Untitled

blanketoption:

rapidopatter:

Last night I was struck with the sudden urge to draw SBAHJ Fanart, as per the norm 

holyshit this is adorable.

(via kyle-minerva)

clopper-dude:

“I’M SCREAMING” is over used and bad.

Or “IM DYING”
Like really
You’re dying?

(Source: catfood-mcfly, via kyle-minerva)

clopper-dude:

“I’M SCREAMING” is over used and bad.

(Source: catfood-mcfly, via kyle-minerva)

ranialkathiry:

Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you Zedd.

(Source: unicorn-sharts, via kyle-minerva)

theforestofjesse:

oribob:

becca-morley:

mooneymannyinthesky:

sassypenryn:

inoticeyoureanerdfighter:

eeriie:

“Sometime during the night of August 16th, 1952, the small town of Ashley, Kansas ceased to exist. At 3:28am on August 17th, 1952, a magnitude 7.9 earthquake was measured by the United States Geological Survey. The earthquake itself was felt throughout the state and most of the midwest. The epicenter was determined to be directly under Ashley, Kansas. When state law enforcement arrived at what should have been the outskirts of the farming community, they found a smoldering, burning fissure in the Earth in the earth measuring 1000 yards in length and approximately 500 yards in width. The depth of the fissure was never determined. After twelve days, the state-wide and local search for the missing 679 residents of Ashley, Kansas, was called off by the Kansas State Government at 9:15pm on the night of August 29th, 1952. All 679 residents were assumed to be dead. At 2:27am on August 30th, 1952, a magnitude 7.5 earthquake was measured by the United States Geological Survey. The epicenter was situated under what used to be the location of Ashley, Kansas. When law enforcement investigated at 5:32am, they reported that the fissure in the Earth had closed.

In the eight days leading up to the disappearance of the town and its 679 residents, bizarre and unexplainable events were reported by dozens of residents in Ashley, Kansas and law enforcement from the surrounding area.

On the evening of August 8th, 1952, at 7:13pm, a resident by the name of Gabriel Johnathan reported a strange sight in the sky above Ashley. The town itself, having no official branch of law enforcement, called into the police station of the neighboring town of Hays. Gabriel reported what appeared to be a “small, black opening in the sky.” Within the next fifteen minutes, the Hays police station became overwhelmed with dozens of phone calls all reporting the same phenomenon. The phenomenon was never reported by any neighboring communities. A decision was made to send a trooper to Ashley to investigate the matter the following morning.

At 7:54 am on the morning of August 9th, 1952, Hays Police Officer Allan Mace radioed the Hays Police Station. He reported that, despite following the one way road leading into Ashley, he had become lost. According to his report, the road “continued along its normal path, but somehow ended up back in Hays.” Officer Mace went on to add that the road never curved, or bent in any direction. At 9:15am, seven of the town’s 10 police cars were sent to investigate the situation, and all members of the team came to the same conclusion. The only road leading into Ashley stopped leading into Ashley, but instead led back to Hays. Phone calls continued to pour into the Hays Police Station, all reporting that the black opening in the sky continued to grow in size. All callers were advised to remain inside, and to not travel outside unless absolutely necessary. At 8:17pm, Mrs. Elaine Kantor reported her neighbors, Mr. and Mrs. Milton, and their two children, Jeffery and Brooke, missing. According to Mrs. Kantor’s phone call, the Milton’s attempted to leave town in their family car earlier in the evening. They never returned. Law enforcement officals from Hays never reported the car, or individuals, coming up the one way road.

At 7:38am on the morning of August 10th, 1952, phone calls from Ashley into the Hays Police Station reported that the town was in total darkness. The sun had never risen. At 10:15am, at the request of Hays Law Enforcement, a helicopter from Topeka, Kansas flew over the region in which Ashley, Kansas stood. The town was never observed from air.

At 12:43pm on the afternoon of August 11th, 1952, Ms. Phoebe Danielewski called into the Hays Police Station. She reported that her daugter Erica had begun to have conversions with her father, who died three years prior in a drunk driving accident. To add to her concern, Ms. Danielewski reported that Erica was attempting to go outside into the dark, to “join them.” Over the course of the next twelve hours, a reported 329 phone calls were placed into the Hays Police Station all describing similar phenomenon with the children of the town.

The following morning of August 12th, 1952, the sitation became dire. During the middle of the night, all 217 children in the town of Ashley, Kansas disappeared. A reported 421 phone calls were placed into the Hays Police Department. Unable to be of any useful assistance, Hays Law Enforcement instructed all callers to remain inside and to avoid any and all attempts at finding the missing children.

At 5:19pm on the evening August 13th, 1952, Ashley elderly man Scott Luntz reporting a growing, distant fire to the south. According to his description, the fire seemed to turn the distant black into “bright red and orange [that] seemed to extend high into the sky.” Throughout the rest of the day, calls continued in, stating that the fire, in addition to moving north, now seemed to “come out of the black sky.” No fire was ever witnessed by any of the neighboring communities or law enforcement officials.

The reports continued until 12:09am on the morning of August 14th, 1952. The last phone call, placed by a Mr. Benjamin Endicott, reported that the fire in the sky had grown so intense that it began to appear as daytime over the town. The phone call ended abruptly: (FROM THE PHONECALL PLACED BY BENJAMIN SHERMAN ENDICOTT)

Benjamin: Just hold on….wait…

(CONTINUED SILENCE)

Benjamin (con’t): Yeah, yeah I see something. It’s to the south. It looks like-

[END PHONECALL]

The next phone call wouldn’t be placed until the following evening.

The following is the entire transcript of the final phonecall to be received by the Hays Police Department out of the town of Ashley, Kansas. It was placed at 9:46pm on the evening of August 15th, 1952. In this recorded phonecall, the officer on duty is Officer Peter Welsch. The caller has been identified as Ms. April Foster.

[BEGIN PHONECALL]

Officer Welsch: Hays Police Department.

(Muffled static).

Officer Welsch: Hello?

Foster: YES…yes, hello?

Officer Welsch: Ma’am, who am I speaking with.

Foster: My name is April, April Foster. (Coughs) Please, sir. Please help me.

Officer Welsch: What is happening, ma’am?

Foster: Last night….last night they came back.

Officer Welsch: Ma’am, I’m going to need you to -

Foster: LAST NIGHT THEY CAME BACK! (Cries)

Officer Welsch: Ma’am, I’m going to need you to calm down, and speak clearly. What happened? Who came back?

Foster: (Sobbing). Everyone.

Officer Welsch: Everyone?

Foster: They all came in the fire.

Officer Welsch: What do you mean everyone?

Foster: My son…..I saw my son last night. He was walking… he was walking down the street. He was burned. Jesus Christ HE WAS BURNED.

Officer Welsch: Ma’am I -

Foster: He died last year. I raised him since he was a baby….it was just me and him. I told him to watch for cars when he rode his bike. But he never wanted to listen.

Officer Welsch: Ma’am, what you’re saying isn’t making any sense. You said everyone came back?

Foster: ARE YOU FUCKING LISTENING TO ME? EVERYONE. Everyone came back. Everyone who died, or went missing, they’re back. And they’re looking for US! (Cries). He…he said: “Mommy, I’m okay now! See, I can walk again! Where are you, Mommy? I want to see you!”(Sobs).

Officer Welsch: ….Ma’am, where are you now? Are you safe?

Foster: I’m hiding. Just like everyone else. We saw them coming through the fields….and….some people opened their doors for them. God, the SCREAMING. (Pause). I don’t know what happened to them. But their houses caught fire and they….caved in. I have my curtains drawn. I’m hiding in the closet right now and- (Silence).

Officer Welsch: Ma’am, is everything alright, are you okay?

Foster: (Silence).

Officer Welsh: Ma’am?

Foster: (Glass Breaking). Oh…oh my God.

Officer Welsh: Ma’am?

Foster: Something just came in. (Muffled cries).

Officer Welsch: Ma’am, stay as quiet as you can. Don’t make a sound.

Foster: (Muffled: “Mommy…..mommy?”). (Sobbing). He came inside.

Officer Welsch: Stay absolutely still. Don’t leave.

Foster: (Sound of muffled footsteps. Muffled: “Mommy? Mommy, where are you hiding?”)

Officer Welsch: Stay quiet.

Foster: (Sound of heavy footsteps. Laughter. Muffled: “I found you, MOMMY!”) (Indiscernable screaming and noise).

Officer Welsch: Ma’am? MA’AM??

[End phonecall].

The following morning, at 6:55am, the law enforcement officals of the Hays Police Department arrived at the location of Ashley, Kansas. A smoldering, burning fissure in the Earth was all that remained.”

I was reading this alone in the dark and had to flip the light on halfway through because I was so freaked out.

this is one of the scariest things I have ever read omfg im never sleeping again holy carp

fucking hell i thought the picture was of a bunch of furbies at first

someone needs to turn this into a fucking novel

This is like tommyknockers and children of the corn all rolled into one fuck fest.

This shit is just like all the other copy pasta that’s 5 years old.

(via kyle-minerva)

datcatwhatcameback:

ragingcommonsense:

gop-tea-pub:

randomgirafarig:

avalonroselin:

abunchofassholes:

thisiswhiteculture:

sheishurr:

welp

and if any of you white people respond with “wait but I didn’t do that. that was in the past”

i need you to check your privilege

and then drink bleach if you think your hands aren’t dirty

They’re not.

Guilt doesn’t transfer from generation to generation. I am not magically accountable for something my great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great grandfather MIGHT have done. Also;

>social justice blogger
>telling people to kill themselves

I love that there’s a blog called “this is white culture” that is solely devoted to bad things white people did, not their cultures at all.  So I guess I can make a blog called “this is black culture” and post gang and crime records and that’s 100% okay.  Or “this is Muslim culture” and make it all about terrorism.

But wait, you cry.  Not all black people are criminals and not all Muslims are terrorists.  That’s unfair!  And racist!

WELL GOLLY GEE DO YOU THINK SO?  Because saying that all white people are responsible for the Atlantic slave trade sounds pretty racist to me, given that, you know, that was between the African slaveholders and the British and Americans and had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with my ancestors, who were incredibly poor farmers and serfs from Ireland and Lithuania who had to flee to America at around the turn of the century (by which time slavery had already been abolished in the US) because they were being treated like slaves.  Even if they had been living in America at the time when slavery was legal they wouldn’t have been able to afford a slave; in fact they probably would have been working with them in the fields and treated about the same, since the first slaves in America were actually white serfs.  But please, tell me more about how dirty my hands are because of circumstances surrounding my birth that I could not control and continue to treat me differently based on the color of my skin without actually knowing anything about my heritage, I’m sure that isn’t racist at all!

^ This!

Prior to 1655 there were no legal slaves in the colonies, only indentured servants. All masters were required to free their servants after their time was up. Seven years was the limit that an indentured servant could be held. Upon their release they were granted 50 acres of land. This included any Negro purchased from slave traders. Negros were also granted 50 acres upon their release.

Anthony Johnson was a Negro from modern-day Angola. He was brought to the US to work on a tobacco farm in 1619. In 1622 he was almost killed when Powhatan Indians attacked the farm. 52 out of 57 people on the farm perished in the attack. He married a female black servant while working on the farm.

When Anthony was released he was legally recognized as a “free Negro” and ran a successful farm. In 1651 he held 250 acres and five black indentured servants. In 1654, it was time for Anthony to release John Casor, a black indentured servant. Instead Anthony told Casor he was extending his time. Casor left and became employed by the free white man Robert Parker.

Anthony Johnson sued Robert Parker in the Northampton Court in 1654. In 1655, the court ruled that Anthony Johnson could hold John Casor indefinitely. The court gave judicial sanction for blacks to own slave of their own race. Thus Casor became the first permanent slave and Johnson the first slave owner.

Whites still could not legally hold a black servant as an indefinite slave until 1670. In that year, the colonial assembly passed legislation permitting free whites, blacks, and Indians the right to own blacks as slaves.

By 1699, the number of free blacks prompted fears of a “Negro insurrection.” Virginia Colonial ordered the repatriation of freed blacks back to Africa. Many blacks sold themselves to white masters so they would not have to go to Africa. This was the first effort to gently repatriate free blacks back to Africa. The modern nations of Sierra Leone and Liberia both originated as colonies of repatriated former black slaves.

However, black slave owners continued to thrive in the United States.

