Because the big media and tech companies hate computers that don't obey them.
Microsoft, ibm, hp, intel and the like have been working on removing software ownership from the public purposely. They want a future where all bytes and instructions are encrypted.
From 1960's to roughly the early 2000's, all computers you bought ran local software exe's in plain text , aka you could open up the .exe, .com or .dll file and reverse engineer it and restore missing functions to get older software running on newer systems.
Valve, ms and the rest have been attacking us owning our own shit for over 2 decades now and they are trying to criminalize owning a general computer.
MMO's were rebranded PC rpg's, so that the game industry could steal pc games and not give us the complete files for the game we were paying for to prevent piracy but they really want monopoly profits.
You can find countless games who had their multiplayer networking code ripped out so game companies could disable their games remotely, that can't happen with gmaes in the 90's (quake, warcraft 1-3, starcraft 1 and diablo 1-2) because they were local applications. You got all the files and code to run the entire game locally.
They want to take us back to vendor locked devices of the 60's with IBM mainsframe, the internet is one giant Personal planet sized computer toa software company and our old non hardware drm'd pc's are malfunctioning chips in their desire for monopoly profits.
Then see down here where tifca (intel, microsoft and the rest) is them cheering the public being so stupid.
AKA they know they got it in the bag from the days of ultima online and everquest in 1999, then we got steam in 2003, all those "software as a service" apps are 100% proof our species are idiots. None of these programs need to be split into two exe's and run over a network, so we're losing our privacy and control of our pc's and computing devices.
So the army of lobbyists is being paid big money to ban regular pc's as they lock down the internet with new 'trusted' hardware that hardware companies in co-operating with intel and microsoft have been working on for over 20 years.
> From 1960's to roughly the early 2000's, all computers you bought ran local software exe's in plain text , aka you could open up the .exe, .com or .dll file and reverse engineer it and restore missing functions to get older software running on newer systems.
I don't believe this part has anything to do with your conspiracy
Binaries are in this format because it's convenient to store and more optimal to run them in this format. Most users don't really care/want to edit binaries/executables...
Regarding piracy: I'm sure you worked at a company that had a product, which was sold in some fashion. Part of that money went to paying your salary. Imagine there are no piracy laws/protection, and everyone uses your company's product without paying you. Where does your salary come from now? Trees?
Nothing, windows 11 is the beginning of trusted computing and the end of local applications that are text based binaries, they are building denuvo levels of drm into the os and hardware in future intel/amd cpu's and plugging the "digital hole" (i/o) to finally kill piracy, they are turning the PC into an iphone.
They are changing the executbale model to signed binaries and soon there will be no "Good old games". The idea that any software is "incompatible" is nonsense.
The "security features" are actually just content protection drm tech Netflix/google and game industry like sony has been working on.
It won't matter if you can copy files infinitely if they are signed and encrypted by an OS and CPU that won't execute the bits.
So no, windows 11 is the end of the PC as an open platform.
The industry has been pushing for copyright enforcement built into the hardware and OS. Windows 10/11 is the first client-server OS, aka the ultimate security risk since you all have been stealing software from yourselves with the rise of mmo's and steam, there's ZERO reason for any piece of software to require an internet connection.
Intel, MS, Sony and AMD are not going to give up on trusted computing. They want to remove control of our PC's to jack up software prices and force the public to pay for software and games.
No atheists don't make any mistake, there is no evidence for a divine being with magic powers. No one claims that magic leprechauns or a divine spaghetti monster is "unknowable". What about the magical red dragon? Every religion has claimed spirit beings or divine entities, these are undefinable gobbledygook. Superstitious people put forth positive claims about the universe that can be tested.
God was man's first attempt at understanding nature in terms of intent and action, aka the use of our animal model psychology and misapplying it to nature.
God is a gobbledygook word that has no meaning or solid definition. Just because I invent an idea does not mean it has any basis in reality.
