Unpopular opinion incoming!

First, full disclaimer: I am not a game developer, but I do write software for a living I'd prefer to be paid (and paid well) for my skills.

Ok, here's the thing. Sorry, but not your stuff. You didn't make it and you don't own it. You own a licence to use it. End of.

I know I'm in the minority here, but I believe not only is a certain amount of DRM acceptable, it's actually unfortunately necessary. I am possibly crazy, but I believe in paying the fucking writer.

Now DRM as it stands is fucking bullshit. *I* paid to watch this motherfucking movie. *i* paid to play this fucking game. Every time you cunts force me sit through a fucking anti -piracy message, it makes me more inclined to pirate your fucking content.

And I don't want to. If I'm buying your game/movie/book, I've already decided your artistic output is worth my time and energy that I put into working. Fuck it, I could have stayed at home and learned to play drums. I've wanted to do that for years, but I don't have the fucking TIME! So you get my time/work/energy.

How fucking dare you waste my precious free time on your sanctimonious fucking ads targeting the very people who don't give a shit about your message, and who, by some perverse twist of natural justice, don't have to put up with your bullshit.

That said.....

"wah, I don't like your DRM" is not a valid excuse to pirate content. If you don't like the way company X distributes your favourite book/game/movie/tv show.... don't consume that content.

No, seriously, (and I'm well aware I'm going to engender a lot of hate for this) if you feel you are entitled to the fruits of someone else's hard work because you don't agree with how it's distributed, then seriously, fuck you. Yeah, I'm not kidding. I don't care if it's WB or HBO or EA or whatever undeniably fucking idiotic big media conglomerate. At some point, a bunch of hard working, talented people created something you want to consume.

PAY THOSE FUCKING PEOPLE.

Or find another way to let those creators know you want their content but not as it's currently available.

If it's awesome, find a way to let them know. If it's shit, don't consume it.

So back to games and drm and copying.

It boils down to this. Buy the games you want. Support the people who are working their arses off because they love what their doing. If you think the new COD is shit (and you're in good company), then don't buy it, don't pirate it and for the love of FSM, don't play it. Your time is valuable. Buy a cheap PC and play FTL or Monaco or Fez or Walking Dead or Mark of the Ninja.... all great games, none of which need a "next gen" (aka 3 or 4 gens ago on the pc) console. Hell, go kickstart Star Citizen.

Fuck it, this is now so long I don't know where or why or how I started.*

Pay the people who make the things you love. They deserve it. They'll make more cool shit. Don't borrow it, don't pirate it. Just, pay them. They get fuck all enough as it is.

* kids! don't write posts drunk after midnight on Saturday after watching the All Blacks crush the French! You will write unpopular opinions and most likely excommunicate yourself from online communities you enjoy!

@truth-is-the-nemesis
now we are getting to the flaw in the argument,how i see it anyways.
this video targets the disabled people pimping their status out for cash as being the immoral ones.
that somehow selling their disabled status is vulgar and reprehensible.
maybe that is true but that is another discussion.mainly because we have not been made privy to the private details i.e:financial situation,medical bills etc etc.

you did hit on the very thing that struck me instantly from this video that the reporters never really addressed:the exploitation by the elite and privileged.

this is why i called it fake outrage.
because to me it was directed at the wrong people.

you used an analogy of disabled parking.
let me give a more succinct and actually true analogy that i find more...concise.

lets say we have a mother of 3 children.
and lets say she has multiple debilitating conditions.
let us also add to the pile that she has been denied disability status 4 times in a row from the courts,even after 7 back surgeries,is going blind and cant sit or lay down for more than 2 hrs at a time.

this mother has ZERO income due to the fact she cannot work even though the courts say she can,BUT she gets a host of prescription drugs.
she is over-precribed (and i mean waaay over) painkillers and sedatives.

so to take care of her 3 children she decides to sell her prescriptions at a 2000% mark up.this creates a decent income for her family to:have a home,eat and have clothing and even enjoy a few extras.

to accomplish this she is forced to deal with the unsavory aspects of society.junkies basically and she also has to live in the fear of getting caught and losing everything,including the very things most precious to her and the very reason why she embarked on this venture to begin with:her children.

so,my question :is she being immoral?

because while we may find these people who sell their disabled status as repugnant for abusing a system for cash,is it actually immoral?
or is it the privileged who exploit the desperation of others who are immoral?

is it both?
and if so,are there varying degrees of immorality?
are they mutually being exploitive of each other?

on the one hand we have some creative people that if they had brought their own families this would not even be an issue but since they charge a few hundred bucks it now becomes a "oh thats just terrible" moment.

on the OTHER hand we have families who seem to have a sense of entitlement due to the fact of owning a larger bank account but nobody says a word to them.

yet which is the greater offense?
which has the larger impact on ones sensibilities?

see what im saying?
from a purely subjective viewpoint we look upon these opportunists as vulgar,because it is vulgar.
but is it immoral?

