The problem isn't the need for change - that's really a personal integrity thing. The issue is that elections are so tied to money and, more importantly, companies and lobbyists are allowed to donate. There's never a Democratic/Republic reason for ANY company or ANY lobbyist firm to ever be able to donate money or if there is, that money should be required to be given anonymously through some sort of third party. The problem with the American political system is that money breeds favor. Remove where that money comes from and the favoritism stops and constituent ideology takes root again.
Good god. The actual content of your reply is nonsensical and a little fucking batshit insane. Just answer my question so I can do my own research: can you post your source for the NY Times article you mentioned?
Well now that your bold claim is in, how about something like evidence to back up your statement? A source? Anything more than your anecdotal response of a highly unlikely article?
Ford's customers aren't HIS customers. His customers are shareholders/investors. People want to blame CEOs, but who demands profit growth year-over-year, quarter-by-quarter? No business - none, can survive that forever. There comes a point that you've reached your maximum market saturation. You've eeked out every red cent you can eek out. There's nothing left to be done. Yet the maul that is Wallstreet continues to demand. So this is the next logical step.
Wallstreet is the sociopath we need to be concerned it. Profit > People always loses for society.
He isn't mocking them telling them they're wrong. He's simply stating a fact. If those people choose to get butthurt then perhaps they're in need of self reflection.
The American taxpayer should never be in the business of enriching for profit companies. Those companies should be required to sell to the US at cost + a % of overhead provided they meet deadlines and cost estimation projections. It's unfair and totally prone to abuse for for-profit companies to make profit off of taxpayers. We need to end corporate subsidies and return to the era of a separation of state and corporations. Companies are not people. Until Texas executes a company, they're not alive.
They did that. You still bitched. It was called a "cable package." Content providers are in it for money. There's not money to be made allowing people to choose 1-5 channels. It makes negotiating distribution fees and whatnot very challenging and costly and when people aren't wanting to pay more than like $50/month (and want to pay a lot less) they aren't going to easily make ends meet.
"So, how is the small guy ever to overcome the power of tech companies in a situation like this?"
Well...they could hire a delivery driver or two. Chinese takeout joints did this for years and pizza shops as well. It's nice to enjoy a dinner from a restaurant with out someone's annoying ass kid crying because of the lack of crayons or some other stupid thing that I don't give a shit about.
Why is it Trump supports bitch about censorship? It's a private company. You don't have to use Google. Not a single thing they do are you required to use. What you're really mad at is that popular websites do not share your views and you cannot get enough fellow people, who share your views, to actually invest/use/popularize a community of your own...at least not without a lot of Russian bots to help fake traffic. The world doesn't share your views and you can at least acknowledge this by not using a word generally reserved for use when a government is actually doing the censorship or at least qualify that it is private, corporate censorship within its own properties not paid for by taxpayer dollars. But then again, maybe that plays too much against the victimhood ideology that Trump supporters seem to thrive on having.
Actually you did give up your right. It's in the terms and conditions of sale, it's written into the laws of this nation. Your natural rights are non-existent. They don't exist. If we revert to this idea of natural rights, we must logically revert to the natural right I have to murder you and your whole family for my own selfish gains. Otherwise it's an artificial restriction akin to the laws of society today. Be very careful with the idea of natural rights - those rights are simple: the right to eat or be eaten and the right to end your own life. Beyond that there's nothing. Society denotes laws and rights so that a collection of intellectual animals can live and work together in as close to harmony as possible.
Haha yeah! I mean screw people who wanna have fun! Us Edge Lords and our "UNQUESTIONABLE WAYS" have everything figured out, it's why we're all gazillionaires and can sit on Slashdot all day giving out stupid, useless opinions about why the world is "going to shit" in an ironic fashion. Hahaha go us, we're so much better than the plebs! You faggot.
So increasing the national deficit, alienating our allies, dismantling our educational institutions, and pissing away my generation's future is what you voted for. I'm glad to know as a boomer you worked to give my generation a better life than you had, as the previous generation did for you. Thank you for the increased degree requirements, wage stagnation, and the demands of increased productivity a lower starting salary ontop of massive college debt. I really enjoyed not having health insurance and I *REALLY* loved hearing how lazy I was working 2 jobs full time and 1 job part time. Oh and thank you for massively polluting the earth and raising the global temperatures and then fighting anyone asking us to like not do that. You're old, you'll die soon enough, you got yours, fuck me and mine...yes you've gotten everything you've ever wanted. And thank you for voting for a POTUS who worked to undermine the basic institutions of Democracy and gladly accepted Russian money and assistance to do whatever it took to win. It's not your nation you have to worry about as you head into your twilight years. Enjoy the social security your generation's leaders borrowed from and work to destroy/deny my generation while simultaneously requiring we work and pay into it for you.
