I love how Ubisoft tries to justify their use of over the top DRM (Digital Rights Management) software. They say that it "protects their product from pirates". They say other things too, but it all goes back to that.
Amazing how simple a lie, eh?
Ubisoft has come under much fire from gamers and the gaming community for it's paranoid and OCD use of DRM software. Quite a few of their games are so controlled that the gamer must maintain a constant internet connection in order to be allowed to play the game, so that Ubisoft servers can validate the software that it is authentic and legally purchased.
it is a load of bull crap.
Aside from a few mentions, most of the people I know pirate Ubisoft games for this reason. The company then goes out and says that "It's their fault! Look they pirated it and we have to protect our money, I mean games" When they don't understand that by putting in such DRM software and making it so much of a headfuck to actually play the game, that they drive people away from wanting the games themselves and that people will gladly pirate a copy to avoid having to jump through the 353 or so hoops just to be able to play their legally purchased copy. Frankly, I do not blame them.
Now, on the one hand, I'm not really supportive of piracy. I believe that if a developer takes the time to make a great game, that they should not have to stand their product being stolen and used with no reward for such a good title.
On the other hand, I support piracy, especially with Ubisoft games, because if a company is going to go OUT OF THEIR WAY to make it hard for and basically say "fuck you" to it's loyal customers, just so they hope to discourage a few piraters and make a few extra bucks, then I say, Pirate away, maties.
As I've said time and time again, the best way to combat piracy is to lower the prices on the games and not make it so that the gamer has to jump through endlessly frustrating hoops to enjoy a game. By the time they get to the game, it's not fun from all the frustration.
STEAM does DRM very well. They don't fuck people over and they respect their customers. Ubisoft does not. I say boycott them. Maybe when none of their games sell, they will finally learn.
Wednesday, March 9, 2011
Saturday, February 26, 2011
Free Speech and Children
An article recently came to light that was the inspiration for the this post. A blog post done by a teacher in the States that criticized her students for being "lazy whiners". She was suspended from her job when a student from her school stumbled onto the posting and began to spread it. It, of course, eventually found it's way into the hands of school administrators, who were quick to suspend her, pending an investigation.
(now, I realize it was a while ago, but I've been too busy and tired to do any writing. So I'm getting to it now)
Now, she has received much support from all corners, especially other teachers, who praise her for finally saying something about the type of students they all have to deal with on a daily basis. She has, however, received much criticism from parents about bad mouthing their kids and how she should be "fired and barred from teaching until she can keep her mouth shut"
okay, seriously?
Now, this is a delicate issue. On the one hand, is she justified under the freedom of speech or is she using the internet for direct slander? You will not find a certain answer, so here is my opinion.
While I grant that Mrs. Munroe may have been a bit over the top in her comments, she in no way infringed on free speech. She was well within her rights to post such an article. If she had named specific students, that would been a different story. It is remarkable that in this day and age, students can speak back, insult and curse at their teachers and educators and receive no punishment, but when a teacher who is well within her rights to speak out at students everywhere, sparks a media frenzy and could end up loosing her job. I am no supporter of internet slander, but in this case, it is a necessity.
The real problem lies with the student's parents. They send their children to school and are unwilling to listen when the teacher tells them that their child is not doing well and is behaving in a manner unsuited to a civilized person. Sure, you can shuff it aside and say "It's just a thing that kids today do" but I don't believe that. It is time that students learn that if you speak out in such a manner against a person of authority that there are consquences. Mostly, parents don't want to hear that their "darling angel of a child" is capable of wrong doing and being an insenstive BRAT. But they need to hear it. And they need to start taking action. Now, I know I am not qualified to give parental advice or anything along that subject, so I will refrain from giving that advice, but I think that if people started properly communicating more and understanding how it all works, we may be able to improve the system.
What do you think? Was she justified under the articles of free speech in making a statement about schools and students today? OR was she making a angry slander against innocent children?
