causing radio interference if you receive a call near an active speaker
Oh damn, this just bought a flood of memories back from nowhere. That distinct sound that would comee out of the speakers right before you got a call. I don’t think I even noticed that it doesnt happen anymore.
It’s because apple hasn’t released usb3.0 specs as a new invention yet.
It’s recommended to have two providers, one for monthly and one block account, on two seperate backbones. I think /r/piracy or /r/Usenet has a list, and as whirlybird mentioned just add the show to sonarr and it’ll eventually grab it.
If you don’t have any *are suite I highly recommend getting that set up. Sonarr for tv shows, radarr for movies. It’s all set and forget, just add the content you are after and the *are does the rest. You just add your indexer(s), add the provider(s) and you’re sorted.
I find this take amusing. Blocking the ads means the content creator doesn’t get paid for those ads since they won’t get seen by those end users, but sponsor’s have already paid the creator for that part. Whether you watch it or not the money has already changed hands, all it does is automate you skipping those segments.
Ok. Cars can be used to ram raid buildings, to try to rip atm from walls. Used to package, carry and execute bombings. Should we ban all vehicles? Or better yet, guns. They can be used, and are used over and over again to attack and terrorise innocent people out at the shops or going to school. Should all guns be banned? The internet can be used to learn how to make bombs and other weapons for the use of terror. That doesn’t even need to be anything special either, simple google searches will get you there. Should we ban the internet. I’m sure there are clearnet sites that post things that shouldn’t be posted its not just on the darknet.
I do agree with your last point though. You can have full security or you can have full privacy but you can’t have both. I think the main argument is because you value security more whilst myself and others value privacy more. Both, in my view are fair and valid.
So, those resellers listed have been known to hold and sell keys that are linked to stolen credit cards and other unauthorised payment methods. The keys are bought up cheap during sales using the stolen credentials then posted on the reseller sites. A few things happen when the victim notifies their bank or institution of the fraud. Steam or whatever site cancels those keys, meaning the person who purchased the key on the reseller site is out a product, the dev/publisher then has to front the cost of the charge back for the fraudulent purchase, or at least the 70% cut they get. Knowing that sometimes the keys you purchase dont work the resellers also offer a service, for an extra fee, to ensure that your key will work.
In essence, the reseller makes money from the purchase of the key, the fraudulent posters of the keys make money from the sale of the key, the legitimate store and the dev lose money due to the chargeback caused by the fraudulent sale, and the user who purchased the key is out money and a product. There are legitimate resellers who dont operate this way but the ones pictured are not those ones.
Thats not even the fact that the reseller wouldn’t be selling the key for less than they bought it so the customer is giving more money to someone else rather then the dev. So sure, the dev may have been paid for the keys at sale price, but the end user is paying more which goes to someone else.
Common sense? Take the signal protocol. Theres more innocent people using it for whatever purpose than there are guilty people using it for whatever purpose. You can’t not develop or use a technology just because somebody else might use it for nefarious purposes. Bad people do bad things on the normal internet, does that mean we should start restricting internet usage because someone might do something bad? Of course not, thats just stupid. So why doesn’t the same hold true for encryption technologies? Sure someone with ill intentions is going to do things with it we don’t like, but the majority of users are just wanting to use said technology so governments and corporations don’t see what they are doing.
Or are we not entitled to privacy simply because some people use their privacy to harm others?
Reconfigured version goes off, but the normal version is still so much better than the movie. I didnt hate the movie but I too haven’t rewatched it.
You know all you had to do was right click the desktop and hit hide icons right?
Don’t you think app developers should have the freedom of choice for app stores? Android has multiple places to get apps, lots of FOSS apps aren’t on play store, and likely aren’t on iOS at all. Having the option for 3rd party store gives not just users, but developers too, an option and access to more apps/users that wouldn’t otherwise be available. You want safe secure apps, that’s all good.
You mentioned that an app might move away from the app store to a 3rd party store, if you already use and trust that developer’s product how will having to get it from a different location change that?
Now, not to sound too harsh, but why your convenience of not having to go get another store more important than a devs ability to host their product in a different location?