Thank you for illustrating my point by claiming knowledge, or awareness, or familiarity, of something you also claim does not exist. That is absurd. How can one know anything about something that doesn't exist? You have no evidence that I have hair. Does that mean I am bald? Here's something else you may consider: do numbers exist? Does color exist? Does time? Are you certain? How can you be so certain about something you can not empirically detect? Prove it. Can you be mistaken? Have you never made a mistake? Be skeptical of what you believe you know.
>How can you be so certain about something you can not empirically detect?
Spoken like someone without mathematical education. The greatest discoveries are ones outside our finite little toy of a cosmos - ones you could never see, or if you could, could not understand with your limited senses. For example, Galois theory is completely abstract and lets you work without working, and see without seeing.
The exact opposite is true, god believers are putting for positive claims, atheists are putting forth actual evidence that no one claiming divine beings has been able to put forth any evidence of their position.
You don't seem to grasp human beings fought over their imaginary beings for centuries and created all sorts of drama that had real world political implications, it's nice of you to theory craft from your comfortable chair in the 21st century but the reality is mistaken notions of reality has given birth to centuries of blood and suffering.
So no, your gobbledygook is not neutral, your not some higher reasoning being, you're clueless because I do research in this area and you can test whether words or ideas in language are valid because its a natural phenomenon.
You are welcome to prove your claims with a proof of impossibility or with evidence of absence. Otherwise, you will not be able to prove that something does not exist the way it has been proven there is no largest prime number.
Basically, you have a strong opinion with nothing substantive to support it. That is all. In effect, you do not know, rather, you believe. You have faith that God does not exist. Deists are no different.
Not so much. I am not asking those that claim, "God does not exist," to disprove their claim. Regardless of whether the claim is negative or affirmative, the burden of proof is upon the claimant, which is not me.
We are not claiming gods don't exist. You're claiming they might, and were asking why would you say such a thing.
If I said "It's possible there are teapots orbiting some distant planets", you would hopefully disregard the statement as being nonsense. It is possible, but so what? Putting the word "possible" before something doesn't by itself make it worth my time to think about.
On the contrary, that is precisely the atheists' claim.
> You're claiming they might
I have made no such claim, making your assertion a straw man fallacy. My claim was only that among atheists, deists and agnostics, only agnostics have a compelling argument. IOW neither atheists' nor deists' arguments have logical nor epistemological merit, and the flaws in their arguments are identical: claiming unknowable knowledge.
> Atheism, in the broadest sense, is an absence of belief in the existence of deities.[1][2][3][4] Less broadly, atheism is a rejection of the belief that any deities exist.[5][6] In an even narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.
You’re talking about the most narrow definition, which is addressed by Russell’s Teapot. According to Russel, the logical position that there is no teapot floating in space is much more reasonable in the absence of evidence than saying you don’t know. To say you don’t know and to continue to entertain theories of a teapot in space is simply a waste of time. Or, if you say you don’t know but refuse to entertain theories of the teapot, then you’re simply projecting agnosticism, without truly practicing it.
A more common application of the term “atheism” is the absence of belief. An absence of belief requires no proof. It’s a rejection of an assertion, which is different than an assertion.
In fact, it’s a common logical starting point of not believing in something until you have a reason to believe. I’m sure you do it all the time with knowledge that isn’t innate. And then of course as evidence presents itself you’re free to reevaluate and change your mind.
You don’t get any bonus points for “not ever being wrong” by saying “I don’t know” all the time. It’s perfectly reasonable to say “I don’t believe you.” Or “No, it doesn’t.” as long as you’re willing to accept future information and revise your views then. Not being wrong isn’t the same as being right.
Progress comes equally from doubt as it does from curiosity. Countless discoveries were made by rejecting unsubstantiated claims. So from a practical standpoint, rejecting theories seems to have some utility.
So, if accepting or rejecting a hypothesis helps someone live a better life, then why not?
Clearly, the absence of belief in God is the very same as believing God does not exist. Both phrases, in fact, mean the same thing. And with tomato tomato, we can dismiss a correction to one's adherence to an alternative standard.
> Clearly, the absence of belief in God is the very same as believing God does not exist.
Not in my opinion.