Just remember as you're shitting into your old fucking man diaper that the nurse you demand wipes your ass as you grab her tits makes way less than you did at her age in terms of buying power. You did that and I'm sure you're proud. Let's hope cancer or old age wipes your generation out as fast as it can.
You're looking at this entirely wrong. The Clinton campaign, and indeed political analysis experts globally, misunderstood the sheer power social media had/continues to have. The fake news websites weren't, in themselves, the worst issues. The hacking and releasing of information wasn't all THAT bad. It was the fake social media bots, the careful design of images and wording to encourage sharing, and the gullibility of the baby boomers to make devastating. The Dems (and mostly no one) had any idea how to fight this. The grasp isn't fully there yet, but campaigns are now getting careful and diligent about social media. Social media companies are now going to be looked at politically, which will drive them to act accordingly. Twitter will need to be careful to not piss off the Democrats (and Republicans for that matter) by overtly looking the other way on manipulation. Information warfare has changed. We've demonstrated that you don't have to take out electrical grids or reprogram missiles or hack government networks. You simply have to hack the idiot and gullible boomers. If you do that, you can fuck America up for generations.
Yes, because Apple has to absolutely care what a minority of the population wants. It should do so at great expense! Come on. Small towns in little shithole flyover states don't matter. Why would they? Apple has enough to focus on actual cities that aren't a stop light and a bunch of rednecks jerking each other off over Donald Trump and the Confederacy days. "This doesn't work for me" is an entitlement mentality.
Yes. Anyone who works in software or product development or has half a brain can characterize the costs. It costs money to train support agents, develop patches/bug fixes, do QA testing, and to do so in an environment that supports Enterprise class customers. Your post is really fucking stupid and people are voting it for being "Insightful"? What's "insightful" about not having a bloody clue about what you're talking about and acting like you do? Some of you \.ers are retarded and are simply seething at faux rage over the article because it's anti-Adobe. Check your own biases...morons.
Your points are discombobulated. The discussion isn't about value. The discussion is about the sale - the transaction. Your pirating of my content means I do not get money. It's a simple concept. You ended up with the output of my investments and I received no income. Nothing to offset those costs. This is an unsustainable, unless you're willing to pay my bills.
> When a million people copy your game, its value to me does not change. Either it is worth the asking price or it is not.
Yes and in a society with laws, generally, I can expect to tell you that if YOU don't feel it's worth what I'm asking and I'm unwilling to change the asking price then you go get a competing product. The perception of the value of a good or service is not the issue that is being discussed. It's the sales transaction process that a pirate bypasses or ignores. The concept of value only comes into play if there is to be a transaction of some sort...an exchange. You devalue the content by refusing to participate in the exchange portion of the transaction.
I don't understand how you're jumping from pirating to using a competitor's good. I would agree with you using someone else's product if you don't want to buy mine. But piracy is your using my content but I have not been paid for it and I should have been.
> No. Absolutely false. Once you release your music so that anyone else can hear it, sharing that music becomes their inherent right - the right to share information predates even the existence of language.
Hold onto that thought.
> That's granted as a social compromise designed to encourage the creation of more content, but you have absolutely no inherent right to expect it.
That's what any right is. A social compromise. Laws, rights, etc are ALL built around the ideas of having social constructs that help to guide/dictate the behaviors humans have towards each other. Even your life itself naturally has no right to be except so far as you're willing and able to defend it...except through the concept of having a right to live. Even the "right to share information" is only a right insofar as you can stop me from killing you to stop you from sharing what you know. I prefer to live in a society dictated by these social compromises and thus the "inherent rights" such as my right to dictate that I'm going to be paid for my work or else you may not have my work do exist. The alternative is that we're just a bunch of animals, in which case, I have guns - do you?
> Slight correction. Asking price is what you mean, not value.
