I will say the chances of some ridiculous situation like that happening are extremely slim. Usually unless people are right across the street witnessing it firsthand they wont try to intervene because they arent sure whats going on. If the person manages to yell for help assuming its loud enough to be heard usually more than one person will come to the call. Its extremely unlikely that one punch would knock someone out cold, and its even more unlikely that the perpetrator would even think about using his fists when he has a knife.
You don't live in a big city do ya? 
This situation actually isn't ridiculous or a slim chance of happening, no matter how much you want to fool yourself into thinking it. I live in a big city. Crime happens. I see it all of the time. Unfortunately, murder is sometimes one of those crimes. Further, my little brother is a cop in our home town who's population is approaching half a million people. He's been a beat cop, a detective, and this past summer promoted to sergeant/division watch commander. He's seen more crime in a year then you or I will see in our life times, and to him, the situation YOU provided (not me, you provided it and I evaluated it) is just another day on the job... I have the advantage of knowing procedure which has been created and refined over the decades to not only preserve the integrity of the crime scene, but also maintain a level of scientific accuracy that can withstand even the type of scrutiny the best of minds can bring down upon it.
Here's the deal, I provided three different scenarios with YOUR example. Two of them you accuse an innocent person and would see them convicted for the crime. To be fair, I included a scenario where you are correct in your assumption, but also pointed out that it's not your testimony that would be used in a conviction, as actual proof is presented by the witness, that which is the security camera footage, is the evidence used for that conviction. I can easily present you with a fourth scenario where everything is exactly the same as the third, only no security camera footage. You go to court and the defense attorney asks you if you witnessed the crime. You say no, but start to say what you saw afterwards. The defense attorney will cut you off and tell you he's done asking questions. The DA or more likely ADA, will stand up and say nothing further. The judge will excuse you and you go about your day. At the end of the day, the person goes free because there isn't enough evidence to prove this is the murderer. No matter how much you want to believe it, the evidence is circumstantial. As my brother will clearly tell you, "It sucks but... No evidence, no crime."
Usually unless people are right across the street witnessing it firsthand they wont try to intervene because they arent sure whats going on.
This is opinion. People decide to involve themselves or not involve themselves for many reasons. Lack of knowing what's going on isn't usually one of those. If I walk out my front door and see a fight, I will get involved and break it up having known absolutely nothing about what started it. All I know is that there are people fighting and I'm going to stop it because it's in front of my place and I don't care to have that shit happening right in front of me. I don't need to know why. I don't care why. I'm just ending it. If it's happening on the other side of the neighborhood, and someone calls me to tell me that it's happening, I'm not driving all the way over there to stop it. I just don't care. Let them work it out or let some other person get in there and break it up.
If the person manages to yell for help assuming its loud enough to be heard usually more than one person will come to the call.
Again opinion. Downtown Los Angeles at 3am. Scream your head off, no one is coming. That is my opinion, but it is at least grounded in the reality of the situation. Like most large cities, the downtown area is a business center. Most businesses close at night. At night, there is no reason to be there unless you're a cleaning crew, and if you are, you're inside the building not wandering the streets.
Let's go with the idea that we're talking about a crowded place though. Some mall, middle of the day. Not only would the murderer never get away with it, but there are going to be hundreds to thousands of witnesses to the murder. Here again, you coming around the corner and seeing someone with a bloody knife standing over a body is going to do nothing to prove anything. It's everyone else who was there that is going to provide the proof. You weren't there, you can only speculate. Actual witness testimony may prove you right, but here again, several people could have rushed in to help and gotten bloody, one person would have ended up with the murderer's knife and is just standing there looking over the body. Are you still going to claim that the knife holder is still the murderer? In your eyes, yes, you make that claim. The person with the bloody knife standing over the body is the murderer.
Its extremely unlikely that one punch would knock someone out cold,
True, but that's not what I said now is it? I said daze them, not knock them out cold. This happens a whole hell of a lot, actually it happens to everybody. The duration is different, but everybody is always stunned by the first punch. If I punched you, being trained as a boxer/kickboxer, I can assure you that unless you've had similar training, you're not going to react immediately following me striking you. I personally have never in all of my years, ever seen an untrained fighter not hesitate after being punched. If you aren't in the habit of being hit, you will hesitate.
and its even more unlikely that the perpetrator would even think about using his fists when he has a knife.
True, but again this is NOT what I said.
Here, I'm going to quote you what I said that you got these last two points from so you can read it again:
the bystander manages to take the knife away and the murderer punches the bystander dazing that person and flees the scene.
The bystander manages to take the knife away... The murderer punches the bystander dazing that person... The murderer flees the scene... Explain to me where in that you've gotten the idea that I said the murderer decided to punch instead of using the knife (that he no longer has at the time of the punch) and that his punch is a one shot cold cock? Your reasoning that you claim is so sound is failing you once again...
That being said, if I were a cop/detective I would always keep an open mind but... lol.
So because you're not a cop, screw proper scientific method and go with your opinion, truth be damned? That says a lot now doesn't it? Perhaps your intent was to say something else? I'm not a detective, but I'm still willing to keep an open mind.
Proper scientific analysis is as follows: if sufficient cant be brought to support a certain theory, the most obvious one will then be chosen.
That's not proper scientific evaluation, bud. If there is a lack of evidence to support a theory, then the theory is rejected as it will not stand up to peer review. Choosing the next best thing as in choosing another theory only means the original hypothesis has been re-evaluated and modified, and now a whole new round of evaluation has begun. Evidence will either prove, disprove, or fail to do either for this new theory. In the case of disproving or fail to do either, the theory will again be rejected as it cannot withstand peer review. Science doesn't just pick the next best thing and go with it accepting it as fact. Science rejects everything until there is fact to support it.
For example, science has a few theories on where man has come from. None have been proven to a point that they can withstand peer review, therefor the search continues to find evidence. It does not mean that since modern man cannot be proven to have come from neanderthals that science just says well, then we must have been created by God and placed here because that's the next best thing... Science just doesn't work that way.
Well, you said your logic is solid again and I've disproved that statement through using your own example, so again I'm going to say, your logic might be sound and solid to you, but it has its flaws.
Noone has been able to bring anything else to the arguments ive clearly won.
And you have not successfully defended your idea that your logic is solid. That is an argument you have clearly lost. Kudos for presenting a conditional statement that doesn't really say anything at all though. I mean, I've never lost an argument I've clearly won either. =Þ
By the way, that argument is what exactly now? According to your original post's title, it's that Impulse and steam are running a scam because impulse is selling games that require steam. Nobody is even trying to disprove that Impulse is selling titles that include steam so that part is a non issue. You claim it is a scam, that is where the issue is. As you've openly admitted, Impulse does indeed note that steamworks is required on those titles, then by rule, it is not a scam as the purchaser is made aware, even if it is made through a tiny link with small print. If you are informed, even in a convoluted fashion, it is not a scam as you are informed. I myself have verified, as others have pointed out that when you go to buy a game, such as the Portal 2 game, you are taken to a page where in not so small letters or hidden in some disclaimer, it clearly says steamworks is required. There is no scam based on this particular argument point. This is one point you've clearly lost.
You claim "This trickery is done, ON PURPOSE by Gamestop no doubt having some sort of agreement with Steam." Yes, no doubt there is an agreement but it's not trickery. The agreement is yeah, sure, you guys can sell these games. Those games just happen to have steamworks DRM built into them. This point cannot be verified so it is tossed out as opinion.
You claim "Steam sees the threat impulse poses." Reality says that Impulse is a small user base compared to that of Steam, and as titles are available on both, and according to users, steam has more features, steam really has no reason to fear Impulse yet. I say yet because for all I know, Gamestop just might not run it into the ground and it could eventually become as popular and feature riddled as Steam. This point cannot be verified so it is tossed out as opinion.
You claim "Impulse, while not very widely known, has a very superior DRM scheme to Steam." The truth is Impulse is a storefront and not a DRM scheme of any kind. You activate your game and you never use it again. This practice is not new. Games have been doing this since before the mid 90's... Only back then they called it registering your game so you can receive updates and support. Your activation through Impulse is just that. Registering your game so you can receive updates and support. Steam, while being DRM, can prevent you from playing. Impulse, while not being DRM, cannot prevent you from playing. This point, while sounding truthful, is not valid as you are not comparing similar services.
You claim "Its very easy to miss that *steam required* fine print when your purchasing an "impulse" game. Even on retail copies, the part on the back of the game where it says the said fine print is designed to be overlooked." Impulse doesn't own any games, it sells them. It has been proven that there is notice in not so small print before you buy the game on the purchase page that steamworks is required. So in that case, this point of yours has been proven and verified to be wrong. However, the continuation of this point is that these things are being made to be difficult to see even on retail boxes. This as anyone reasonable would agree to be a truth. It is a bitch to find sometimes. BUT! Difficulty to find and not being printed at all are two completely different things. The fact that you are using this as a supporting point to prove there is a scam going on forces this point to be used as a claim against what you are arguing since there actually IS notice of what is going on. You yourself verify this. So this point is rendered a moot point based on the fact that you are incorrectly using it and I cannot allow you to use it as it damages your own argument.
You claim "So, why is Steam so bad? If you have an excellent internet connection then you wont have any problems with it," This absolute statement is not true as even with people with good internet connections still have problems with it. This point is wrong.
You claim "but people like me who have the lowest end connections speeds absolutely abhor it" This absolute statement is not true as some people with real crappy internet connections actually like the services provided by steam even though they cannot take advantage of them. This point is wrong.
You claim "and even still people with decent connection speeds find it annoying." This statement is not true as many people with decent connections enjoy using steam. This point is wrong.
