[quote who="Stant123" reply="32" id="3069117"]
Quoting JCD-Bionicman, reply 28
I will say the chances of some ridiculous situation like that happening are extremely slim. Usually unless people are right across the street witnessing it firsthand they wont try to intervene because they arent sure whats going on. If the person manages to yell for help assuming its loud enough to be heard usually more than one person will come to the call. Its extremely unlikely that one punch would knock someone out cold, and its even more unlikely that the perpetrator would even think about using his fists when he has a knife.
You don't live in a big city do ya?
Not all murders happen in big cities.
This situation actually isn't ridiculous or a slim chance of happening, no matter how much you want to fool yourself into thinking it.
If you were honest with yourself, you would realize the scenario's you created were pretty laughable. They arent impossible, but extremely unlikely.
I live in a big city. Crime happens. I see it all of the time.
"All the time" sounds a bit exaggerated. Why dont you give a few examples if your so seasoned?
Unfortunately, murder is sometimes one of those crimes. Further, my little brother is a cop in our home town who's population is approaching half a million people. He's been a beat cop, a detective, and this past summer promoted to sergeant/division watch commander. He's seen more crime in a year then you or I will see in our life times, and to him, the situation YOU provided (not me, you provided it and I evaluated it) is just another day on the job...
Your brother is a watch commander, thats great. Did your brother approve of the scenario you depicted in response to mine yes or no? If not, then whether or not your brother is a high ranking police officer or not holds no bearing in this argument.
I have the advantage of knowing procedure which has been created and refined over the decades to not only preserve the integrity of the crime scene, but also maintain a level of scientific accuracy that can withstand even the type of scrutiny the best of minds can bring down upon it.
But apparently you cant weigh situational probabilities in your head correctly. I dont think you would make such a great detective.
I can easily present you with a fourth scenario where everything is exactly the same as the third, only no security camera footage. You go to court and the defense attorney asks you if you witnessed the crime. You say no, but start to say what you saw afterwards.
I wouldnt be stupid enough to try to convince an opposing attorney. I would wait until the same-side attorney asked me questions.
The defense attorney will cut you off and tell you he's done asking questions. The DA or more likely ADA, will stand up and say nothing further. The judge will excuse you and you go about your day. At the end of the day, the person goes free because there isn't enough evidence to prove this is the murderer. No matter how much you want to believe it, the evidence is circumstantial. As my brother will clearly tell you, "It sucks but... No evidence, no crime."
Not here to talk about the legal process as it applies to the situation. Were here to talk about situational probability. This analogy has no bearing in this discussion.
Quoting JCD-Bionicman, reply 28
Usually unless people are right across the street witnessing it firsthand they wont try to intervene because they arent sure whats going on.
This is opinion.
Why do people always do this? Did you intend this as some kind of backhand slam? Guess what: every IDEA in the FUCKING UNIVERSE IS AN OPINION! EVERYTHING THAT YOUR FUCKING SAYING TO ME RIGHT NOW IS A FUCKING OPINION!
People decide to involve themselves or not involve themselves for many reasons. Lack of knowing what's going on isn't usually one of those. If I walk out my front door and see a fight, I will get involved and break it up having known absolutely nothing about what started it. All I know is that there are people fighting and I'm going to stop it because it's in front of my place and I don't care to have that shit happening right in front of me. I don't need to know why. I don't care why. I'm just ending it. If it's happening on the other side of the neighborhood, and someone calls me to tell me that it's happening, I'm not driving all the way over there to stop it. I just don't care. Let them work it out or let some other person get in there and break it up.
Why did you try to accomplish by cooking up this analogy? At best this is a neutral comment and at worst it actually sort of helps my point.
Quoting JCD-Bionicman, reply 28
If the person manages to yell for help assuming its loud enough to be heard usually more than one person will come to the call.