I didn't misrepresent what I said. Asking price is what I was talking about, it's not necessarily equated to value.
> C'mon, this was a pretty civil exchange 'til here and you actually had a few arguments that deserved an answer, did you really have to end with an ad-hominem? Next time I should read the whole reply first before starting to address the points...
Fair point - my apologies. I'm a creator and it bugs me incessantly that there are people who think they should get access to my work without paying me for it. You're allowed to not consume my content. Perhaps that's to my detriment, but I have a right to receive the money I am asking for in exchange for the right to consume my content to whatever extent our sales agreement dictates.
> I'm saying "Do what I want or I won't buy it."
That's you. Plenty of people go "Do what I want or I'll steal it". These arguments are targeted at society as a whole's problem with the theft of content. You may have morales and ethics, plenty of people do not.
> The value of a product is by definition what someone else is willing to pay for it. Not your asking price.
Value of a good doesn't necessarily equate to the end cost of the good. It's a factor, but I have the right to set whatever price I want on an item. Your only right as a consumer is to buy or not buy it. That's it.
> I treasure the wedding ring of my grandmother and wouldn't sell it for millions
This is a shit example. That diamond in that wedding ring (or any modern one) costs the De Beers company a handful of dollars. They sell it to you for vast sums more. They do this partially by artificially restricting the availability of natural diamonds, calling lab created diamonds less valuable, and telling women that your man doesn't love you if he doesn't give you a piece of a shiny rock - specifically the TYPE of rock that De Beers says is valuable.
> The argument many companies field for DRM is that without, their product becomes easy to copy and hence worthless because it can be multiplied at the whim of the one holding it. What they fail to understand is what they're competing with.
They understand it. They also understand anonymous VPNs, TOR, shared network connections, a lack of "internet identification", and the costs associated with finding and prosecuting pirates and the subsequent punishments that make the costs extremely high for low payout. What I see time and time again from anti-DRM people is how easy the competition makes it (although in today's streaming age, most of the biggest competitors use DRM). What I don't see is anti-DRM people coming up with solutions to prevent theft or make punishment worthwhile to pursue. It's a different class of product. You can only steal the ONE car I own, but you can take my music that I spent say $5000 making and give it to 1 billion people so that it's unlikely I can recoup my costs. But more importantly if I say I want to be paid for you to listen to my music then that's my inherent right. You don't have a right to listen to it.
> Steam, GOG and various other online distribution channels have proven that people are willing to pay for games delivered with convenience and hassle-free.
Yes and this is why a lot of game publishers are moving towards subscription models or models that require you to purchase in-game items (or play for a really long time) - because they're all making so much money. Steam and GOG may be popular, but the theft of games, music, movies, etc has increased over time (especially games). So while they've removed DRM, they've added a new class of barrier and that's where you either pay for content in the form of "loot boxes". It's so pervasive that it's now a meme, but it won't change. Published tried DRM and mostly that does end up failing. So now they're limiting content and making it something you have to pay for. They tried DLC and expansion packs - but those suffer from the same piracy woes. But "loot boxes" and in-game currencies make it so that your purchase gets tied to a database and you have to sign in. This makes simple piracy next to impossible and ensures an ongoing revenue stream.
> Add value to your products and people will buy them. Remove value and people will find other ways to get them in a more valuable version.
You're saying "do what I want or I'll steal it". The problem is that prior to DRMs, it was already being stolen. So it's a damned if you do, damned if you don't scenario. Please tell me what rights anyone has to take content and not pay for it. Why is a content creator less deserving of pay than you are if I came to your house and take your TV? This is what businesses see. This is the kind of conversations they have behind those closed doors. They pay people to make the content you want. That cost has to be borne by someone and in every single other industry it's the consumer who bears that cost (and then some...for the whole profit margin thing). Bitching and moaning because of DRM's existence ignores the actual issue and you've done a piss poor job of highlighting the issue. And fucking retards like you are why loot boxes are a thing, why you now have to buy continual expansion packs. You've all fucked over gaming and you're too stupid to understand why.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem isn't the need for change - that's really a personal integrity thing. The issue is that elections are so tied to money and, more importantly, companies and lobbyists are allowed to donate. There's never a Democratic/Republic reason for ANY company or ANY lobbyist firm to ever be able to donate money or if there is, that money should be required to be given anonymously through some sort of third party. The problem with the American political system is that money breeds favor. Remove where that money comes from and the favoritism stops and constituent ideology takes root again.