You say "Heres the stupidity of Steam:" and I agree! Anyway, moving on...
You claim:
"The DRM is designed to prevent "unparalleled anti-piracy, making it a very popular retailer for software publishers and developers", yet every game on Steam has been pirated or will be pirated in the future. This raises questions as to how necessary Steam's intrusive DRM scheme is."
This point is valid as it has been brought up many times before. Usually within an hour of release, someone has begun to distribute a version that does not require steam.
You claim:
"Mandatory updates: I have no idea why updates are mandatory when you have to be securely connected to Steam in order to play in the first place. Whoever in the company decided that this requirement was a good idea to implement was high or something, because anyone with half a brain can clearly see its not going to prevent pirating."
This point is a moot point based on the fact the updates to the game and the piracy of the game aren't related in most cases. As we know, in order to play together online, certain file sets must be the same across all users participating. This is not a new concept. Steam, requiring you to always being online, as well as being a online play matchmaking/host service makes updates across the board mandatory so they don't have 50 million different versions of games out there all trying to connect and play against other people and having to wait for updates and people bitching that it should just do it automatically. This is not an anti piracy issue, it's a online play issue that is easily resolved by making everyone be on the current version at all times.
You claim:
"Games install more than once: I dont get this either. You buy a retail copy of the game, "install it from the disk" and then you are required to "update" when in reality you are just downloading and installing the whole fucking thing over again. Utter. Fucking. Stupidity."
I don't buy anything with steam so outside of saying I cannot comment on this due to lack of information, I'm not commenting on this, not because I'm afraid to, or because you have a valid point, which I will give to you anyway since I have no experience with it.
You claim:
"Games download from overly secure connections: Even the worst internet connection in the world doesnt take 2 whole days to download 2-4 gigs of data. Thats how long it took me to install my game."
This is not true. There are still dial up connections and in certain cases, such as Verizon's low end DSL service as I have much experience with this, you're limited to 5mb's of data per transfer, even though their representatives will tell you differently. If your download is larger and does not allow for resuming, then you will never get more then 5mb of the game, ever. Plus in the case of net traffic, there is more to consider then just your personal connection. You must also consider demand from their servers, as well as any potential throttling that may be occurring due to your slow connection, and even the potential that it is really just your service that is throttling you back because of the size of the download. This point is opinion based on the fact that you have no proof to support the claim that it's connection security holding you back, and not your own 'crappy' connection speeds or third party throttling.
(You really have two choices on how to fix this issue. The first is to get a better connection. The second is to not buy games that require Steam. In the first case, I realize this isn't always an option having once been in this position myself, but this won't always be the position you're in either. At some point, you should become a decent enough worker that your wages will allow for better and you can upgrade, or you might move to a new place where more connection options are available. In the second case, the only thing you have to do is read. I do the second method myself. I read the requirements of a game before I buy it, not as an exception, but as a general rule. Get into the habit of reading first before you buy and you won't have to deal with this BS like I don't have to. I don't put myself into that position, so I don't ever have to get angry about it.)
You claim:
"This is why PC gaming is dying, or at the very least vastly reduced."
This is unverifiable. It probably has something to do with it, but any perceived death can be much more easily attributed to two simple facts. Console games are easier to make as everyone involved has the exact same system hardware and a game can be designed to take advantage of that hardware without alienating any potential consumers. It is much more difficult to pirate a console game then it is to pirate a PC game. Any company wishing to maximize their profits will make their games for consoles only thus saving on production time, tech support after release, and lack of rampant piracy. This statement must be considered opinion based on the inability to verify, the abundance of much more likely culprits, and information from someone on the production side, rather then the consumer side of the market that states the opposite view of the general health of the PC market.
So let's tally up these points on your original post.
Valid/Truthful points: 2
False points: 4
Points that are Opinion: 4
Points that are moot: 2
Points that are invalid: 1
Stardock Forums
GalCiv2 Forums
Sins Forums
WinCustomize Forums
This situation actually isn't ridiculous or a slim chance of happening, no matter how much you want to fool yourself into thinking it. I live in a big city. Crime happens. I see it all of the time. Unfortunately, murder is sometimes one of those crimes. Further, my little brother is a cop in our home town who's population is approaching half a million people. He's been a beat cop, a detective, and this past summer promoted to sergeant/division watch commander. He's seen more crime in a year then you or I will see in our life times, and to him, the situation YOU provided (not me, you provided it and I evaluated it) is just another day on the job... I have the advantage of knowing procedure which has been created and refined over the decades to not only preserve the integrity of the crime scene, but also maintain a level of scientific accuracy that can withstand even the type of scrutiny the best of minds can bring down upon it.
Elemental Forums
I just feel sorry for the people who design and build these games. I often wonder how they must feel to see their work crippled by "anti-piracy" software (all three mentioned games have been cracked within days/weeks of their release date).
Demigod Forums