TheMightyEthan

I just noticed that the C-Sec uniforms are identical to the Alliance uniforms. Seems kinda lazy (though I know laziness in this game's production is nothing new).

My understanding is that large Irish immigrant populations in New York City popularized it there, and then it kinda spread throughout the country.

That picture makes me want to play Pokemon. :/

I don't see how it's "greedy" to make more content than a game like this would normally have, and then want to charge extra for that content. The costumes seems a little extreme, I agree, but just don't buy them.

For most artists they get next to no money from you buying the CD either, unless you buy it directly from them (like at a concert).

Don't think so.

Is there a way for me to get P3 or 4 on PS3?

That just sounds like a bug to me.

It doesn't bother me as long as what's on the disc (and unlocked) without any of the DLC is a full game (not the full game, and that's an important distinction). I'm not buying the game either, but that's because I don't like fighting games. ;-)

I was wondering about the prothean artifact earlier today, and I would also like to know the answer.

Why not? As long as you're getting a full game, why does it bother you? If you think they're over charging for the DLC, don't buy it.

It does, but they haven't been raised since the 70's (IIRC, I could be wrong. It's been a long time is the point).

You have to beat the game. *Edit* - Yeah, war assets don't carry over, but weapons and armor and stuff do.

Nothing important changes. It only affects your war assets.

You're misreading those endings. That's not the only ending you can get if you go in with 5000 EMS, that's just the only ending that's different than if you had lower EMS. You can still do the other endings, but they're the same as if you only had 4000 EMS or whatever.

That's a bit of a stereotype. There are plenty of farmers or even farming corporations that do pretty darn good for themselves. Yes, you need government regulation to make sure that there is a chance for people to advance in the world. I think sometimes conservatives forget this. I do however think there is plenty of room for people in america to work hard and get ahead. I studied engineering and make decent money doing it. Would I have bothered to go through all that schooling if I could have made just as much money by working at gamestop? No, I would not. It was the incentive of money that made me go do engineering and it's because so few other people can't or wont bother to be engineers that I make good money for doing it. Would you have bothered to go through all the extra years of law school and the bar exam and all of that if you weren't going to be compensated for all of it? I doubt it. Well I'm not saying we should flatten everyone's income to $40k across the board or anything like that, I'm just saying that we should be providing certain things for those who can't afford it, and that people who make more money are in a better position to give up some of it. I also didn't mean to imply that hard work has nothing to do with your wealth, just that they're not directly proportional. *Edit* - And actually the main reason I went to law school was to try and find something I would enjoy doing. At the time I didn't think I'd make any more money as a lawyer than I would have as an engineer (though then the 2008 crash happened and lots of engineers started getting laid off, but that's just luck, it had nothing to do with me working harder).

I could see utility companies being allowed to deactivate power only for certain things, but I also don't think that's really a bad thing. As it is now they can't turn your power off in the winter because then you would freeze to death, but if there's a way for them to turn power off except for your heater then whatever.

They have to "stabilize" you before they can release you, so depending on your condition it might not be possible to fully stabilize you and they have to keep treating you (like if you require a machine to breathe).

But the thing is hard work doesn't automatically transform into wealth, even when it's something society very much needs. Just look at farmers, work their asses off to produce products without which we would all die, yet they're lucky if at the end of the season they've got enough money to plant again next year.

I don't have the expertise to say whether any given program is good or bad for the economy, and I've seen it argued both ways. However, I will agree with you that even if it's bad for the economy I still think we should do it because it's the right thing to do.

Giving people necessary medical treatment is not "rewarding" them for anything, it's being a decent human being. Anyway, we're just going to have to agree to disagree about this. I'm not going to convince you and you're not going to convince me.

When we have people in this country who can't afford to go to the doctor until they are so sick that they end up in the emergency room, and people losing their houses because of medical bills, we are not providing that minimal standard of living.

I simply don't believe this is true. Look at executives who run a company into the ground, only to jump ship and get hired as executives at another company. I know this is the ideal of capitalism, but I don't think reality bears it out. Actually it's far better to give poor people more money. Poor people spend every single dollar they have come in, rich people don't. It's better for the economy to give a million poor people $1 than it is to give one rich person $1M. Finally, I want to make clear that I am not opposed to the free market, I think overall it's a decent system for allocating resources. However, if you rely solely on the free market you end up with some people getting tons and tons of resources and others getting not enough. I think we as a society have a duty to ensure that everyone in our society has at least a certain minimal standard of living (adequate food, clothing, shelter, health care, education (and I don't mean everyone needs a free ride through college either)). Once we ensure that, everything above and beyond that can absolutely be allocated by the free market. But those who are benefiting most from society have the highest duty to give back to that society.