My point was that they don't -want- people able to understand them. I'm sorry that I overestimated your intelligence and didn't explicitly spell that out.

Sign, accept, whatever. The doc in the article was the usual, "Using this means you accept these terms" kind of thing.

Funny thing about legal documents: It doesn't matter if you read them, understand them, whatever. Only that you sign them.

No kidding. I bet most of those "looks of astonishment" are from people working retail.

Way back when I worked retail there would occasionally be the guy who would try to haggle down the price at checkout. Like my minimum-wage ass was setting prices and not the corporate overlords.

But sure man, whatever. You keep on sticking it to the man.

An adult at least has experience to draw on. A "don't make the same mistakes I did" kind of thing, if nothing else.

I remember how stupid I was at 16. So yeah, I -do- think odds are more in favor of the parents when it comes to such choices.

That's what you've been doing THE ENTIRE GODDAMN THREAD. The "everyone agrees with me, you must be stupid" lines, the political accusations, the "you must love DRM" bits... You have no idea what debate really is if you think that's how it's done.

Your last post was the single most hypocritical post I've EVER read. So much that I can't even believe that you actually believe what you're saying at this point. You're just trolling us.

And yet a few posts up you said, "Hardly. They want to screw you over for buying their product, so (since I'm not buying it anyways) it's only fitting that I should benefit at no cost AND avoid the horrible DRM." How is that the opposite?

Copy protection IS a form of DRM. Even back when it was a password sheet that came in the manual, it was designed to hinder digital copies.

I've already provided arguments; you just ignore them and keep screaming your own opinions. All one has to do is read your previous posts, you say one thing but then say the opposite later on. Your entire last paragraph is nothing but McCarthy-style "You must love that thing we hate" idiocy. Like this:

This is exactly the crap you accused me of, and what you've been doing the whole thread. You dodge points people make with handwaving and then counter with insane garbage like this.

I'm done. Should have known better than to have started in the first place.

You said you're getting it whether you pay for it or not. I don't know how else I can restate this to make it clearer. Frankly I should have known better than to even have replied in the first place: You're such a fanatic that you're completely blind to reason. You're even telling me that I love DRM. You're saying that DRM has nothing to do with piracy (it was around a lot longer than used games). I mean, I don't even know what I can say to you. You're a foaming-at-the-mouth lunatic.

I don't care if you never pay for a game. Hell, I've downloaded games. The difference is I'm not going to act like I DESERVE to have the game. That's what I've been talking about here, but for some reason you can't grasp that. You're so tied up in your little morality play that you don't even see that you're a poster child for the spoiled self-entitled brat.

I hate DRM. And I hate people like you because you refuse to admit that your actions are exactly the kind of thing that makes publishers feel DRM is necessary.

This isn't a case of someone else offering lemonade. This is the same product you decided you weren't paying for but decided you would have anyway.

Do you know how much work goes into making a game? It's only because games are digital media that you believe they're free. You completely disregard the effort and expense that goes into them, and just look at the free copies that OTHER people are putting out. Just because it's an easily copied finished product you think getting it without paying is fine? Would you think that about any physical product?

I never claimed that you thought you HAVE to have these games. I just pointed to the fact that you state you WILL get the game, whether you pay for it or not. That is a textbook example of entitlement. That is you deciding that you deserve it no matter what.

I don't think you realize what this actually means. You're saying that you should have the product whether or not you've paid for it. That you will have it is a foregone conclusion. That companies have to abide by your rules for you to pay them for what you're using. How is that not a sense of entitlement?

It doesn't take much to pull the trigger. It was probably sitting on the table, and she pressed the trigger while trying to pick it up. Not really implausible at all.

She died of ovarian cancer, you insensitive clod.

First time I've felt compelled to use that one.

Military force is exactly what third-world dictators would be worried about. Take Iraq, for example: Their military was rolled over by US/allied forces, no contest.

Most of the heavy military equipment isn't worth much against insurgent forces using guerrilla tactics (which I think was the point you were trying to make) but none of that is the purpose of a new fighter aircraft anyway. You gotta replace your 1970's MiGs sometime...

That's because it's less about force than show of force. It's "Hey look, we have these now too. Brand new stealth fighters RIGHT HERE BABY."

With global economies so intertwined, there's really not a huge chance these days of needing some kind of secret weapon force to go against other large countries in large-scale war. So they make the new developments public for the sake of national pride and respect among other countries.

Plus, it's always fun to show off new toys.