You were born with an absence in the belief of an infinite number of things. Absence of belief is a default state.
Presumably you have a filter of what beliefs you choose to add to that default state you were born in.
Having a filter of: “Does it help me live a better life?” seems good to me. “Can anyone reproduce it?” seems like a decent filter too.
Basically an absence of belief is saying that the level of evidence presented to me has not surpassed the requirements of my filter. The burden is on others to improve the evidence.
Believing a negative is saying that I have all the evidence I need and I’ve come to a conclusion. The burden is on me to show that I’ve collected enough evidence.
> Basically an absence of belief is saying that the level of evidence presented to me has not surpassed the requirements of my filter. The burden is on others to improve the evidence.
Again, the "absence of belief" is identical to "not believing:" "the evidence has not convinced you, so you do not believe it," is, in fact, a belief. Believing something is a belief, and not believing something is also a belief. Belief is not knowledge of truth, it is a gamble that something is true without seeing the dice. When you see the dice, you know.
> Again, the "absence of belief" is identical to "not believing:" "the evidence has not convinced you, so you do not believe it,"
I really don’t think so.
Today you probably have an absence of belief in rainbow colored lions.
That’s different from trying to figure out if rainbow colored lions exist, evaluating claims and deciding to believe that they don’t exist.
Absence of belief = passive default
Belief = active decision making
When someone mentions the words “rainbow colored lions” or even makes a claim “I saw a rainbow colored lion”, I don’t feel a burden to evaluate their claim. I’m more evaluating the structure of their claim: they’ve provided no evidence.
So, I am choosing to believe that they’ve made an unfounded argument. I don’t suddenly feel the need to actively not believe in rainbow colored lions.
> On the contrary, that is precisely the atheists' claim
I can only assume you're trolling, but sure I'll bite, because I have nothing better to do.
Again, athiests are not making the claims. In fact it's insulting to even have the word "athiest" exist, but I understand the historical context that led to it's existence.
A person is just a person, but then some people come along and make claims that there are gods. So the people ask;"Why? Can you prove it?". These questioners don't have beliefs that need to be proven, because they are the default. The theist is the one making the claim.
Atheism does not say nothing; it is saying something. Atheism is an argument, and as such, it is fundamentally and ideologically making a claim. Any claim may be examined for rigor.
A person is not born believing in gods. They are not making arguments about the existence or non-existence of gods. One day someone says to them that gods may exist, this other person has made a claim. It would be more than strange to say this person has a more valid viewpoint than the person who has made no claims.
Goodnight and good luck. And even if you are trolling, I hope you find what it is you're _really_ seeking in life.
> A person is not born believing in gods. They are not making arguments about the existence or non-existence of gods. One day someone says to them that gods may exist, this other person has made a claim. It would be more than strange to say this person has a more valid viewpoint than the person who has made no claims.
I think this is a popular kind of argument, and the form of it isn't necessarily invalid. The form is to use a developmental model of a fetus developing into baby, to infant, to rugrat, etc., as a frame to eliminate something that, allegedly, emerges at some point during healthy development, utilizing simplified ideas in the cognitive theory of moral development or some such to show that something is not there, and then it is, almost as if by slight of hand, to construct the droll ramification that it is not an inherent quality, thus whatever it is, is not a priori, it is nurture not nature, beliefs are behavior, and they are learned behavior.
But in this case, it is not remotely as clear as I believe you would like. It could be nature. Due to a number of interesting cases and non-controlled, ad hoc studies on single patient bases, an idea emerged (from medical professionals exposed to patients with brain injury, most of the injuries caused by bicycle accidents) a concept emerged known as the Godspot: A conscious patient with part of their skull cap removed and their brain exposed was given a small charge on a particular area of the brain from, seriously, a zapper wand, idk what it is called, and the patient, an atheist that was not raised exposed to religion, experienced religious rapture and epiphany, and concerningly with other patients, visions of what we'd all recognize as Hell. Subsequent, and especially more recent investigations have shown this brain state is real and academically reproducible, but that there probably isn't a particular Godspot because so many parts of the brain are involved, arguably necessarily.
