”

This is absolute bullshit and not at all how it works, now or back in the 1980s. You can’t agree to terms without seeing them first, and even then such agreements aren’t necessarily legally binding. For someone who is supposed to write laws, she should be removed from office for showing such gross incompetence.

Okay, I’m starting to think this article doesn’t really know what it’s talking about…

For most of modern computing history, however, analog technology has been written off as an impractical alternative to digital processors. This is because analog systems rely on continuous physical signals to process information — for example, a voltage or electric current. These are much more difficult to control precisely than the two stable states (1 and 0) that digital computers have to work with.

1 and 0 are in fact representative of voltages in digital computers. Typically, on a standard IBM PC, you have 3.3V, 5V and 12V, also negative voltages of these levels, and a 0 will be a representation of zero volts while a 1 will be one of those specified voltages. When you look at the actual voltage waveforms, it isn’t really digital but analogue, with a transient wave as the voltage changes from 0 to 1 and vice versa. It’s not really a solid square step, but a slope that passes a pickup or dropoff before reaching the nominal voltage level. So a digital computer is basically the same as how they’re describing an analogue computer.

I’m sure there is something different and novel about this study, but the article doesn’t seem to have a clue what that is.

Lol, I’m sure it’s a good book and Cory Doctorow is well renowned, but I can’t help but think: “Defeat Chokepoint Capitalism by buying our book right now!”

Did you read the article - or even the title? This story is about people turning to piracy, not turning to another official source.

I’m just glad they didn’t go into a protracted and expensive legal battle with this one, which isn’t exactly a good use of donated funds.

All of this is precluded by you using a browser that is authorised and approved by the government.

It doesn’t have to be, but the businesses making it claim it needs to be.

Fuck off with your device based verification system. That’s just the same service, but as a more invasive app installed on your phone.

Instead of scanning my face or ID and uploading it to a service, we’re expected to run unverified closed source code on the device we carry everywhere in our pockets?!