rrouse

Doesn't that mean I would be downloading all of the image data and only using part of it?

I live in St. Louis.

We have a growing tech scene. Some of my friends refer to St. Louis's tech as the "Silicon Ghetto" as it's not quite as expansive as SF. More businesses are moving and starting up here because of Arch Grants and one of the co-founders of Square has a startup accelerator here as well.

Granted, I don't work for a company in St. Louis. I actually work remotely for a company based out of San Fran.

I've always hated the notion of "We pay you some small amount to own you 24/7."

In my opinion, what I do outside of work hours is mine and mine alone. I always make sure I state that explicitly and modify any contract that tries to do otherwise.

The NDA says that it's an agreement between Id, on behalf of Zenimax, and Luckey (Occulus)

Interesting that it phoned home

I realize that, but the parent comment I was replying to was suggesting that the access would be removed from everyone that had the same file, sharing or not. At least that's how I read it. I could be wrong.

However, as stated, the DMCA isn't currently meant to take down the file and keep it down forever. It's meant to kill links one at at time.

Bigger organizations want it to take a file down and keep it down forever, which is what's being kicked around now as being a possible reinterpretation of the DMCA, which is crazy.

That's not how DMCA works. That's how some of the bigger copyright organizations (RIAA for example) want it to work.

Besides, what might be copyright infringement to one user might be legitimate usage to another. For example, you might have an illegal copy of an ebook in your folder, but I have the same copy, but mine was paid for. Should I lose access to mine? OReilly books don't have DRM, so it's possible it could happen.

To some people, that means "one who removes copy protections from software"

I believe it was just a user of Github and not an employee that did that nonsense.

I think it was just a user of Github and not an employee that did that nonsense

You could try an old trick that I used during my tech support days.

You can kill Windows explorer with task manager and then use the File/New Task option to restart explorer with a higher level user. You can then do whatever you need to as that user (e.g. control panel, delete files, add hardware, etc). When you're done, you can just repeat the process and start explorer again as the original users.

I haven't tested 100% in Windows 8 (killing and starting explorer as another user does work), but it should work in Windows 7 and below.

I used this any time right clicking an exe and selecting "run as" wasn't enough

On the development side, consoles makes things both easier and harder at the same time. Easier in the sense that you have one target hardware set that doesn't change, so you can do all sorts of things to make your game run better. However, that makes things also harder since the hardware isn't upgradeable so you have your limitations set in stone.

So while I like the idea of Steam box, there isn't any benefit, in my opinion, to buying one over building one.

Yes.

That uses, as far as I can tell, ActiveMerchant anyway. ActiveMerchant was built by Shopify if I remember correctly