User comment history
< Newer [ 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 ] Older >
| News Comments > Morning Legal Briefs |
 |
| 54. |
Re: Morning Legal Briefs |
Mar 28, 2013, 07:38 |
Beamer |
|
|
PHJF wrote on Mar 27, 2013, 19:16:
Untrue. The ludicrous circumstances I provided have come close to happening. There have been cases where someone had sex with an underage girl found in a 21+ bar where the guy who had sex with her saw her ID.
Some states have provisions to protect statutory rapists who were defrauded by fake ID. It's going to fall on the jury to determine whether the defendant had reasonable proof to believe the partner was of age. It isn't strict liability everywhere. Criminal law always has the question of culpable mental state. You mentioned traffic violations... how can one possibly argue they had no idea they were speeding? There are speed limits statewide for when roads have no posted limits, and equipment (speedometer) failure falls squarely as the driver's responsibility.
And for the record, Ohio's consent is 16. I know people say there are 13-year-olds who look 18, but I've never personally seen that.
Very few states don't have strict liability for statutory rape. Alaska, for one.
It doesn't make sense. The amount of people that actually get caught by strict liability is ridiculously outweighed by the amount of people that would falsely claim it.
But no, again, strict liability eliminates mens rea. Your speeding ticket is a perfect example. Let's say a road is a 50, then pulls into another part of town and it's 35. The sign is down. The car is a rental car he's been in for five minutes and the speedometer is broken. The driver thinks he's doing 25 in a 50. He's doing 60 in a 25. There are no close landmarks to make it clear he's going faster. Everyone else is passing him.
He's a guy with absolutely no culpable mental state. But he's breaking the law. He gets penalized.
It's not Black's, but here's Wikipedia:
In criminal law, strict liability is liability for which mens rea (Latin for "guilty mind") does not have to be proven in relation to one or more elements comprising the actus reus (Latin for "guilty act") although intention, recklessness or knowledge may be required in relation to other elements of the offence. The liability is said to be strict because defendants will be convicted even though they were genuinely ignorant of one or more factors that made their acts or omissions criminal. The defendants may therefore not be culpable in any real way, i.e. there is not even criminal negligence, the least blameworthy level of mens rea.r
...
As a jurisdiction with due process, the United States usually applies strict liability to only the most minor crimes or infractions. One example would be parking violations, where the state only needs to show that the defendant's vehicle was parked inappropriately at a certain curb. But serious crimes like rape and murder require some showing of culpability or mens rea. Otherwise, every accidental death, even during medical treatment in good faith, could become grounds for a murder prosecution and a prison sentence.
A serious offense in which strict liability tends to show up is in drunk driving laws; the punishment tends to be given on a strict liability basis, with no mens rea requirement at all. This was important for the purposes of a U.S. Supreme Court case in 2004, Leocal v. Ashcroft, where a deportation order was overturned because the conviction that led to the deportation order was a strict liability law, while deportation was only allowed upon conviction if the crime was a "crime of violence" (where violence, or the potential for it, was inherent in the crime itself).
In many states, statutory rape is considered a strict liability offense. In these states, 22 as of 2007, it is possible to face felony charges despite not knowing the age of the other person, or even if the minor presented identification showing an age of eighteen or higher. Frequently, this applies to all sex offenses.
Please note: mens rea does not need to be proven. And please remember, you're arguing with me when I said criminal law doesn't necessarily care about intent. Necessarily is a key word there. Just because it's a criminal law doesn't mean it cares about your intent. This is what you're arguing: that criminal law always cares.
Strict liability, by definition, means that a law doesn't care. So all there needs to be is 1 criminal law that does not care and I'm right.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > Morning Previews |
|
| 19. |
Re: Morning Previews |
Mar 28, 2013, 07:31 |
Beamer |
|
|
I enjoyed the missions that were literally on rails more than the attack chopper ones. In SR2 the attack chopper missions were horrendous. In SR3 they were much easier, and I don't think you ever had to start from scratch like you did in SR2, if you accidentally got stuck on power lines. Hell, at least that beat SR1, where sometimes restarting a mission meant having to drive to it again.
The on-rails ones, though. Don't know why, but I enjoyed the missions when someone else drove the car or flew the helicopter and you just shot. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > Evening Q&As |
|
| 7. |
Re: Evening Q&As |
Mar 27, 2013, 22:25 |
Beamer |
|
|
Basically, they sat around and tried to find a way to make DRM that isn't solely DRM.
But, since it was still mostly DRM, and since it didn't work, it died.
I get the idea - DRM alone is a dead end. It needs to be DRM that consumers benefit from. This is the Steam strategy - it's DRM, but it's more than that, and consumers enjoy the "more" enough to deal with the DRM without really any complaint.
This, uh... fell short of that goal. But I don't disagree it's a nice goal. Valve is really the master here. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > XCOM Shooter Getting Rebranded? |
|
| 5. |
Re: XCOM Shooter Getting Rebranded? |
Mar 27, 2013, 22:22 |
Beamer |
|
|
I thought it looked pretty damn good, too. Felt a lot of the negative feedback was on the name, not the product (prior to that linked YouTube video.)
Because, truthfully, this had less to do with XCOM than most reboots have to do with the source material.
With the TBS game doing ok, not sure if it lit the world on fire but doing ok, this makes sense. No need to totally confuse people with two identically named properties with nothing in common other than "aliens." |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > Morning Legal Briefs |
|
| 42. |
Re: Morning Legal Briefs |
Mar 27, 2013, 17:36 |
Beamer |
|
|
It's a first mover issue, too. People love all this unhealthy crap that tastes bad. A big part of that is conditioning. We're conditioned, after years of eating it, to expect a certain amount of fat, a certain amount of salt, etc. And often these tastes from from chemicals, like partially hydrogenated crap.
The first company to make a move away from this will lose, because the masses don't want it. Sure, companies often make attempts to move, but those products don't sell well enough to be a focus.
Like many things, unless the government forces a move the free market will never make the move themselves. We'll continue getting fatter and continue having more difficulty finding decent food in supermarkets because the not decent food is cheaper and sells better.
Because people, en masse, are idiots. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > Morning Legal Briefs |
|
| 39. |
Re: Morning Legal Briefs |
Mar 27, 2013, 17:18 |
Beamer |
|
|
PHJF wrote on Mar 27, 2013, 17:08:
Possession of child porn, for one. Have sex with a 14 year old?
You have to knowingly possess child porn. I can't go hide a picture of a naked kid in your wallet and have you arrested. And having sex with an underage is negligence. If under the (ludicrous) circumstances provided you were being charged, in all likelihood the grand jury would toss it.
Untrue. The ludicrous circumstances I provided have come close to happening. There have been cases where someone had sex with an underage girl found in a 21+ bar where the guy who had sex with her saw her ID.
He went to jail. Alaska, I believe, is the only place where negligence matters. Under strict liability there is no mens rea standard. Again, no mens rea standard means it does not matter if you are negligent or not, it matters if you did it or not.
As for child porn, it hinges on "knowingly," you are correct. But your hypothetical is accurate to a point. Yes, you cannot put the picture in a guy's wallet then have him arrested. However, the second he opens up his wallet and sees it there you can. A famous case involved a guy who had received some photos via email. He did not ask for this email. He did not seek it out. But he knew he had it. In fact, he went into his temporary cache to delete the pictures from his HDD. That act was the proof he knew he had it. BAM! Jail. Of course, they wanted to send him to jail so they went for it, but that's how thin the proof needs to be (in another famous case a farmer was sent repeated catalogs for videos, some of which had children. He never asked for the catalogs and repeatedly asked to be taken off the distribution list. As he had never done anything wrong, he was acquitted. After first being found guilty and having to appeal.) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > Morning Legal Briefs |
|
| 38. |
Re: Morning Legal Briefs |
Mar 27, 2013, 17:10 |
Beamer |
|
|
jdreyer wrote on Mar 27, 2013, 16:54:
RollinThundr wrote on Mar 27, 2013, 16:25:
No? Isn't much different when you're essentially welcoming government to run your life and tell you what you can and can't say/do/eat/drink etc.
Are there egregious examples of this? I mean, where there's no obvious good being done. It's pretty obvious that regulating alcohol and tobacco provide benefit to society. Or do you feel that even this is too much?
He probably thinks the smoking bans are too far.
Bloomberg's soda ban is often brought up. As if, you know, everyone didn't endlessly mock it. Jon Stewart, someone often hailed as a top liberal talking head, endlessly mocked it.
And it does lead to a social good. People are too fat and too likely to get type 2 diabetes. