TheMightyEthan

You guys are just arguing about the definition of "because". FDS is saying that nothing inherent to the jailbreaking process makes the game not run, the only reason it doesn't is because the devs specifically programmed the game to act that way, therefore the not working is morally attributable to the devs, not the jailbreaking. You are saying that given the way the game is programmed the immediate cause of that happening on any given device is that that device is jailbroken. You both understand this. Why are you still arguing?

?

Not really from the web, but I saw this walking in to work after lunch:

For clarification sake, does this mean that there are photos and text messages on the phone that would aid the defense? Isn't this alone supposed to be grounds for mistrial? Could be, but since he was acquitted he's probably not going to be appealing it.

Maybe, maybe not. The prosecution, upon request of the defense, has to turn over 1) all evidence that might aid the defense, and 2) all evidence the prosecution might use at trial. Put those together and it's essentially "all evidence the prosecution has", so if the defense made a request and it wasn't turned over that is a major no-no, but it doesn't necessarily mean it would have helped the defense.

I was disappointed

Because there's overtones of race discrimination (specifically in that state prosecutor's office), and one of the federal government's jobs is to make sure the states are doing their job by giving everyone equal protection of the law.

Only if Florida did it. The states and the federal government are all separate separate sovereign governments, and the prohibition on double jeopardy only applies to individual sovereigns. There can sometimes be cases where multiple states and the federal government all have jurisdiction to charge a crime (though it's rare that they actually do it, usually one is enough). Basically Zimmerman was tried and acquitted under Florida law, but that doesn't bar the federal government for trying him for alleged violations of federal laws.

Yeah, the Earth part was the definite low point.

The federal government is considering charges against Zimmerman now, so we'll see what happens with that.

Yeah, I actually said it slightly wrong in my first post: she was convicted of aggravated assault, which is basically "assault with a deadly weapon" because she had a gun. She was also convicted of discharging a firearm in the commission of a felony. You could commit aggravated assault simply by pointing a gun at somebody (or any number of other ways, but this is the relevant one) and not actually firing it, so the fact that she fired it increases the sentence. *Edit* - But the point of the original image is that the guy in his case was allowed to use the "stand your ground" law in his defense (even though he followed the victim and initiated the confrontation) because he had reasonable fear for his life, but she wasn't allowed to use the same law (even thought the "victim" approached her and initiated the confrontation in violation of the restraining order) because... something...

Yeah, stuff like threatening to hurt someone with the present ability to do so, acting like you might be about to hurt them without explicitly saying it, trying to hurt them but missing, etc can all be assault.

You're thinking of battery. Battery = illegal physical contact. Assault = making someone think that you're about to make illegal physical contact. Those are the (simplified) US definitions anyway, and I'm fairly sure they're the same as the English common law definitions. Most people, even here, get them confused though.

From what my wife told me (from reading about it) she was convicted aggravated assault, which is a felony, and then she was also convicted of using a firearm in the commission of a felony, which severely increases the sentence.

Am I understanding you right that you've seen 125 new movies this year?

Oh yeah, sorry, at that part I was more arguing with the author of that article than with you. What do you mean? I guess part of the problem with this discussion is we don't have the problem that we're discussing very well defined. Cause the impression I got from the article was just that he finds the entire idea of people wanting to discuss things he hasn't been able to buy yet to be unfair to him (the whole part about missing out on the discussion if he waits too long to get the game). I agree people shouldn't be dicks, just as a general proposition. And here I show that I don't always practice what I preach. That was a dickish way of me trying to say that I think the issue is inherent to any non-necessities like entertainment, and not having as much money as other people means you're going to miss out on stuff, and that's just the way it is. The price difference is just a matter of degree, and there are people who cannot afford to go out to a movie, or can only do so rarely, the same as there are people who cannot afford to buy games at launch.

EA also published it (I have the Origin version, and the Amazon version registers to Origin, not Steam), but I think 38 did it on Steam. *Edit* - The money is probably going to the state of Rhode Island, if it's not going to EA.

See, I think the world's cool. Can't really comment on the characters, because my views of stuff like that are generally much more forgiving than most people. There's customization to be had in your character build, though most people will probably go straight one class and that doesn't have a whole lot of variation if you do that. Same goes for equipment.

I think we got a cable modem (Roadrunner, actually) in probably 2001.

I don't think that imgur link goes to the picture you wanted...

Yeah, and posting unmarked spoilers like that is a dick move, or at the least thoughtless (if done unthinkingly). Okay, but again, what's the solution? There has to be some point at which it becomes okay to casually mention stuff, or any discussion about media will be completely hampered. How long until it's okay for me to mention that Darth Vader is Luke's father? (That one's been 33 years, am I good yet?) Yes, people should try to be courteous, but if you get spoiled for something that's 2 years old that you hadn't been able to play yet, that sucks, but you can't expect people to be silent forever. That is slightly classist in that not everyone can afford it, but we're talking about an entertainment medium, it's not like you have some inherent human right to play all games unspoiled. They don't have to be that expensive, but it's an entertainment medium, you don't need it. I can't afford to buy every game I want either, but you don't hear me whining about it. Or go to every movie I'd like to see. Waa, movie theaters are elitist. Yeah, it sucks when (seemingly) everyone's talking about something that you haven't been able to afford to experience yet, but what's the solution? That the government nationalize games?

What's it lacking? To me it ticks all the boxes (admittedly for an action-RPG, when my favorite combat is KotOR-style, but still).

I'm 27. Was 14 in 2000 Now that I think about it more I'm fairly sure we did have internet at home when I was 14, but we would have just gotten it. My grandparents had internet for several years before we did.

Goddamn, if I'd had the internet at home when I was 14... just... goddamn.