Regardless, whatever the hell that is, it evolved in humans, and there is absolutely no reason not to believe it occurs and can be induced in nearly all if not all mammalian brains.
And the repercussion of this extant evolved brain state is that: whatever triggers belief in God, at the very least, is not necessarily introduced through only nurture. It is part of what human beings are, part of common human genetic make-up assuredly, and maybe also other or all mammals, meaning, it probably existed long, long before humans showed up.
This is not a court room or a debate. There is no such thing as 'burden of proof'. A hypothesis can be proven correct or false, and both parties are welcome to do so. This is how competitive science works, thankfully not being one-sided.
> you don't know anything about how language or your brain works
It seems there is a proclivity here to make claims that one could not possibly know are true while committing an astounding three fallacies simultaneously, the ad hominem, the argument from authority, and the straw man. Congratulations on your fallacious hat-trick. Your argument here is invalid thrice.
There's nothing invalid about it, because you don't grasp that the words you see and hear are not the real language the brain uses to reason with. You think when you put words onto a screen or into a book you have any idea what your brain is doing. You do not. Don't think so? All the different various religious sects would disagree with you, aka the fact there are so many versions of christianity each with distinct conceptions of god means these people "reasoning" have no idea wtf is going on in their brain. That's reality, sorry buddy. Try again.
You're unaware that science advances and I do research in this field on the brain, reasoning and language. So you are obliviously unaware of the headway of cutting edge research that undermines old notions that you were taught about how reason works.
Sorry to tell you random internet commenter will never compete with someone who researches human reasoning for a living. That is why I know things that you don't and you think you are "reasoning" not having any idea how reasoning processes in the brain work. The whole process can be studied and reverse engineered and that has implications for "bad reasoning" aka much "good reasoning" that is seen as such will be seen as "bad reasoning" as science of reasoning works advances.
Sorry to tell ya, but you don't understand enough about your own brain to even engage in conversation with me about this topic.
Uhh the red flags were there in 1997 when you all started buying client-server software. Intel and the industry know you are idiots at computers.
MMO's/steam are signs of idiocracy, aka you are bad at understanding you are getting robbed. That's why we have TPM and client-server crapware in windows 10/11.
If you buy any client-server SaaS you are a moron, everyone was expecting local applications forever until 1997. Even EA would have never imagined you'd all be dumb enough to buy incomplete programs where they take files hostage on a 2nd computer half a world away.
So no the time to be alarmed was over 20 years ago, since there is no software or game that requires an internet connection, there was no steam, no stupid fucking login screens, nothing. The public has told the tech industry it is chimp factor five levels of stupid over the last 23+ years. So they are locking us out of our PC's, windows 10/11 is building copyright enforcement into the cpu so future applications won't run and your bios can be remote updated like a console to disable any pirated software or cracked exe's that are found on your PC.
You all gave them this access to your PC, so why wouldn't intel and the rest just keep going?
See here on EA and ultima, and the death of games as local applications:
However, while I agree that SaaS is a really dangerous trend that Steam definitely contributed to, I can't agree 100%. Specifically, out of all the SaaS products out there Steam is probably one of the best. And I run most games on Linux with Proton and all my games have local binaries. I have even replaced them with no ill effects. Steam has the capability to hash the file but under normal situations it just calls the exe by name. And it's offline mode is pretty legit also (although it's up each games to respect that setting for their own analytics).
EA is completely untrustworthy. I will not use Origin.
As far as Windows goes; as a professional domain administrator my opinion is this; it is literally the only realistic way to apply users, groups, and policies to a domain. It is impossible to run a successful medium-large scale non-tech company without a Windows environment simply because it is a ubiquitous and easy to maintain system. At home I am a strictly Linux neckbeard like the rest of you, but when it's time to make money at the office you need a Windows environment. That doesn't mean you need to setup Azure AD and offload all your infrastructure. You can do it all on premises and even use your own KMS activation servers if you really want to. But honestly windows is a good product that is worth the price if you're trying to make money with non-technical people.