@Kofi friedman was a cunt

So i'm guessing he didn't use helium? Actually, using Helium to fill up party balloons is incredible stupid use of the precious gas. Our current Helium storages are emptying out and there's no other way to produce it in the future than to extract it from the air.. The cost will make it at par with gold and platinum, our technology can not survive without it and US sells it at a fraction of it's real price... Next generations will mock us because of it...

I would have made sure he pushed me right into that precious Ferrari while I had my keys in my hand.

Then see, we'll gently guide her back down to earth so we can bust it open and see what's inside!

"Rumor has it, that Japanese securities mogul Hattorishi Hanzō MCCVII has purchased the first to be brought back to earth from her unaltered orbit, and plans to forge Samurai swords with the precious cargo, in the tradition of her great, great, great great, great, great great, great, great great, great, great great, great, great great, great, great great, great, great great, great, great great, great, great great, great, great great, great, great great, great, great great, great, great great, great, great great, great, great great, great, great great, great, great great, great, great great, great, great great, great, great great, great, great great, great, great great, great, great Grandfather."

Dude, what bung-magnets are concerned, and who would give a damn but someone with ASSHOLE tattooed on their forehead from birth??

Happy Birthday Vaire2ube, someone needs their monkey fed and another their precious votes...

My precious!!

@shatterdrose the 1% pushed government "aside"... what does that even mean? Are you fantasizing that the economy has been largely unregulated all this time, and that's why the 1% get their way?

Wouldn't it make more sense for you to make the connection that our government is FREAKISHLY HUGE and indebted, and that the terrible injustices in our economy result from massive government intervention in almost every aspect of it, bogging it down, wasting precious resources, destroying the value of our money, promoting wealth inequality... and not the other way around?

People don't hate the 1% just because they're rich, but because they're getting rich unfairly, with the help of government. *Government* is a big part of that equation.

You are so mistaken about the concepts you're trying to explain to me, it's hilarious!

Communism is not about means of production being owned by the state, the utopian concept itself is about a stateless society that is somehow reached through Socialism (Communism doesn't exist outside of theory, so don't worry your pretty little head about it). In Socialism, the State owns the means of production, it owns almost everything, mostly because the State doesn't recognize private property. You can say it "belongs to the people" all you want, but without private property, it belongs to whoever has a say into what should happen with it, i.e., the State. Democracy hasn't the faintest connection with any of this, because voting doesn't make you part of government.

"Lookit how it goes to us!" My precious, precious train.

So cute! (:

But @EMPIRE, the precious snowflake must be fully encapsulated to prevent contamination. Who needs an immune system??

No friend, there are many ways of taking it, this is probably the least used method. I was just pointing out shoddy journalism where it exists. I did not even mention the silly identification of "hipsters"... WOW.

Most people know enough not to sandwich... sure it works, but is very wasteful of your precious material. Shit, even insufflating it would be better than sandwiching it and smoking it out of a BOWL.

It doesnt seem as though I was pissy when I reread my message as compared to yours. I was mostly saying most of this segment is not based on facts and to be careful. Your message was a personal attack.

*squeals* this is probably why I will always prefer dogs over people. Thanks to the LA golden rescue and to the owner for giving this precious individual a loving home and sibling. I love the part where Kanga gets distracted, it's soooooo cute. It's like the pack in UP, "Squirrel!!"

don't put words in my mouth. I never said that there is no point in being able to defend oneself. The strawman argument is that the goal is to take all weapons away. no rational person is making that argument.

the reality is that guns are romanticized in America. The reality is that this clouds our judgement.

your second statement is also putting words in my mouth. I never said the CCW went in with "blazing" guns. They were lucky that's all.They were lucky they were there, they were lucky the shooter ran, they were lucky the shooter's gun jammed. They were lucky the shooter didn't have another gun. These things are not hard to grasp.

Can a CCW make a difference...of course it *CAN* It doesn't mean you rely on it. It doesn't mean you shove more guns into peoples hands and just hope it all works out for the best.

the article could be biased/slanted whatever but it has plenty of grains of truth. The odds are in your favor if you run. The odds are in your favor if you hide. It takes a hell of a lot of persistent training to obtain that muscle memory. It takes training to fight the natural urge to freeze up or to panic.

Is it an obtainable goal? sure! What people are actually advocating is that there be increased requirements for someone to obtain and keep a weapon. Thus reducing the odds that some deranged individual is going to get one.

There is no magic way of stopping this stuff from ever happening, but the reality is that if you can reduce the number of guns in circulation, you reduce the odds of someone getting a gun and doing something harmful with it. If you increase the requirements of what it takes to obtain and keep a gain, you reduce the amount of untrained wannabe gunslingers out there and increase the odds that if someone does have a gun, they are trained to use it wisely.