By 1830 there were 3,775 black families living in the South who owned black slaves. By 1860 there were about 3,000 slaves owned by black households in the city of New Orleans alone.
_____________________________________________________

In 1807 Britain outlawed slavery. In 1820 the king of the African kingdom of Ashanti inquired why the Christians did not want to trade slaves with him anymore, since they worshiped the same god as the Muslims and the Muslims were continuing the trade like before.

The civil rights movement of the 1960’s have left many people with the belief that the slave trade was exclusively a European/USA phenomenon and only evil white people were to blame for it. This is a simplistic scenario that hardly reflects the facts.

Thousands of records of transactions are available on a CDROM prepared by Harvard University and several comprehensive books have been published recently on the origins of modern slavery (namely, Hugh Thomas’ The Slave Trade and Robin Blackburn’s The Making Of New World Slavery) that shed new light on centuries of slave trading.
What these records show is that the modern slave trade flourished in the early middle ages, as early as 869, especially between Muslim traders and western African kingdoms. For moralists, the most important aspect of that trade should be that Muslims were selling goods to the African kingdoms and the African kingdoms were paying with their own people. In most instances, no violence was necessary to obtain those slaves. Contrary to legends and novels and Hollywood movies, the white traders did not need to savagely kill entire tribes in order to exact their tribute in slaves. All they needed to do is bring goods that appealed to the kings of those tribes. The kings would gladly sell their own subjects. (Of course, this neither condones the white traders who bought the slaves nor deny that many white traders still committed atrocities to maximize their business).
This explains why slavery became “black”. Ancient slavery, e.g. under the Roman empire, would not discriminate: slaves were both white and black (so were Emperors and Popes). In the middle ages, all European countries outlawed slavery (of course, Western powers retained countless “civilized” ways to enslave their citizens, but that’s another story), whereas the African kingdoms happily continued in their trade. Therefore, only colored people could be slaves, and that is how the stereotype for African-American slavery was born. It was not based on an ancestral hatred of blacks by whites, but simply on the fact that blacks were the only ones selling slaves, and they were selling people of their own race. (To be precise, Christians were also selling Muslim slaves captured in war, and Muslims were selling Christian slaves captured in war, but neither the Christians of Europe nor the Muslims of Africa and the Middle East were selling their own people).
Then the Muslim the trade of African slaves declined rapidly when Arab domination was reduced by the emerging European powers. (Note: Arabs continued to capture and sell slaves, but mostly in the Mediterranean. In fact, Robert Davis estimates that 1.25 million European Christians were enslaved by the “barbary states” of northern Africa. As late as 1801 the USA bombed Morocco, Algiers, Tunis and Tripoli precisely to stop that Arab slave trade of Christians. The rate of mortality of those Christian slaves in the Islamic world was roughly the same as the mortality rate in the Atlantic slave trade of the same period.)
Christians took over in black Africa, though. The first ones were the Portuguese, who, applying an idea that originally developed in Italian seatrading cities, and often using Italian venture capital, started exploiting sub-Saharan slaves in the 1440s to support the economy of the sugar plantations (mainly for their own African colonies of Sao Tome and Madeira).
The Dutch were the first, apparently, to import black slaves into North America, but black slaves had already been employed all over the world, including South and Central America. We tend to focus on what happened in North America because the United States would eventually fight a war over slavery (and it’s in the U.S. that large sectors of the population would start condemning slavery, contrary to the indifference that Muslims and most Europeans showed for it).
Even after Europeans began transporting black slaves to America, most trade was just that: “trade”. In most instances, the Europeans did not need to use any force to get those slaves. The slaves were “sold” more or less legally by their (black) owners. Scholars estimate that about 12,000,000 Africans were sold by Africans to Europeans (most of them before 1776, when the USA wasn’t yet born) and 17,000,000 were sold to Arabs. The legends of European mercenaries capturing free people in the jungle are mostly just that: legends. A few mercenaries certainly stormed peaceful tribes and committed terrible crimes, but that was not the rule. There was no need to risk their lives, so most of them didn’t: they simply purchased people.
