TheMightyEthan

There is a distinction though between amending it to say "people can't own guns" and amending it to just take out the 2nd Amendment. The first would actually be taking away the right, whereas the second would just be removing the protection of the right and they would still have to pass laws to actually take it away. As for the second point, I actually kind of disagree (putting aside the fact that I don't really care "what the Founders intended")*. I think the only sensible reading of the second amendment is that individuals have the right to own weapons such as would allow them to form a meaningful combat unit. "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" to me pretty clearly means that people have the right to own weapons, and any other reading requires rather extreme logical gymnastics, and then the justification part, "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" pretty explicitly shows we're talking about military defense. Put those two together and the people must be given the right to possess such weapons as would be useful in military actions, and a formation of dudes with flintlocks would be less than useless in modern combat. *I want to clarify what I said here: I don't care what the founders' specific intentions were, but I do care what they were generally trying to get at. My approach to constitutional interpretation is to try and determine the underlying idea they were trying to get at and apply that to modern situations without worrying about what they might have thought about the specific situation. Another example would be the equal protection clause, which was passed immediately following the civil war and they were obviously thinking about race at the time, but the idea they were putting into it is that everyone should be treated equally under the law, so even though they may not have been thinking about or applied it to women or Jews or LGBT or whatever we should still interpret it so that it does apply in those instances as well.

To help put it in perspective, I know you've said before that it's an Amendment, and so it can obviously be amended, but in the whole history of the US there's only ever been one amendment repealed, and that was the one banning alcohol (coincidentally also the only amendment to take away rights rather than grant them). As far as this incident yeah, it's pretty fucking ridiculous. I definitely think the parents should be charged with some form of neglect.

Yeah, I thought the meal generator was interesting but not terribly useful.

I played it with Splashtop from my desktop to my laptop, but never tried it with Android. Let me know how it works out.

The only effect the cover really has on me is that it makes the whole game look cheaper and so I'm inclined to pay less for it.

John Williams wrote the soundtrack to our childhood.

Damnit, Rockstar, what the hell?

Yeah, through bankruptcy they can be forced to sell off assets. That's a little different than a normal hostile takeover though.

Well, I feel stupid for buying it for $45 like a week ago.

To add to that, hostile takeovers are often portrayed in movies and TV and such as a big company forcing the owner/founder of a company out and taking it over. Like Thursday said though, no one's forcing the shareholders to sell their shares, so as long as that owner/founder owns a controlling share no one can make them sell it (I mean you could through threats and blackmail and stuff, but that actually is illegal). No one, no matter how rich, can do a hostile takeover of Valve because, also like Thursday said, Gabe owns it and he doesn't have to sell it unless he wants to.

Hostile takeovers are part of the system, by design. There are laws regulating the manner in which they can occur, but not to prevent them.

Another really good one, though it ended rather abruptly. Apparently there's another piece of DLC coming out that will finish Daud's story.

What I had read didn't say they were getting rid of it, just that they were toning down how much it actually sounds like GLaDOS. *Edit* - Is it weird that the thing that killed my immersion in that trailer was the giant robot swinging that cargo ship around? I was like "Man, that thing would break in half if you tried to lift it from one end like that."

Acting. It's certainly still a major consideration, but it's not a career-killer.

The only thing I can think of is that you want to keep stockholders happy because they elect the board of directors, who hires/fires executives and directs the company on the broad-scale. But yeah, I've always kind of wondered the same thing.

It will just have a small banner in the corner that says "Every time you play offline God kills a kitten" with a slideshow of adorable but sad-looking kittens.

Plus you can use the 20% off for a grand total of 60% off (it's 20% off the reduced price, not the full price).

Right, but maybe it just has to be connected at startup or something, who knows. I'm not defending it, just giving ideas of what could be less draconian than "constantly connected and if you drop for a millisecond you get kicked out of whatever you're doing."

Remember from that article posted earlier in the thread that said that they were hearing that what has been rumored as "always on" really doesn't mean it requires a constant connection, that it can tolerate dropped connections and such.

My cousin's been trying to get me back into Minecraft. I have so far avoided that trap. After finishing Bioshock Infinite I've just started The Knife of Dunwall.

Bioshock Infintie. It was great, easily the best of the series IMO. Now to go read through all those spoilers in the Bioshock thread, and all those articles I've thought sounded interesting for the last month.

Ah. Lol, that's pretty great.

I don't get it, with the banana thing. Why?

Gravity Rush bitches!