(LINK)
(LINK)
(now, I realize it was a while ago, but I've been too busy and tired to do any writing. So I'm getting to it now)
Now, she has received much support from all corners, especially other teachers, who praise her for finally saying something about the type of students they all have to deal with on a daily basis. She has, however, received much criticism from parents about bad mouthing their kids and how she should be "fired and barred from teaching until she can keep her mouth shut"
okay, seriously?
Now, this is a delicate issue. On the one hand, is she justified under the freedom of speech or is she using the internet for direct slander? You will not find a certain answer, so here is my opinion.
While I grant that Mrs. Munroe may have been a bit over the top in her comments, she in no way infringed on free speech. She was well within her rights to post such an article. If she had named specific students, that would been a different story. It is remarkable that in this day and age, students can speak back, insult and curse at their teachers and educators and receive no punishment, but when a teacher who is well within her rights to speak out at students everywhere, sparks a media frenzy and could end up loosing her job. I am no supporter of internet slander, but in this case, it is a necessity.
The real problem lies with the student's parents. They send their children to school and are unwilling to listen when the teacher tells them that their child is not doing well and is behaving in a manner unsuited to a civilized person. Sure, you can shuff it aside and say "It's just a thing that kids today do" but I don't believe that. It is time that students learn that if you speak out in such a manner against a person of authority that there are consquences. Mostly, parents don't want to hear that their "darling angel of a child" is capable of wrong doing and being an insenstive BRAT. But they need to hear it. And they need to start taking action. Now, I know I am not qualified to give parental advice or anything along that subject, so I will refrain from giving that advice, but I think that if people started properly communicating more and understanding how it all works, we may be able to improve the system.
What do you think? Was she justified under the articles of free speech in making a statement about schools and students today? OR was she making a angry slander against innocent children?
(LINK)
(LINK)
Monday, January 31, 2011
economic systems
Now, normally I'm one of the first people to dismiss economics as worthless and frankly, it is. But as I was at work the other day, I came up with an idea for a new system, that allows for currency to exist, but eliminates private capital and hording of finances. Simply put:
There are no private banks. Just one government account with the entire world's finances (so trillions of currency units). Everyone who works has a debit card that access to that account. Ergo eliminating private funds and private capital. How it works is that as people work, they earn access to the account through their card. So say if someone works 23 hours in a week at 10cu (currency unit) an hour, at the end of the week, they get access to 230cu permanently. Which they can have access to until they spend it. Simple as that. People can access the account through their debit cards anywhere, there is no longer any paper or coin based currency, just digital.
How it works is that when people earn their cu, they spend it. All that they spend at a business is put back into the government account and then once again, paid to the people who earn it, based on the work they do that is of value to society.
What this system does is eliminate so-called "private money" so that people can be on more even ground when it comes to finances and there are only classes based on the work people do. It's that simple.
Thoughts anyone?
the thing is, this would be only possible under a few circumstances, 1) a one world government. 2) backup power generation for at least this system.
and again, it's a theoretical idea. One obviously not possible with the greed of this world.
There are no private banks. Just one government account with the entire world's finances (so trillions of currency units). Everyone who works has a debit card that access to that account. Ergo eliminating private funds and private capital. How it works is that as people work, they earn access to the account through their card. So say if someone works 23 hours in a week at 10cu (currency unit) an hour, at the end of the week, they get access to 230cu permanently. Which they can have access to until they spend it. Simple as that. People can access the account through their debit cards anywhere, there is no longer any paper or coin based currency, just digital.
How it works is that when people earn their cu, they spend it. All that they spend at a business is put back into the government account and then once again, paid to the people who earn it, based on the work they do that is of value to society.
What this system does is eliminate so-called "private money" so that people can be on more even ground when it comes to finances and there are only classes based on the work people do. It's that simple.
Thoughts anyone?
the thing is, this would be only possible under a few circumstances, 1) a one world government. 2) backup power generation for at least this system.
and again, it's a theoretical idea. One obviously not possible with the greed of this world.