Man I'm sorry to tell you, but your post is not even wrong. There are no good reasons for broken applications, when you have any client-server exe running on your PC you've lost your privacy and they've hacked your PC because you can't audit the code.
Game companies have been exfiltrating data on massive scale and gives them 100% access to everything we say and do, I'm sorry to tell you but we live in a global panopticon that you idiots enabled.
There's zero reason for any application not to be local on your PC, you don't grasp in an internet enabled world your PC is a chip in a global sized motherboard that content companies and intel and AMD want replaced and turned into a dumb locked down consumer device.
TPM is about putting copyright cops on your PC's, and all your beautiful local exe's will be signed binaries in the future, no more dumping MP4's from netflix because they will be end to end encrypted and signed.
Windows 10/11+ is them changing how binary executables work going forward.
From 1960 to roughly 2010, all cpu's were using plaintext binaries, microsoft and the media and content industries desperately want to change this to defeat piracy. They will not give up on locking down your PC, they can finally turn files and give them rivalrous qualities by way of encryption, internet and digital signing. Just like consoles.
You don't seem to grasp we've lost the battle and are too stupid to realize, the future of hardcore gaming on the PC was supposed to be level editors, dedicated servers and local applications, not logon screens, user acccounts and stolen videgames.
Because every "software as a service game" is entirely downloaded to your PC making a mockery of the concept, if Dota 2 and league require a $2000 computer with the latest 3D video card.
If I didn't live with morons these games would be normally coded PC games like we had in the late 90's and early 2000's before the stolen RPG apocalypse (Mmmo's).
MMO's were just rpg's with their networking code stolen out of the game and sold back to you as some "new type of product" the whole thing was a scam, to defraud gamers out of game ownership because the game industry desperately wanted to kill the local infinitely copyable binaries. You don't seem to get this was part of the game plan to kill "piracy" buy literally stealing the game from their customers. Can't easily pirate it (during its period) without the files that used to come inside the game.
That' why modern multiplayer that used to be embedded in the exe is stolen out of most modern games while games from the 90s' you can still play multiplayer because its embedded inside the program.
" As longtime poweruser all the dark patterns and user hostile behavior was astonishing."
Two or more computers in a network become and behave as a single PC, so if you buy any client-server software you are literally stealing programs for yourself. Because all programs are the same to a PC. AKA all programs executables can be divided into two or more exe's and run over a network it's called the client-server or mainframe dumb client model of computing and you don't want that because that's the end of the personal computer you own and control. Client-server apps are the ultimate security risk because you can't audit the code.
The last 23 years there's been a war to kill the general computer.
If you've touched steam, xbox live or mmo's, they are all client-server exe's, windows 10 is a client-server operating system.
They've been stealing software from 1997 with ultima online, how can you be astonished when valve and everyone were stealing PC games from 1997 onward?
It's not, the average gamer and PC buyer has been stealing software from himself for the last 23+ years. Straight, steam/mmo's are just back ended c applications, there's no reason for any piece of software to require a "internet connection" (aka a second computer) half a world away.
The 1990's were great because it was before the computer illiterate got internet. Everyone was expecting level editors and free maps, mods and skins
... to continue in all the big budget games but that didn't happen because the computer illiterate masses gave up game ownership giving birth to all the evils of modern gaming (shut down games, mtx, always online drm, which is the same as mmo's, aka client-server back ended c apps). So we're losing game history down the shitter and games just disappear from history because stupid got internet.
Pub g and Apex, are just back ended quake 3 and UT2004, minus game ownership.
When the computer illiterate started buying MMO's (which were just rebranded rpg's with stolen networking code), the game industry started stealing PC games on a massive scale, notice how Transformers fall of cybertron a game from 2014, doesn't have basic features like dedicated servers and server lists like every fps from 1996-2004. (aka pre-steam, pre-mmo).
Once game developers realized gamers were stupid in 1997, there was a war on on local applications.
Ultima 9 was cancelled for the scam game ultima online, so there was no ultima 10, ultima 11, ultima 12, with dedicated servers and level editors. So we didn't get the awesome future of PC gaming, we got the computer illiterate dumbass future that undid the personal computer revolution taking us back to mainframe computing of the 60's and the average gamer is unaware of it.