Downtown Los Angeles at 3am. Scream your head off, no one is coming. Like most large cities, the downtown area is a business center. Most businesses close at night. At night, there is no reason to be there unless you're a cleaning crew, and if you are, you're inside the building not wandering the streets.Let's go with the idea that we're talking about a crowded place though. Some mall, middle of the day. Not only would the murderer never get away with it, but there are going to be hundreds to thousands of witnesses to the murder. Here again, you coming around the corner and seeing someone with a bloody knife standing over a body is going to do nothing to prove anything. It's everyone else who was there that is going to provide the proof. You weren't there, you can only speculate. Actual witness testimony may prove you right, but here again, several people could have rushed in to help and gotten bloody, one person would have ended up with the murderer's knife and is just standing there looking over the body. Are you still going to claim that the knife holder is still the murderer? In your eyes, yes, you make that claim. The person with the bloody knife standing over the body is the murderer.
Okay... you keep providing a bunch of crazy whatifs and this shit is really starting to get out of hand. The analogy I created was simple, but because I didnt divulge details you expanded and expanded on it. Heres the whole analogy:
In a midsize town, downtown, middle of the day, you turn a corner and you see someone standing over a bloody corpse with a bloody knife. You can easily come to the conclusion that he is the killer because: He didnt come your way (back around the corner) because you would have seen him either running or walking fast or something (yes youd have noticed him) and the sidewalk in front of you past the perpetrator doesnt look suspicious either. Basically the circumstances are set up so that the murder is obviously the most obvious looking person. This analogy of mine was to serve as to how obvious my conclusions about gamestop, steam, and the selling of steam games on gamestop impulse were. Im done talking about that shit.
Quoting JCD-Bionicman, reply 28
That being said, if I were a cop/detective I would always keep an open mind but... lol.
So because you're not a cop, screw proper scientific method and go with your opinion, truth be damned?
You realized this was straw-manning before you wrote it right? But I guess you wrote in anyways in an attempt to frustrate me?
Perhaps your intent was to say something else? I'm not a detective, but I'm still willing to keep an open mind.
That is basically what I said. Oh its not what I said? I really have to explain this shit? I meant what I said in the sense that if I were in that situation I would keep an open mind. A ten year old could have figured that out.
Quoting JCD-Bionicman, reply 28
Proper scientific analysis is as follows: if sufficient cant be brought to support a certain theory, the most obvious one will then be chosen.
That's not proper scientific evaluation, bud.
No, it is.
If there is a lack of evidence to support a theory, then the theory is rejected as it will not stand up to peer review. Choosing the next best thing as in choosing another theory only means the original hypothesis has been re-evaluated and modified, and now a whole new round of evaluation has begun. Evidence will either prove, disprove, or fail to do either for this new theory. In the case of disproving or fail to do either, the theory will again be rejected as it cannot withstand peer review. Science doesn't just pick the next best thing and go with it accepting it as fact. Science rejects everything until there is fact to support it.
Thats why evolution, being a theory, is regarded among the majority of scientists as fact and used as a base for all scientific process right? Not everything follows the same process as the legal process, which you somehow were led to believe. If there are three theories, and one of them is more likely than the other two, though they are all theories, the most obvious (the least farfetched sounding one) is then chosen despite the lack of evidence. If science didnt follow this process nothing would ever get done.
For example, science has a few theories on where man has come from. None have been proven to a point that they can withstand peer review, therefor the search continues to find evidence. It does not mean that since modern man cannot be proven to have come from neanderthals that science just says well, then we must have been created by God and placed here because that's the next best thing... Science just doesn't work that way.
Thats because thats not the next best believable thing. Evolution is.
Quoting JCD-Bionicman, reply 28
Nope. My logic is solid.
Well, you said your logic is solid again and I've disproved that statement through using your own example, so again I'm going to say, your logic might be sound and solid to you, but it has its flaws.
The quoted text was aimed at people that simply said "nope your wrong" when I brought solid counterarguments they were too tired to debate against regarding the thread, you know before you derailed it with all that shit about the legal process?
Quoting JCD-Bionicman, reply 28
Noone has been able to bring anything else to the arguments ive clearly won.
And you have not successfully defended your idea that your logic is solid.
Where?
That is an argument you have clearly lost. Kudos for presenting a conditional statement that doesn't really say anything at all though. I mean, I've never lost an argument I've clearly won either.
See above.
