TheMightyEthan

The only unlocks I really cared about are classes, and after playing it for some ridiculous number of hours and still not unlocking the classes I wanted I said "fuck it" and quit playing.

Their random drop system crushed all my interest in the multiplayer. I never felt like I was getting anywhere.

Boo, where's our singleplayer story DLC? (Not even talking about the 'Epilogue' DLC)

What I'm about to say only applies with a constitution like ours that's written as a legal document. I think everyone can agree the job of the courts is to apply the general law to specific situations. Before they can do that, they have to determine what law applies, and sometimes multiple apparently applicable laws will be in conflict with each other. Example: municipal ordinance saying black people aren't allowed in public parks vs. state law saying municipalities can't discriminate against people based on race. To deal with that you have the principle that higher laws trump lower laws, so you apply the higher law. In my example, if the city tries to prosecute a black person for entering a public park the judge should throw out the case because the city doesn't have the legal authority to do that. The constitution is the founding legal document of this country, from which all legal authority flows. So if a government entity attempts an act forbidden by the constitution it stands to reason that in cases brought before them the courts should apply the higher law, the constitution, and refuse to enforce the forbidden action as being invalid. Just like they would if a city attempted an act forbidden by state law. To take an obviously extreme example, what if congress made a law saying that if someone refused to answer police questions on the basis that the answers would be self-incriminating (Fifth Amendment) they could be charged with obstruction of justice? Should the courts allow those prosecutions to go forward? I think everyone would agree that they should not. It should also be noted that the federal courts at least will not take hypothetical questions. It's not enough to say "this law is unconstitutional", there must be a specific person alleging that their rights specifically have been violated. And more often than not the court will simply say "it's unconstitutional to apply the law in this instance", rather than that the law as a whole is unconstitutional. Without judicial review there's nothing stopping the federal government from just completely seizing all legislative authority over all subjects.

@Battra: It's not "built into the system" though, it's just a Senate procedural rule. They could change it at any time. And arguably it subverts the principle that a majority of the legislature be required to pass laws. I agree that some kind of system is needed to help ensure that bills are well debated before being voted on, but the filibuster as the current rules stand is completely over powered and needs nerfing. *Edit* - It's not an implied power though. The 60-vote thing isn't in the constitution, it's just a self-governing rule made by the Senate (the constitution does give them the power to make rules governing their own procedure). Actually, a simple majority to pass bills isn't in the constitution either (though it is somewhat implied in several areas, especially the part where it says the VP gets to vote if the Senate is tied). I'd be interested to see what would happen if they just straight up made the rule that you need 60 votes to pass anything. Ordinarily I don't like implied powers either, I'm fairly limited in my constitutional interpretation, though I do think the logic behind judicial review is pretty solid.

The US Senate has 100 voting members, 2 from each state. It takes a simple majority (51 votes) to pass legislation. However, before a piece of legislation can be brought for a pass/fail vote there's a period of "debate". The idea is to give them time to discuss the bill, but in practice that may or may not actually happen. In order to end debate a super majority of 3/5 of the Senate (60) must vote to end debate. This means that if the minority has at least 41 seats they can simply refuse to let debate end, even though they couldn't actually defeat the bill in a pass/fail vote. If the debate never ends then the bill is never voted on so it is never passed.

I'm nervous that if I say anything negative EA will track down my account and ban me.

And why I refuse to buy Apple products.

Things Ethan and Yant agree on: filibuster is bad Burnout Paradise is a crime against humanity

Not a convicted war criminal.

No it's not, in order to get anything done you have to have 60 members in the Senate in favor of it. No one's had a filibuster proof majority in the Senate since 1979 (though admittedly the Democrats were really close in 2009-2011). 50 seats in the Senate is not "control" of the Senate. The system in the Senate is just completely broken, making it really easy for the minority to just obstruct the hell out of any bill they want (both sides are guilty of this).

I think the greatest thing about the ACLU is that they'll defend anyone's rights, regardless of how terrible the person is. I don't see what that has to do with Activision using him as a spokesperson for the game, that's just a shitty decision on their part. The ACLU is really a discussion for the US Politics thread though if it's going to go any further than this.

@Yant: But that assumes you had reason to know that the degree wouldn't be able to pay for itself at the time you took out the loans. I started law school before the 2008 collapse, when there was no reason to think jobs would be hard to find, and if it weren't for the fact that my family has a law firm I probably wouldn't have a job right now (based on my efforts to get jobs elsewhere before deciding to work here). Even if I hadn't gone to law school I would have had a tough time getting/keeping a job with my mechanical engineering degree (graduated with that in May 2008) for a couple of years, because all the job openings had requirements of 10 years experience, etc, though I believe that market's getting better now. I do totally agree that not everyone needs to go to college though. That's a cultural problem.

Yeah, I've always thought it was weird that they didn't do it.

Yeah, I do love me some coop.

Yeah, as GOH said on the previous page: a good point is a good point, even if it's a hypocrite making it.

Watching Batman: TAS recently it cracked me up every time anyone addressed Dick Grayson with his name at the end of the sentence. "Thanks, Dick." "That's a good idea, Dick." I have the sense of humor of a 7 year old.

*Edit* - That is interesting. I wonder how much of that is people giving their parents' address though. A lot of the complaints are that they have all this college debt and can't get jobs good enough to cover it, and it would stand to reason that people in that situation would live with their parents far beyond what is considered "typical". And if that's the case just because their parents can afford nice houses doesn't invalidate their grievances. Not saying that's what's actually happening there, just wondering.

I agree that it's the first one that's piqued my interest since MW, due almost entirely to the setting. I hope they don't mess with the moment-to-moment gameplay much though. The thing with me is that I'm weird and not interested in multiplayer, it's only the singleplayer parts of games that I'm interested in. This means that for me setting/story change is a huge factor because otherwise it just feels like the same game over and over again.

I wish Steam had a rental service, cause that looks interesting enough.

Hardly. The government already vastly overspends what it brings in. Collecting taxes is almost just a formality. The so-called Buffet-Rule that is supposed to save the government is nothing more than Huey Long style "Let's take the barbecue away from the fat people" rhetoric. I was actually talking about the state government, since it's a Massachusetts law we were discussing. Is Massachusetts allowed to run a deficit? I know a lot of state constitutions forbid it.

These tech demos are so damn sexy... *Edit* - It's weird what huge spaces the fire was able to cross. Hopefully they'll tweak that.

And that one dean posted about has been shut down. http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2012/05/01/kickstopped-the-strange-case-of-mythic-gods-men/