Sunday, January 30, 2011
3D movies
First off, in the litteral terms, these movies are NOT Three Dimensional, they are mearly "enhanced" Two Dimensional films although it doesn't sound as catchy, I admit, but it's more accurate. To be accuratly called "3-D" it would have to a viable three-dimensional projection, not a slightly enhanced two-dimensional image which these are. It should be like what exists in Star Wars and Star Trek.
Just another fad of the masses. The latest technology (technology revival, actually) and frankly, it should have stayed dead until it was perfected. 3D as it is now, is amazingly useless (I haven't played the Nintendo 3DS yet, so not talking about that). It causes damage to people's eyes and brains, which includes dizzyness and migranes. I wouldn't be surprised if it was causing major long term damage to people. The Red/Blue effect can't always be interpreted by people's brains and that causes harm.
The main thing is that unless the film is made "SPECIFICALLY" for the E2D effect, it just does not work properly. Like those IMAX documentaries years back that had E2D, those were good and amazing. Because they were made with the technology in mind, not just tacked on and shoved down our throats as the latest Hollywood fad.
Now, I realize it is here to stay, unfortunate as that may be. At the VERY least, theatres should offer movies in both 2D and E2D, to satisfy a larger market. I would love the convenience of not having to wear those damned glasses whenever I go see a movie, and I think a lot of people would agree with me on that. I mean, if I want to go see a film at a theatre, why should I be forced to see it in a way that I do not want to?
OF course I realize that some will respond to that with "Well, you don't have to go see movies at the theatre then blah blah blah" and that's true. I don't have to. But I like to. It's enjoyable and fun and it is so annoying that I am having to pay extra money for an experience I don't want. They should offer both 2D and E2D, then as many people are happy as possible. simple.
Just another fad of the masses. The latest technology (technology revival, actually) and frankly, it should have stayed dead until it was perfected. 3D as it is now, is amazingly useless (I haven't played the Nintendo 3DS yet, so not talking about that). It causes damage to people's eyes and brains, which includes dizzyness and migranes. I wouldn't be surprised if it was causing major long term damage to people. The Red/Blue effect can't always be interpreted by people's brains and that causes harm.
The main thing is that unless the film is made "SPECIFICALLY" for the E2D effect, it just does not work properly. Like those IMAX documentaries years back that had E2D, those were good and amazing. Because they were made with the technology in mind, not just tacked on and shoved down our throats as the latest Hollywood fad.
Now, I realize it is here to stay, unfortunate as that may be. At the VERY least, theatres should offer movies in both 2D and E2D, to satisfy a larger market. I would love the convenience of not having to wear those damned glasses whenever I go see a movie, and I think a lot of people would agree with me on that. I mean, if I want to go see a film at a theatre, why should I be forced to see it in a way that I do not want to?
OF course I realize that some will respond to that with "Well, you don't have to go see movies at the theatre then blah blah blah" and that's true. I don't have to. But I like to. It's enjoyable and fun and it is so annoying that I am having to pay extra money for an experience I don't want. They should offer both 2D and E2D, then as many people are happy as possible. simple.
Friday, January 21, 2011
The Usefulness (or lack thereof) of Post Secondary Education
Now, I'm not saying College or University is a BAD thing, but just not completely necessary.
A recent study that was released said that just under half of University students don't improve as far as critical thinking, reasoning and writing skills. Young adults spend thousands of dollars, borrow hundreds more from their parents and then take out risky loans for thousands of more dollars to gamble at the chance that it will lead to a better future and a successful career. For many, it doesn't and that's the main reason I myself have not attended a post-secondary institution. Many students find out half way through that they are no longer interested in what they originally picked and decide to change courses, leading to more financial woes and even longer before they get out into the workforce. And all that time they are devoting a lot of time to their studies and not working much and ergo not earning much to pay off their debts. Socializing takes up a lot of time and students spend a lot of study time being with their friends.