"Fashion is bullshit we r nerd" - "Pff MY ANDROID Phone is SOOOO much better than your iPhone, you fucking scrub." /. at its finest folks.
Good god. The actual content of your reply is nonsensical and a little fucking batshit insane. Just answer my question so I can do my own research: can you post your source for the NY Times article you mentioned?
Well now that your bold claim is in, how about something like evidence to back up your statement? A source? Anything more than your anecdotal response of a highly unlikely article?
I'm guessing not EPIC, which explains why your software sucks.
Ford's customers aren't HIS customers. His customers are shareholders/investors. People want to blame CEOs, but who demands profit growth year-over-year, quarter-by-quarter? No business - none, can survive that forever. There comes a point that you've reached your maximum market saturation. You've eeked out every red cent you can eek out. There's nothing left to be done. Yet the maul that is Wallstreet continues to demand. So this is the next logical step.
Wallstreet is the sociopath we need to be concerned it. Profit > People always loses for society.
So let's say you have a car problem. What you do is open up a browser and go to Google. You Google that shit until you find a solution.
He isn't mocking them telling them they're wrong. He's simply stating a fact. If those people choose to get butthurt then perhaps they're in need of self reflection.
The American taxpayer should never be in the business of enriching for profit companies. Those companies should be required to sell to the US at cost + a % of overhead provided they meet deadlines and cost estimation projections. It's unfair and totally prone to abuse for for-profit companies to make profit off of taxpayers. We need to end corporate subsidies and return to the era of a separation of state and corporations. Companies are not people. Until Texas executes a company, they're not alive.
They did that. You still bitched. It was called a "cable package." Content providers are in it for money. There's not money to be made allowing people to choose 1-5 channels. It makes negotiating distribution fees and whatnot very challenging and costly and when people aren't wanting to pay more than like $50/month (and want to pay a lot less) they aren't going to easily make ends meet.
I'm using 3 monitors and the Macbook screen. No issues here. Me think you protest too much.
"So, how is the small guy ever to overcome the power of tech companies in a situation like this?"
Well...they could hire a delivery driver or two. Chinese takeout joints did this for years and pizza shops as well. It's nice to enjoy a dinner from a restaurant with out someone's annoying ass kid crying because of the lack of crayons or some other stupid thing that I don't give a shit about.
Why is it Trump supports bitch about censorship? It's a private company. You don't have to use Google. Not a single thing they do are you required to use. What you're really mad at is that popular websites do not share your views and you cannot get enough fellow people, who share your views, to actually invest/use/popularize a community of your own...at least not without a lot of Russian bots to help fake traffic. The world doesn't share your views and you can at least acknowledge this by not using a word generally reserved for use when a government is actually doing the censorship or at least qualify that it is private, corporate censorship within its own properties not paid for by taxpayer dollars. But then again, maybe that plays too much against the victimhood ideology that Trump supporters seem to thrive on having.
Actually you did give up your right. It's in the terms and conditions of sale, it's written into the laws of this nation. Your natural rights are non-existent. They don't exist. If we revert to this idea of natural rights, we must logically revert to the natural right I have to murder you and your whole family for my own selfish gains. Otherwise it's an artificial restriction akin to the laws of society today. Be very careful with the idea of natural rights - those rights are simple: the right to eat or be eaten and the right to end your own life. Beyond that there's nothing. Society denotes laws and rights so that a collection of intellectual animals can live and work together in as close to harmony as possible.
Haha yeah! I mean screw people who wanna have fun! Us Edge Lords and our "UNQUESTIONABLE WAYS" have everything figured out, it's why we're all gazillionaires and can sit on Slashdot all day giving out stupid, useless opinions about why the world is "going to shit" in an ironic fashion. Hahaha go us, we're so much better than the plebs! You faggot.
