TheMightyEthan

Because a normal person would say "my" and then the pun wouldn't work.

lol, yeah. Though I do agree with the theory behind judicial review: judiciary has to decide how the law applies to the facts, which necessarily means first determining what the law is, higher laws overriding lower laws, the constitution being the highest law of all. It's kind of implied in the whole concept of a judiciary. So just like how if a state law says a city can't do X, and a city does X anyway, and a judge can't enforce the city ordinance because they didn't have the power to make it, a judge also can't enforce a law that the constitution forbade them from making.

But if your primary opposition to most government programs is "it's illegal" then something that's unambiguously legal wouldn't bother you. Re: the healthcare law, I think it's probably way outside the bounds of what the Commerce Clause was ever intended to mean, but that it's within the Commerce Clause as it's been interpreted by the courts over the centuries. If I were the USSC deciding the issue with a completely blank legal history, then I would say no fucking way is that legal, but if I were the USSC deciding the issue with legal precedent as it exists now (or as I'm aware of it existing, I haven't exactly done huge amounts of research into this issue) then I'd say it's legal. So then from a legal standpoint the question comes down not so much to political alignment as to your theory of constitutional interpretation (though often that lines up with politics fairly well). If you're primarily concerned with the intent of the framers then you're probably going to say that this law is illegal, if you're primarily concerned with established precedent then you could go either way (I'd say it's legal, but it does involve some inferential leaps that not everyone might be willing to make), and then if you look on the constitution as a fully living document then you could also go either way depending on lots of things.

How had I not heard of this game before?! Apparently it's a Steam punk/Dickensian stealth action game... looks really cool. Some new screens just went up today: http://www.joystiq.com/2012/03/20/latest-dishonored-screens-depict-steam-punk-x-dickens-crossover/

I'm guessing battra was coming at it from the perspective that the constitution was designed to limit the power of the federal government, but if it explicitly gives the federal government a power then it's fine for the them to execute that power.

What's red and smells like blue paint? I actually find that one hilarious though...

360 version of Mass Effect 3 is on sale for $39.99 on the Microsoft Store. It says $59.99 on the game's page but if you add it to your cart then it will show the discounted price.

I consider DLC to be any non-standalone downloadable add-on (there's some overlap with "expansion pack"). It does bug the crap out of me though when people refer to standalone DD titles as DLC. Without any other context though DLC does imply to me something smaller scale than a real "expansion." Like a new side quest chain rather than a more major world expansion.

It took me a while to get the wooden head ones. The voice in my head doesn't have a British accent.

It's cool that they're actually simulating stuff at such a micro level. Weird that water is represented by agents though, since water doesn't really travel through pipes in discreet packets (I mean, I guess there are water molecules...) *Edit* - Before I wasn't too interested, but that video really kicked it up into "DO WANT" territory.

Yeah, "DLC" is just used as a generic word for any add-on that doesn't really qualify as an "expansion pack".

I think the Pragia mission is in Alliance space, but I could be wrong. You're right that most of the game is in the Terminus Systems though, and the Mass Effect Wiki doesn't say whether Pragia is in Alliance space or not.

You didn't nuke the whole damn planet, just the base.

Assuming the demo's intro is the same as the full game's intro (everything else about it is) then if you didn't do Arrival they just talk in generalities ("the shit you've done") whereas if you did Arrival they specifically say for blowing up the Batarian system.

Because you went off to work with a terrorist organization? *Edit* - What garden world did you nuke if you weren't the one responsible for blowing up the relay?

Sorry, I meant "block break".

That's Balak, and he kind of blames all humans for all actions of the Alliance, and for the general fall from glory of the Batarian Hegemony. I didn't see the dialog, but are you sure he was blaming you specifically, and not just because you're a high-profile human?

DOA5 is supposed to release this September. Haven't said how many characters AFAIK.

Oh it does? From what Dean said before I thought it acted like he'd done it.

Yeah, the game taught me the block and I never ever look at manuals.

Well I like Adventure 2: Battle, which everyone seems to agree was absolutely terrible, so maybe I'll love this one...

Right, and like I said, it's part of the story. But I don't really see much of a difference between that and the tie-in comics. I do get that it's "your" Shepard and if you didn't play the DLC then it gives default actions for it and so people talk about you doing things that you didn't do, and for that reason I think they should have just had it treat those events as not having happened when you import (which works with all the DLC except Arrival, dunno how they could have gotten around that, maybe include Arrival code with ME3 copies?)

I think in a well-established genre like this it's easy to come up with a fairly "objective" measure of the game's value: compare it to the content of other games. How many characters does a game typically have vs how many this one has? Ask, "if this locked content didn't exist at all, and all that there was was the unlocked content, would it be worth it to me?"

Trolololol. I can't speak for anyone else, but what I've said in the past about DLC is that it doesn't matter as long as what you get for the price is a complete game, not necessarily the complete game. That's an important distinction. Like how a movie in a trilogy can be a complete story without being the complete story. Or a better example would be a movie with a tie-in comic: the comic is part of the story even though it's not in the movie, and even if you don't go read it.