Now, I'm speaking on average here, not every student turns out like this, many go on to be successful in their lives. But for many it doesn't work and those people end up paying the price for the rest of their lives, spending the rest of their lives in mediocracy trying to pay their debts.
Further studies have shown that people who go from school into the workforce may not earn more per hour in their jobs, but they end up having more spending money while those who attend Univ are spending all their money paying down school debts. Again, not always the case, but not uncommon either.
The simple fact is that we need to lift this illusion that going to College or University is the only way to be successful in life. I mean if you want to be a lawyer or a doctor or work in government then yea, you should go to PS. Otherwise, it's not terribly neccesary.
A recent study that was released said that just under half of University students don't improve as far as critical thinking, reasoning and writing skills. Young adults spend thousands of dollars, borrow hundreds more from their parents and then take out risky loans for thousands of more dollars to gamble at the chance that it will lead to a better future and a successful career. For many, it doesn't and that's the main reason I myself have not attended a post-secondary institution. Many students find out half way through that they are no longer interested in what they originally picked and decide to change courses, leading to more financial woes and even longer before they get out into the workforce. And all that time they are devoting a lot of time to their studies and not working much and ergo not earning much to pay off their debts. Socializing takes up a lot of time and students spend a lot of study time being with their friends.
Now, I'm speaking on average here, not every student turns out like this, many go on to be successful in their lives. But for many it doesn't work and those people end up paying the price for the rest of their lives, spending the rest of their lives in mediocracy trying to pay their debts.
Further studies have shown that people who go from school into the workforce may not earn more per hour in their jobs, but they end up having more spending money while those who attend Univ are spending all their money paying down school debts. Again, not always the case, but not uncommon either.
The simple fact is that we need to lift this illusion that going to College or University is the only way to be successful in life. I mean if you want to be a lawyer or a doctor or work in government then yea, you should go to PS. Otherwise, it's not terribly neccesary.
Monday, January 17, 2011
Video Game studies
There seems to be a fairly obvious pattern when it comes to video game studies and how they effect people, mainly kids and teens. It seems to me that a new one will come out every month or two and will be basically the opposite of the last one. One comes out that says something to the extent of "Oh, video games don't have many downside effects to them at all. Our study proved that" and then the next one will come out saying "Video games have serious health effects and children should be banned from using them or they will become braindead morons and fail at life completely" and then after that another one will be released saying "Well, despite some minor effects like insomia and mild headaches, there are very few issues to be had with playing video games and none of them are of real consequence"
Okay, first, seriously? I mean, it's like there is a organization of people who do all these studies and rebrand them every month or so. It's sending mixed messages and it's going to leave people with more questions then answers and really won't get to the issue. Then again, if you ask me, the issue itself is a media manipulation to control people more. It's sad and not giving truth to anyone. What kicks it is that the people who are the focuses of the studies are at both ends of the extremes. Either exteremely addicted gamers who spend every waking second playing or casual gamers who rarely play, but are playing more just for the sake of the "studies"
This needs to stop.
Okay, first, seriously? I mean, it's like there is a organization of people who do all these studies and rebrand them every month or so. It's sending mixed messages and it's going to leave people with more questions then answers and really won't get to the issue. Then again, if you ask me, the issue itself is a media manipulation to control people more. It's sad and not giving truth to anyone. What kicks it is that the people who are the focuses of the studies are at both ends of the extremes. Either exteremely addicted gamers who spend every waking second playing or casual gamers who rarely play, but are playing more just for the sake of the "studies"
This needs to stop.
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
The issue with ISPs
I read an article today that was talking about the fact that Canadian internet rates are going to be increasing over the next year.