So increasing the national deficit, alienating our allies, dismantling our educational institutions, and pissing away my generation's future is what you voted for. I'm glad to know as a boomer you worked to give my generation a better life than you had, as the previous generation did for you. Thank you for the increased degree requirements, wage stagnation, and the demands of increased productivity a lower starting salary ontop of massive college debt. I really enjoyed not having health insurance and I *REALLY* loved hearing how lazy I was working 2 jobs full time and 1 job part time. Oh and thank you for massively polluting the earth and raising the global temperatures and then fighting anyone asking us to like not do that. You're old, you'll die soon enough, you got yours, fuck me and mine...yes you've gotten everything you've ever wanted. And thank you for voting for a POTUS who worked to undermine the basic institutions of Democracy and gladly accepted Russian money and assistance to do whatever it took to win. It's not your nation you have to worry about as you head into your twilight years. Enjoy the social security your generation's leaders borrowed from and work to destroy/deny my generation while simultaneously requiring we work and pay into it for you.
Just remember as you're shitting into your old fucking man diaper that the nurse you demand wipes your ass as you grab her tits makes way less than you did at her age in terms of buying power. You did that and I'm sure you're proud. Let's hope cancer or old age wipes your generation out as fast as it can.
Why would that matter? What does mass transit for the people have to do with fucking an intern or whomever?
You're looking at this entirely wrong. The Clinton campaign, and indeed political analysis experts globally, misunderstood the sheer power social media had/continues to have. The fake news websites weren't, in themselves, the worst issues. The hacking and releasing of information wasn't all THAT bad. It was the fake social media bots, the careful design of images and wording to encourage sharing, and the gullibility of the baby boomers to make devastating. The Dems (and mostly no one) had any idea how to fight this. The grasp isn't fully there yet, but campaigns are now getting careful and diligent about social media. Social media companies are now going to be looked at politically, which will drive them to act accordingly. Twitter will need to be careful to not piss off the Democrats (and Republicans for that matter) by overtly looking the other way on manipulation. Information warfare has changed. We've demonstrated that you don't have to take out electrical grids or reprogram missiles or hack government networks. You simply have to hack the idiot and gullible boomers. If you do that, you can fuck America up for generations.
Yes, because Apple has to absolutely care what a minority of the population wants. It should do so at great expense! Come on. Small towns in little shithole flyover states don't matter. Why would they? Apple has enough to focus on actual cities that aren't a stop light and a bunch of rednecks jerking each other off over Donald Trump and the Confederacy days. "This doesn't work for me" is an entitlement mentality.
Yes. Anyone who works in software or product development or has half a brain can characterize the costs. It costs money to train support agents, develop patches/bug fixes, do QA testing, and to do so in an environment that supports Enterprise class customers. Your post is really fucking stupid and people are voting it for being "Insightful"? What's "insightful" about not having a bloody clue about what you're talking about and acting like you do? Some of you \.ers are retarded and are simply seething at faux rage over the article because it's anti-Adobe. Check your own biases...morons.
The phrase "Farming Famers" and over-the-top rhetoric makes it clear he's a Troll. Do not feed the Troll.
Your points are discombobulated. The discussion isn't about value. The discussion is about the sale - the transaction. Your pirating of my content means I do not get money. It's a simple concept. You ended up with the output of my investments and I received no income. Nothing to offset those costs. This is an unsustainable, unless you're willing to pay my bills.
> When a million people copy your game, its value to me does not change. Either it is worth the asking price or it is not.
Yes and in a society with laws, generally, I can expect to tell you that if YOU don't feel it's worth what I'm asking and I'm unwilling to change the asking price then you go get a competing product. The perception of the value of a good or service is not the issue that is being discussed. It's the sales transaction process that a pirate bypasses or ignores. The concept of value only comes into play if there is to be a transaction of some sort...an exchange. You devalue the content by refusing to participate in the exchange portion of the transaction.
I don't understand how you're jumping from pirating to using a competitor's good. I would agree with you using someone else's product if you don't want to buy mine. But piracy is your using my content but I have not been paid for it and I should have been.
> No. Absolutely false. Once you release your music so that anyone else can hear it, sharing that music becomes their inherent right - the right to share information predates even the existence of language.
Hold onto that thought. > That's granted as a social compromise designed to encourage the creation of more content, but you have absolutely no inherent right to expect it.
That's what any right is. A social compromise. Laws, rights, etc are ALL built around the ideas of having social constructs that help to guide/dictate the behaviors humans have towards each other. Even your life itself naturally has no right to be except so far as you're willing and able to defend it...except through the concept of having a right to live. Even the "right to share information" is only a right insofar as you can stop me from killing you to stop you from sharing what you know. I prefer to live in a society dictated by these social compromises and thus the "inherent rights" such as my right to dictate that I'm going to be paid for my work or else you may not have my work do exist. The alternative is that we're just a bunch of animals, in which case, I have guns - do you?