Bottom line is that you have a right to bear arms, but with that right comes a responsibility. I hear a lot of people talking about rights, but precious few talking about responsibility. You might want to think about that.

@BicycleRepairMan

Also vice versa. Which might sound circular, but isnt. Uniformitarianism is of course the simplest assumtion (occams razor) but it also correlates well with the available evidence. If natural laws acted differently in the past, we would presumably find EVIDENCE that it did. And correlating data is not a "hall of mirrors, it is evidence of correlation. This is basic statistics and empiri.

Thank you for your considered reply. Well see, here's the thing. Creationists and evolutionists are not looking at two sets of evidences. We are looking at the same evidence and interpreting it differently. There isn't creationist evidence and evolutionist evidence, there is just evidence which we both interpret according to the assumptions we bring to it. We are both looking at the same geologic record and saying it happened much differently. The evidence yields different conclusions depending on what assumptions you bring to it.

Uniformitarian is only the first assumption scientists bring to the evidence. The secondary assumption is that the different layers represent vast amounts of time. They come to this conclusion because they observe the rates of these processes are very slow today, and since in uniformitarian, the present is the key to the past, they assume that present day geological features must have taken millions or billions of years to form because of present day rates. Because of this, the completely exclude the hypothesis that the features we see could form very quickly. Therefore, they are biased in their interpretation and will miss the evidence which actually points to rapid formation. I'll give you a good example:

"Previously geologists had thought that constant, rapid water flow prevented mud's constituents -- silts and clays -- from coalescing and gathering at the bottoms of rivers, lakes and oceans. This has led to a bias, Schieber explains, that wherever mudstones are encountered in the sedimentary rock record, they are generally interpreted as quiet water deposits."

http://newsinfo.iu.edu/web/page/normal/7022.html

For a long time geologists believed that mudstones could only form a certain way, which is by slow moving water. They had completely ruled out that it could be formed rapidly. Therefore, whenever they saw mudstones the "story" the rocks told them was that of a slow process taking vast amounts of time. Yet, mudstones, they have found, can be deposited very rapidly. This is actually evidence for a global flood because mudstones make up 2/3s of the record for sedimentary rock. Yet they never saw that because of their assumptions of everything taking vast amounts of time to form. This is a classic example of how the assumptions you bring changes the interpretation of the data. Same mudstones, but the different assumptions yielded a different conclusion from the same evidence.

This is further complicated by the matter of evolution. Biostratigraphy has played a decisive role in determining the relative ages of rock layers around the world, which brings with it a whole other host of assumptions. Because evolution requires vast amounts of time, and they interpret a certain evolutionary progression through the fossil record, therefore they again make the assumption different layers must represent vast amounts of time, based on their evolutionary assumptions. They then use that assumption to validate their uniformitarian assumptions and call this evidence.

The main issue is the assumption of uniformitarian to explain the fossil record. It denies that a catastrophe like a global flood could have caused the features we see today. The geologists believe things happened very slowly, whereas creation geologists believe they have formed very quickly. There is a whole lot of evidence which shows that layers could be laid down rapidly, and canyons and other features could have been cut very quickly. Geologists do acknowledge this, which is why there is another branch of geology called Catastrophism:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catastrophism

They can not deny that many of the things they thought took millions of years "stalactites forming, fossilization, formation of oil and precious metals) can actually happen very quickly. They still deny, however, that a global catastrophe could have been responsible for all of it, despite the fact that the whole Earth is covered by sedimentary rock which is primarily laid down by water.

And this is where we are with fossils and dating. We dont just make wild guesses on the basis of 2 or 3 fossils and one shitty chemistry experiment involving half-lives; We have literally thousands of datapoints. If this is a hall of mirrors, then Satan is truly one crafty bastard making a pretty impressive one for us.

Again, it is the assumptions you bring to that data which colors the interpretation. I can also tell you that the assumption that decay rates never change is wrong:

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/286/5441/882.summary

Pressure and chemistry can alter decay rates according to that experiment. In that instance, they were able to alter the decay rate by 1.5 percent. In much more extreme conditions, however, the decay rate could change significantly. It shows that the uniformitarian assumptions of radiometric dating can and will produce unreliable data.

These are things that they don't teach you in science class. When it comes down to it, there is no actual proof for deep time in the fossil record, when we're talking about actual empirical evidence. We only have circumstantial evidence based on assumptions which I have shown to be faulty. That is where the hall of mirrors comes in, where everything you see is reflecting the assumptions you make. It is what is called a worldview, which is like a set of glasses you use to see the world. Everyone has a worldview. The apriori assumptions you make about reality constitutes your worldview. That is what is going on here..their worldview of the world forming from purely naturalistic processes, and that slowly over vast amounts of time, is a bias which skews all of their data to that direction, when as I showed previously with the mudstones that it could just as easily point in the other direction.

Thanks for designating a precious Power Point on this great song