You claim it is a scam, that is where the issue is. As you've openly admitted, Impulse does indeed note that steamworks is required on those titles, then by rule, it is not a scam as the purchaser is made aware, even if it is made through a tiny link with small print.
Thats bullshit. Theres plenty of people whove been tricked into buying a steam game they thought was impulse, so theres that. Aside from that, how can you not understand that it is an attempt to deceive? When people shop at Impulse they expect games that use that DRM. I cannot fucking understand how you dont get this.
If you are informed, even in a convoluted fashion, it is not a scam as you are informed.
Okay... IF you are informed then YES. If you thought it was an impulse game and because you shop impulse regularly and dont pay attention to the description much then its very likely you will miss the fine print as ive explained. Before you argue this point further keep in mind there's a good amount of people that HAVE BEEN TRICKED.
I myself have verified, as others have pointed out that when you go to buy a game, such as the Portal 2 game, you are taken to a page where in not so small letters or hidden in some disclaimer, it clearly says steamworks is required. There is no scam based on this particular argument point. This is one point you've clearly lost.
Ive clearly fucking acknowledged this and it doesnt just wave some magic wand and destroy all the points ive made.
Those games just happen to have steamworks DRM built into them.
The stupidity of this statement hurts my brain... I dont know what to say to it...
This point cannot be verified so it is tossed out as opinion.
This "backhand slam" of yours goes both ways sir. Everything damn thing youve been saying to me is also just as much of an opinion. Focus on arguing the issues at hand and stop with with "its an opinion" garbage.
You claim "Steam sees the threat impulse poses." Reality says that Impulse is a small user base compared to that of Steam, and as titles are available on both, and according to users, steam has more features, steam really has no reason to fear Impulse yet.
I say it has (or had) plenty of reason to fear Impulse. I say Steam saw Impulse's potential and acted early so that it didnt get a chance to compete. And no, Impulse and Steam have about the same amount of features aside from cloud. What Steam has against Impulse is, its a widely known damn huge monopoly and everyone uses them because its "anti piracy" is popular among publishers for some reason.
It wouldnt be the first time something like it's happened either. Corporations attempt to shark out small businesses all the time.
I say yet because for all I know, Gamestop just might not run it into the ground and it could eventually become as popular and feature riddled as Steam.
Its not impossible I suppose. Maybe GameStop will pull a Darth Vader and throw the Emperor over the edge.
You claim "Impulse, while not very widely known, has a very superior DRM scheme to Steam." The truth is Impulse is a storefront and not a DRM scheme of any kind. You activate your game and you never use it again. This practice is not new. Games have been doing this since before the mid 90's... Only back then they called it registering your game so you can receive updates and support. Your activation through Impulse is just that. Registering your game so you can receive updates and support.
Impulse IS a DRM scheme. Without it, you cant access the game fully. Its protecting part of the game, preventing you from accessing it. We can argue all day about something as pointless as that but the point I was trying to make was that impulse is better than Steam.
Impulse doesn't own any games, it sells them.
In a way, retailers own the games that they sell. When one retailer has exclusive rights whereas another does not, moreso true.
It has been proven that there is notice in not so small print before you buy the game on the purchase page that steamworks is required. So in that case, this point of yours has been proven and verified to be wrong.
Impulse is a DRM scheme. When you purchase games through impulse that means it will require that DRM scheme. Steam acts the same. Steam sells no games that require separate DRM schemes. Just because Impulse's protection efforts are much softer doesnt mean it isnt DRM.
Difficulty to find and not being printed at all are two completely different things. The fact that you are using this as a supporting point to prove there is a scam going on forces this point to be used as a claim against what you are arguing since there actually IS notice of what is going on.
They dont display the digital management protection requirements by choice, they are required by law to give that information. That "point of yours is moot, and verified and proven to be so" ...booya.
"Half-Life, Portal and More! Valve Games Are Now Available on GameStop PC Downloads!"
If you cant understand that this is a clear intent of deception I cant fucking help you. If they werent trying to trick people into thinking they were available as impulse downloads, they would have simply advertised "Half-Life, Portal and More!"
Good day sir.