(link)
Frankly, it proves my point about everything that is wrong with Capitalism. About how those with resources that are being needed for many points of modern life are being horded by those who have absolute power and people who cannot afford, yet are needing it, have to basically sell their bodies to pay for it. What it is, is greed at it's worst and more ways to try and control the internet as a whole. By charging as much as they can they are going to drive customers away and end up loosing money in the long run. It shows a not surprising lack of intelligence among Corporate CEOs who apparently need more money for their solid gold whores and diamond encrusted mansions.
It is going to hurt people more than it would do any amount of good, and they can't see it so they will continue to exploit the working class, most of whom can't even make ends meet. Internet usage will be the first service people get rid of and all that money will vanish. Another reason that a revolution needs to happen and capitalism needs to be abandoned. Then maybe people can start actually caring about each other and about the world around them then just about money and personal greed.
One of the issues with Rogers and Bell and Shaw and Telus is that they use their size to prevent any small companies from starting up and those that do are muscled out by outrageous fees and charges which they have no choice but to pass on to the customer. It is a cycle, but a cycle that can be broken.
People need to stand up to these big bullies we have named "corporations" and only then will they realize that they can't walk over everyone and get away with it and the best ones to start with are internet providers because even though they only make up a small part of captalist corruption, their fall will serve as a warning to the larger corporations as to what will happen if you fall out of public favour.
(link)
Frankly, it proves my point about everything that is wrong with Capitalism. About how those with resources that are being needed for many points of modern life are being horded by those who have absolute power and people who cannot afford, yet are needing it, have to basically sell their bodies to pay for it. What it is, is greed at it's worst and more ways to try and control the internet as a whole. By charging as much as they can they are going to drive customers away and end up loosing money in the long run. It shows a not surprising lack of intelligence among Corporate CEOs who apparently need more money for their solid gold whores and diamond encrusted mansions.
It is going to hurt people more than it would do any amount of good, and they can't see it so they will continue to exploit the working class, most of whom can't even make ends meet. Internet usage will be the first service people get rid of and all that money will vanish. Another reason that a revolution needs to happen and capitalism needs to be abandoned. Then maybe people can start actually caring about each other and about the world around them then just about money and personal greed.
One of the issues with Rogers and Bell and Shaw and Telus is that they use their size to prevent any small companies from starting up and those that do are muscled out by outrageous fees and charges which they have no choice but to pass on to the customer. It is a cycle, but a cycle that can be broken.
People need to stand up to these big bullies we have named "corporations" and only then will they realize that they can't walk over everyone and get away with it and the best ones to start with are internet providers because even though they only make up a small part of captalist corruption, their fall will serve as a warning to the larger corporations as to what will happen if you fall out of public favour.
Saturday, January 8, 2011
I'm back
After some time with being icogneto on this blog and in question about it's future I have decided to come back and begin ranting and reviewing again. So, I'll try to update as often as I have something to say.
sorry for the long interval. Happy reading.
sorry for the long interval. Happy reading.
Friday, August 13, 2010
The Expendables
I just got back from seeing this movie at the theatre and I'm still a bit pumped from it, so I'll try to keep the spoilers at a minimum, but you'll have to excuse the occasional one.
Stallone should stop acting. Right now. Simple as that. I almost needed subtitles to understand him most of the time. His slurring is reaching the levels it was when he was in South Park and it doesn't make for a good bit in a movie.
Otherwise the movie was excellent. Good acting on quite a few points. Some were more believeable than others. Stallone was not one of them. It actually had a decent story, brothers and loyalties and what not.
Good to see Arnie in film again, even if it only was for a couple minutes and Willis' preformance was highly overrated and over promoted. Rourke was not in the kind of role I expected, but he did it well. Austin was also not in the role I expected, but he also did it well. Eric Roberts, the baddie in the movie, was okay, but not terribly amazing, at least not more than usual. The team of Crews, Statham, Li, Couture and Stallone was pretty good. Lundgreen was in there too, but I won't go into that, sufficied to say, Stallone frakked that part up pretty good. Twas just an "Omfg, really? REALLY?" kind of part with that. The entire bit with Lundgreen's character could have been written out and the movie would have been just as good, if not better.
