How are "Dems in charge" when Republicans have had a majority in both Congress and the Supreme Court for years now? For half the time there was also a Republican President.
It is crazy to me that when the GOP essentially ran the government and still did absolutely nothing for this country and didn't follow through on anything they blamed the "deep state" and people still bought into it.
Yes, if they offload all of the compute for anti-cheat to the customer's hardware, then you are right for current operating systems.
Client side anti-cheat is not the only way but it is the cheapest way for the game industry.
Flatpak doesn't come with more libraries to interact with other flatpaks. It comes with libraries that the application's flatpak you're downloading requires. However, when installing the flatpak those libraries do not get installed if they are already on the system.
So widget-flatpak needs lib-a and lib-b. You're system already has lib-b that flatpak is using for as another flatpak.
You install widget-flatpak. lib-a gets installed but lib-b does not because you already have it.
Doubtful either will do anything but maybe make a report that might be ready if they are murdered. Cops will say there is nothing they can do because nobody is hurt. I'd bet a field agent would never call you back or show up.
The 'Tells it like it is and doesn't care what anyone thinks' candidate.
I guess they can chalk this up to having a concept of an opinion at the moment in addition to having a concept of a plan.
I know that. That still misses the point. The point of the law is to clarify that on digital storefronts that you make purchases for licensed digital goods, that you can't imply to the consumer that they actually own those goods. It doesn't matter if there is an offline installer. It doesn't matter if you can 'keep your installers forever'.
It doesn't really matter because it doesn't change the point that people think they own digital goods when they don't. GOG may have a more consumer friendly system in place but it doesn't change what has happened with people's music, movies, shows, games and music in games at these digital storefronts, where people have clicked "Buy X" and later on, it's no longer in their libraries anymore. This has happened even when the business still exists and is still providing digital goods.
Right, if you download the offline installers, then they can't stop you from doing whatever you're going to do with it but you don't own them. Legally, you can't sell them, transfer them to someone else, etc.
There are other sections that make the lack of ownership by you clear and that you still have to abide by the publisher's/developer's licensing agreements but Section 10 states the situation outright:
Section 10 of the GOG user agreement says:
GOG content is owned by its developers/publishers and licensed by us.
It should because their use agreement makes it clear that you don't own the games but are licensing them. That's pretty much why they had to clarify what they said I'd imagine. IMO, proving the point of the law, really.
He's an elected judge. I don't know Michigan's laws but there might not be much more that can be done by the court administration themselves. I personally also took Chief Judge McConico's statement as a tactful 'fuck you' to Judge King.
Just do in what I do. Don't join meetings most of the time. That way when you do it is noteworthy to the meeting stakeholder.
Yeah sure my manglers through the years try to have 'the talk' but after awhile of training them via sheer apathy they shut the fuck up.
I solve complex problems, get my tasks done, I'm independent and I stay busy because I'll get bored. Most meetings could just be an email. There's no real collaboration except managers or scrum masters asking what your blockers are but not actually doing anything about it. If I think the meeting will be a waste of my time I just don't show up.