As an African-American scholar (Nathan Huggins) has written, the “identity” of black Africans is largely a white invention: sub-Saharan Africans never felt like they were one people, they felt (and still feel) that they belonged to different tribes. The distinctions of tribe were far stronger than the distinctions of race.
Everything else is true: millions of slaves died on ships and of diseases, millions of blacks worked for free to allow the Western economies to prosper, and the economic interests in slavery became so strong that the southern states of the United States opposed repealing it. But those millions of slaves were just one of the many instances of mass exploitation: the industrial revolution was exported to the USA by enterpreuners exploiting millions of poor immigrants from Europe. The fate of those immigrants was not much better than the fate of the slaves in the South. As a matter of fact, many slaves enjoyed far better living conditions in the southern plantations than European immigrants in the industrial cities (which were sometimes comparable to concentration camps). It is not a coincidence that slavery was abolished at a time when millions of European and Chinese immigrants provided the same kind of cheap labor.
It is also fair to say that, while everybody tolerated it, very few whites practiced slavery: in 1860 there were 385,000 USA citizens who owned slaves, or about 1.4% of the white population (there were 27 million whites in the USA). That percentage was zero in the states that did not allow slavery (only 8 million of the 27 million whites lived in states that allowed slavery). Incidentally, in 1830 about 25% of the free Negro slave masters in South Carolina owned 10 or more slaves: that is a much higher percentage (ten times more) than the number of white slave owners. Thus slave owners were a tiny minority (1.4%) and it was not only whites: it was just about anybody who could, including blacks themselves.
Moral opposition to slavery was widespread even before Lincoln, and throughout Europe. On the other hand, opposition to slavery was never particularly strong in Africa itself, where slavery is slowly being eradicated only in our time. One can suspect that slavery would have remained common in most African kingdoms until this day: what crushed slavery in Africa was that all those African kingdoms became colonies of western European countries that (for one reason or another) eventually decided to outlaw slavery. When, in the 1960s, those African colonies regained their independence, numerous cases of slavery resurfaced. And countless African dictators behaved in a way that makes a slave owner look like a saint. Given the evidence that this kind of slavery was practiced by some Africans before it was practiced by some Americans, that it was abolished by all whites and not by some Africans, and that some Africans resumed it the moment they could, why would one keep blaming the USA but never blame, say, Ghana or the Congo?
The more we study it, the less blame we have to put on the USA for the slave trade with black Africa: it was pioneered by the Arabs, its economic mechanism was invented by the Italians and the Portuguese, it was mostly run by western Europeans, and it was conducted with the full cooperation of many African kings. The USA fostered free criticism of the phenomenon: no such criticism was allowed in the Muslim and Christian nations that started trading goods for slaves, and no such criticism was allowed in the African nations that started selling their own people (and, even today, no such criticism is allowed within the Arab world).
Today it is politically correct to blame some European empires and the USA for slavery (forgetting that it was practiced by everybody since prehistoric times). But I rarely read the other side of the story: that the nations who were the first to develop a repulsion for slavery and eventually abolish slavery were precisely those countries (especially Britain and the USA). In 1787 the Society for Effecting the Abolition of the Slave Trade was founded in England: it was the first society anywhere in the world opposed to slavery. In 1792 English prime minister William Pitt called publicly for the end of the slave trade: it was the first time in history (anywhere in the world) that the ruler of a country had called for the abolition of slavery. No African king and emperor had ever done so. As Dinesh D’Souza wrote, “What is uniquely Western is not slavery but the movement to abolish slavery”.

