pendraia posted at 4:50PM Sun, 08 November 2015 - #4237448

[Razor42]> It's been for the most part pure speculation over potential negative future direction (however unlikely), worst case scenario's and viewpoints of generalised DRM as a whole (Not Daz Encryption specific). With very little actual experience driven feedback.

Many, myself included, don't do betas. So the only way we can get answers to our questions is to ask. When the answers aren't clear it fuels speculation..

That's mostly true and I do believe that is what is fuelling a lot of the speculation about in this case.

But it is a fact that we live in a world full of uncertainties. And in a lot of cases it's hard to provide an absolute answer. It really comes down to likelihoods and risk assessment in most case examples. Which most will need to assess on their own.

Ask yourself: Will it rain tomorrow? Will a meteor hit the planet? Will I win the lottery? Will my plane crash? Do I have an undiagnosed heart defect?

All of these have a risk factor or likelihood associated. All of them are potentially possible. We each make millions of decisions each day that have an inherent risk association in even something so simple as crossing a road. If you stood on the side of the road and calculated the amount of risk in doing so it's likely you would never actually cross as so many things could go wrong from a drunk driver running the light, a malfunctioning traffic light or even as simple as a footwear malfunction. Yet most people still cross the road relatively stress free and live to tell the tale.

Some cases, I am seeing are like saying "Can you guarantee that I will always cross the road safely?" and there is only one actual answer possible "No I cannot guarantee you will" most people accept that as a known risk and act to mitigate and move on. Others may see that as an indication that it is in fact unsafe to cross the road and highly likely to lead to misadventure and refuse to do so from that point. Yet if someone said to me "Are you crazy? You could die crossing that road." I would in turn do my own risk assessment and if I found that the risk was low and there was no actual foundation for being afraid to cross that road on that occasion. I would cross the road and probably think that the person was a little irrational. If the next day I seen them wearing a placard and handing out flyers saying crossing the road is the biggest threat to mankind I would definitely think it's time for the white jackets to do a pickup. In the case of crossing the road we all know the hazard that creates the risk and we are taught from an early age the ways of mitigating that risk. Look both ways etc etc. Most in turn see the risk as very low, yet people do die most days doing just that.

And while it may seem like I'm just rambling, which wouldn't be unusual, my point is there are some about that are actually inflating the risk to levels where it comes across as unreasonable speculation bordering on disinformation. Almost to the point it's like saying "Did you know you can get AIDS from using Windows computers? I seen a report the other day about the dangers of computer viruses and a large percentage are known to be infected, so if I was you I wouldn't take any chances with those computers especially with Windows." how do you answer a statement like that?

Questions are always welcome and most here will do their best to provide answers or at least opinions.

And to answer my own questions: Will it rain tomorrow? Maybe. Will a meteor hit the planet? Possibly. Will I win the lottery? Possible but unlikely. Will my plane crash? Also possible but unlikely. Do I have an undiagnosed heart defect? I'll ask my doctor and get his opinion.