Everyone was expecting diablo 2+ to have server browsers and level editing and huge modding, that never happened because they started stealing RPG's and rebranding them mmo's and just started back ending the shit out of every PC game, once they realized the public was stupid as fuck at computers.
Don't think so? We already had infinite multiplayer game sin the 90's with quake 2, until the shit for brains who bought UO and everquest fucked up the future of the personal computer and gaming more generally, taking us back to mainframe computing of the 60's.
We could take quake 2 engine an clone all "MMO's and have those same games run locally with ability to host multiplayer from your machine with no logins, subscription fees.
If you have to infinity multiplayer videogames, one allows you to own it and costs $60, and the other has an upfront costs + sub.... guess who got swindled?
>In what way are Google not a trustworthy company in your view?
Google "snowden nsa revelations" see all the companies sucking up all your data, the NSA and google and all the tech commpanies have removed everyones privacy. It's called "total information awareness".
>I'm still confused by the existence of APIs like this.
They are locking down IO with trusted computing, there's been a 23+ year initiative to move to encrypted computing to take input/output control away from the user, this required the co-operation of hardware manufacturers. Windows 10 and windows 11 are the beginning of you not being able to run or play files or exe's over the next 20 years as youtube, netflix, the game industry update their software to use TPM.
Basically they are building a parallel mainframe inside our PC's that only youtube, netflix, the game industry and other software companies will control. They are removing ownership of our devices and they needed microsofts help to do that.
We've seen mirosoft trial bricking cracked exe's via update. Many UWP games only work on certain versions of windows.
They are bringing console lockdown to the PC that is why windows 10 had forced updates. That is why windows 11 was also pushing forced internet connection hard for home users.
Microsoft, ibm, hp, intel and the like have been working on removing software ownership from the public purposely. They want a future where all bytes and instructions are encrypted.
From 1960's to roughly the early 2000's, all computers you bought ran local software exe's in plain text , aka you could open up the .exe, .com or .dll file and reverse engineer it and restore missing functions to get older software running on newer systems.
Valve, ms and the rest have been attacking us owning our own shit for over 2 decades now and they are trying to criminalize owning a general computer.
MMO's were rebranded PC rpg's, so that the game industry could steal pc games and not give us the complete files for the game we were paying for to prevent piracy but they really want monopoly profits.
You can find countless games who had their multiplayer networking code ripped out so game companies could disable their games remotely, that can't happen with gmaes in the 90's (quake, warcraft 1-3, starcraft 1 and diablo 1-2) because they were local applications. You got all the files and code to run the entire game locally.
They want to take us back to vendor locked devices of the 60's with IBM mainsframe, the internet is one giant Personal planet sized computer toa software company and our old non hardware drm'd pc's are malfunctioning chips in their desire for monopoly profits.
https://games.slashdot.org/story/22/03/25/0457243/owners-of-...
What microsoft+ big media companies want the future to be:
https://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rja14/tcpa-faq.html
Piracy is just a scapegoat the corproate world is mass dispossessing the stupid and ignoring mmo/drm loving masses.
https://torrentfreak.com/esa-reports-game-piracy-file-hostin...
These "pirate" claims are just pro corporate propaganda, they want to eliminate software ownership.
https://torrentfreak.com/major-persistent-video-game-pirates...
Then see down here where tifca (intel, microsoft and the rest) is them cheering the public being so stupid.
AKA they know they got it in the bag from the days of ultima online and everquest in 1999, then we got steam in 2003, all those "software as a service" apps are 100% proof our species are idiots. None of these programs need to be split into two exe's and run over a network, so we're losing our privacy and control of our pc's and computing devices.
So the army of lobbyists is being paid big money to ban regular pc's as they lock down the internet with new 'trusted' hardware that hardware companies in co-operating with intel and microsoft have been working on for over 20 years.
https://web2.qatar.cmu.edu/cs/15349/dl/DRM-TC.pdf