The main sequence, near the end, was pretty awesome and had a few good moments, could have been better topped off by Stallone saying "We're expendable" (watch it, you'll see where I mean) to Eric Roberts.
All in all, a pretty good movie. Worth seeing. 4 of of 5.
Stallone should stop acting. Right now. Simple as that. I almost needed subtitles to understand him most of the time. His slurring is reaching the levels it was when he was in South Park and it doesn't make for a good bit in a movie.
Otherwise the movie was excellent. Good acting on quite a few points. Some were more believeable than others. Stallone was not one of them. It actually had a decent story, brothers and loyalties and what not.
Good to see Arnie in film again, even if it only was for a couple minutes and Willis' preformance was highly overrated and over promoted. Rourke was not in the kind of role I expected, but he did it well. Austin was also not in the role I expected, but he also did it well. Eric Roberts, the baddie in the movie, was okay, but not terribly amazing, at least not more than usual. The team of Crews, Statham, Li, Couture and Stallone was pretty good. Lundgreen was in there too, but I won't go into that, sufficied to say, Stallone frakked that part up pretty good. Twas just an "Omfg, really? REALLY?" kind of part with that. The entire bit with Lundgreen's character could have been written out and the movie would have been just as good, if not better.
The main sequence, near the end, was pretty awesome and had a few good moments, could have been better topped off by Stallone saying "We're expendable" (watch it, you'll see where I mean) to Eric Roberts.
All in all, a pretty good movie. Worth seeing. 4 of of 5.
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
Mafia 2 demo
I just finished playing the Mafia 2 demo. It was basically what I had expected, Set in 1950s USA, the game featured one mission that showed off most of the key parts of the game - driving, shooting and most of the mechanics.
You start off playing Vito, an Italian immigrant trying grab a slice of the cake that is the "American dream". The mission that you are given is basically a hit mission and it shows off several of the game systems. You get to use a small variety of weapons, and I have a feeling that the small variety isn't going to change. Over the course of the demo, you use a wall-mounted machine gun and then you have your fists as well as a 9mm pistol, shotgun and the infamous gangster "Tommy Gun" Thompson Submachine gun. As well as you have to drive through bits of the city. Now, the driving bit is where I noticed the hardest part of the game. And while I won't say too much, I will say that it does need some tweaking, but I think by now 2K Czech is well beyond that. Either that, or the cars really do handle like 1950's Chevy autos.
I'm not sure which I would prefer....
All in all, the game is amazingly well done, so far anyway.
Also, I got enough into it that I had to bribe a cop. I didn't see that coming.
The demo is now available on Playstation Network, Xbox Live Marketplace and Steam. I highly recommend downloading it.
The real downside is that you only get 10 minutes ingame play, which is just enough time to finish the mission or play around. Your choice.
You start off playing Vito, an Italian immigrant trying grab a slice of the cake that is the "American dream". The mission that you are given is basically a hit mission and it shows off several of the game systems. You get to use a small variety of weapons, and I have a feeling that the small variety isn't going to change. Over the course of the demo, you use a wall-mounted machine gun and then you have your fists as well as a 9mm pistol, shotgun and the infamous gangster "Tommy Gun" Thompson Submachine gun. As well as you have to drive through bits of the city. Now, the driving bit is where I noticed the hardest part of the game. And while I won't say too much, I will say that it does need some tweaking, but I think by now 2K Czech is well beyond that. Either that, or the cars really do handle like 1950's Chevy autos.
I'm not sure which I would prefer....
All in all, the game is amazingly well done, so far anyway.
Also, I got enough into it that I had to bribe a cop. I didn't see that coming.
The demo is now available on Playstation Network, Xbox Live Marketplace and Steam. I highly recommend downloading it.
The real downside is that you only get 10 minutes ingame play, which is just enough time to finish the mission or play around. Your choice.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)