To be completely fair, what was also unique about the western slave trade is the scale (the millions shipped to another continent in a relatively short period of time), and, of course, that it eventually became a racist affair, discriminating blacks, whereas previous slave trades had not discriminated based on the color of the skin. What is unique about the USA, in particular, is the unfair treatment that blacks received AFTER emancipation, which is, after all, the real source of the whole controversy, because, otherwise, just about everybody on this planet could claim to be the descendant of an ancient slave).
That does not mean that western slave traders were justified in what they did, but placing all the blame on them is a way to absolve all the others.
Also, it is worth noting that the death rate among the white crews of the slave ships (20-25%) was higher than the rate among black slaves (15%) because slaves were more valuable than sailors but nobody has written books and filmed epics about those sailors (often unwillingly enrolled or even kidnapped in ports around Europe when they were drunk).
To this day, too many Africans, Arabs and Europeans believe that the African slave trade was an USA aberration, not their own invention.

By the time the slave trade was abolished in the West, there were many more slaves in Africa (black slaves of black owners) than in the Americas.

Yeah so check your black privilege and learn the facts.

Guys, fucking read this comment string. 

(via kyle-minerva)

angelfire93:

Alright, if you’re a consumer and you’re considering picking up the new Xbox One console, then please, take a moment to listen to me. Before we begin, no, I am not a fanboy or a hater. I have no console Bias. I have a PS3, Xbox 360, Wii, and a Gaming PC. Each has their pros and cons but now onto business.

DO NOT BUY AN XBOX ONE. Why? See the reasons below:

Xbox Requires an internet connection. Here’s how it works: Every 24 hours your Xbox will try to connect to Microsoft’s servers for verification. If it is unable to connect, sucks to be you. You’re blocked from playing even single player games until it can connect.

Source: http://kotaku.com/xbox-one-does-require-internet-connection-cant-play-o-509164109

Do you like renting games, lending them to a friend, or even borrowing them from a friend? No longer possible. Every Xbox One game you get must be registered to your Xbox live account to be played. After that point it will only work for you. No one else can use it unless they pay a fee. Essentially it works like this. You pick up a used Xbox One game from somewhere or someone, pop it into your console. The system verifies it’s been registered to your account. Uh-oh, it isn’t! In order to play it, you have to pay Microsoft a fee, which is currently slated to be full retail price. Doesn’t matter how scratched up it is or how cheap you got it at gamestop or from a friend. You aren’t just buying the physical copies anymore. You’re paying Microsoft for a LICENSE to be allowed to play that game.

It is worth mentioning Microsoft is exploring ways for you to trade in and resell your used games. This is rumored to mean that you can sell your digital license to play the game (registration) back to microsoft, likely for microsoft points. You can then trade in the game at gamespot for some cash if you like. Either way, as it currently stands, the new owner would still have to pay a fee on top of the price of actually buying the physical copy.

Source: http://www.technobuffalo.com/2013/05/21/xbox-one-fee-for-buying-used-games-full-retail-price/

Is it worth mentioning that Microsoft if shafting Indie Developers as well? Where as on Playstation Network or (whatever the Wii has) Indie Developers can self publish their content easily. Playstation even encourages this. Microsoft however forces these Indie Devs to enter publishing deals with them to be allowed to market their content. You don’t go through them, you don’t get to sell what you developed.

Source: http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/05/22/indie-devs-cant-self-publish-on-xbox-one

I’m not quite done yet! Now, I’m sure you heard a lot about “TV TV TV TV SPORTS TV TV SPORTS SPORTS TV.” Yes, the Xbox is slated to be able to stream live tv, live sports, etc. So let me ask you this. You obviously already have something like cable or DirecTV. Do you really want to shell out hundreds of dollars more and pay a monthly subscription fee to have another television provider? Yes, I said hundreds of dollars, and I don’t mean the cost of the console. To view live TV from the Xbox you are required to purchase ANOTHER separate device for it to work. Why would you even consider shelling out more money for something you already have anyway? Even if you didn’t, DirecTV is cheaper. Or you could even subscribe you Hulu.com and watch live tv on your computer. FOR MUCH CHEAPER. You essentially have to buy another cable box if you don’t have one. And if you do… what do you need the Xbox One for?

Source: http://www.vg247.com/2013/05/21/xbox-one-live-tv-available-in-us-only-at-launch-requires-separate-device/

So far we’ve discovered that the Xbox One is not really a gaming console, at least… not a consumer friendly gaming console. It’s being marketed as an all-in-one home entertainment system. Something to replace all of the other devices in your house. But there are drawbacks even to that. Put on your tin foil hats for this part folks. Take from it what you will, all I’ll say is… possibilities…

The Xbox One’s features will not function unless the Kinect is plugged in and active. This is not an optional piece anymore.

Source: http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/05/21/xbox-one-will-not-function-without-kinect-attached

So imagine your Kinect piece breaks? Tough luck, no more Xbox for you. But you know what’s worse?

Pay attention, because this is important. The Kinect is always watching. Always listening. Even when the system is off.

Yes. One of the ways to turn the system on is to audibly say: “Xbox On” while the system is off. The Kinect, which is always on, hears you and turns it on. Now this might seem like a cool feature, but did you know Microsoft patented a feature that would allow the Kinect’s camera (It’s no longer just a sensor, but a camera) to spy on you for the MPAA (Motion Picture Association of America?) While they may not actually do this, it is actually possible for them to do this now. It has a camera, and a microphone. The Kinect is always on. It is ALWAYS listening, ALWAYS watching.

An idea has been tossed around that by using this feature, it will allows game developers and movie produces to set a limited amount of how many people can be allowed to view the entertainment. So as a hypothetical example, you and three friends are watching a movie, which is the maximum allowed. A fourth friend enters the room and the Kinect’s sensor registers the fourth individual. The movie stops and you a prompted to pay a fee so that the extra individual may also view the film. Again, that is NOT currently the case, but these are the ideas currently being tossed around with the system’s current capabilities.

Source for listening: http://www.theverge.com/2013/5/21/4352596/the-xbox-one-is-always-listening

Source of spying: http://www.extremetech.com/gaming/139706-microsofts-new-kinect-patent-goes-big-brother-will-spy-on-you-for-the-mpaa

Now, just two more things and I’ll be done here!

This isn’t really a good or bad thing, but it’s annoying. It also explains how they can prevent you from playing a used game if you didn’t pay their fee. Xbox one no longer plays games off the discs, you HAVE to install them to the hard-drive in order to play them. I believe PS3 also has you do this (on a number of games but not always it seems), except that PS3 isn’t trying to Nickle and Dime you at every corner. It also seems according to this article there is something related to the Online portion at the beginning of this post. The option is there for Developers to require the Xbox to always be online to play their particular game. Well, it seems PC gamers and console gamers have one thing in common now… DRM.

(At least pirates on PC can bypass DRM easily. Not an option for Consoles.)

Source: http://www.theverge.com/2013/5/21/4352314/xbox-one-hard-drive-game-installs

And last but not least, another annoyance… Xbox One will not be compatible with any and all current headsets. Nope, companies will either have to make new headsets altogether specifically for the Xbox One, and they have to adhere to what Microsoft wants. Look forward to price gouging.

Source: http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/05/22/xbox-one-incompatible-with-current-gaming-headsets

Oh, one more thing… If you have an Xbox 360, don’t get rid of it. Why? Well if you want to keep playing your old 360 games you’ll need it. The Xbox One isn’t backwards compatible. At all. Not only that, but President of Microsoft’s Xbox Division Don Mattrick insults the very notion of backwards compatibility! He calls it: “Backwards thinking.”

Source: http://www.theverge.com/2013/5/21/4350662/new-xbox-has-no-backwards-compatibilty

Source of insult: http://www.polygon.com/2013/5/22/4355984/xbox-one-backward-compatibility-backwards-thinking-don-mattrick


That is all I have to say currently folks, and I hope you took the time to read this far. I’ll conclude with the following… please… PLEASE do not buy this console. Paying for this supports greedy and anti-consumer business practices. Speak with your wallet, and pass up the Xbox One. No matter what games it might have that you want, even if they are exclusive. Do the right thing and make a statement. Refuse to be nickle and dimed like this. Refuse to be seen as a mindless consumer who will buy anything tossed to them.

We won’t know much else until after E3, but as it stands now, the PS4 or a decent gaming PC is the best way to go.

If you are willing to do so, please spread this post around. Liking is not even remotely necessary, but do please share it if you agree with and acknowledge what you’ve read here. The more people know, the fewer of them waste their money.

Thank you, kindly.

~Dylan Jordan

 

(Originally posted on Facebook by one of my friends. He brings up many valid points. Mind you, I haven’t been a fan of Xbox in a long time and I will most likely get a PS4. But this confirms further for me that I won’t be getting an Xbox one any time in the foreseeable future.) 

Did you feel accomplished writing all this or

(via kyle-minerva)

kyle-minerva:

savingkritzforleetlebabyman:

braeburned:

First auction slot picture done! For Psyc and Beardie

Had a ton of fun with all the details in this one.

You could probably do some pretty incredible stuff with magic 

(full, no magic, no cum versions!)

you know what

fuck it
im reblogging this

Sorry to the people that follow me

Are they jacking each other off with magic what is this I didn’t know that was a thing