> Slight correction. Asking price is what you mean, not value.
I didn't misrepresent what I said. Asking price is what I was talking about, it's not necessarily equated to value.
> C'mon, this was a pretty civil exchange 'til here and you actually had a few arguments that deserved an answer, did you really have to end with an ad-hominem? Next time I should read the whole reply first before starting to address the points...
Fair point - my apologies. I'm a creator and it bugs me incessantly that there are people who think they should get access to my work without paying me for it. You're allowed to not consume my content. Perhaps that's to my detriment, but I have a right to receive the money I am asking for in exchange for the right to consume my content to whatever extent our sales agreement dictates.
> I'm saying "Do what I want or I won't buy it."
That's you. Plenty of people go "Do what I want or I'll steal it". These arguments are targeted at society as a whole's problem with the theft of content. You may have morales and ethics, plenty of people do not.
> The value of a product is by definition what someone else is willing to pay for it. Not your asking price.
Value of a good doesn't necessarily equate to the end cost of the good. It's a factor, but I have the right to set whatever price I want on an item. Your only right as a consumer is to buy or not buy it. That's it.
> I treasure the wedding ring of my grandmother and wouldn't sell it for millions
This is a shit example. That diamond in that wedding ring (or any modern one) costs the De Beers company a handful of dollars. They sell it to you for vast sums more. They do this partially by artificially restricting the availability of natural diamonds, calling lab created diamonds less valuable, and telling women that your man doesn't love you if he doesn't give you a piece of a shiny rock - specifically the TYPE of rock that De Beers says is valuable.
> The argument many companies field for DRM is that without, their product becomes easy to copy and hence worthless because it can be multiplied at the whim of the one holding it. What they fail to understand is what they're competing with.
They understand it. They also understand anonymous VPNs, TOR, shared network connections, a lack of "internet identification", and the costs associated with finding and prosecuting pirates and the subsequent punishments that make the costs extremely high for low payout. What I see time and time again from anti-DRM people is how easy the competition makes it (although in today's streaming age, most of the biggest competitors use DRM). What I don't see is anti-DRM people coming up with solutions to prevent theft or make punishment worthwhile to pursue. It's a different class of product. You can only steal the ONE car I own, but you can take my music that I spent say $5000 making and give it to 1 billion people so that it's unlikely I can recoup my costs. But more importantly if I say I want to be paid for you to listen to my music then that's my inherent right. You don't have a right to listen to it.
> Steam, GOG and various other online distribution channels have proven that people are willing to pay for games delivered with convenience and hassle-free.
Yes and this is why a lot of game publishers are moving towards subscription models or models that require you to purchase in-game items (or play for a really long time) - because they're all making so much money. Steam and GOG may be popular, but the theft of games, music, movies, etc has increased over time (especially games). So while they've removed DRM, they've added a new class of barrier and that's where you either pay for content in the form of "loot boxes". It's so pervasive that it's now a meme, but it won't change. Published tried DRM and mostly that does end up failing. So now they're limiting content and making it something you have to pay for. They tried DLC and expansion packs - but those suffer from the same piracy woes. But "loot boxes" and in-game currencies make it so that your purchase gets tied to a database and you have to sign in. This makes simple piracy next to impossible and ensures an ongoing revenue stream.
> Add value to your products and people will buy them. Remove value and people will find other ways to get them in a more valuable version.
You're saying "do what I want or I'll steal it". The problem is that prior to DRMs, it was already being stolen. So it's a damned if you do, damned if you don't scenario. Please tell me what rights anyone has to take content and not pay for it. Why is a content creator less deserving of pay than you are if I came to your house and take your TV? This is what businesses see. This is the kind of conversations they have behind those closed doors. They pay people to make the content you want. That cost has to be borne by someone and in every single other industry it's the consumer who bears that cost (and then some...for the whole profit margin thing). Bitching and moaning because of DRM's existence ignores the actual issue and you've done a piss poor job of highlighting the issue. And fucking retards like you are why loot boxes are a thing, why you now have to buy continual expansion packs. You've all fucked over gaming and you're too stupid to understand why.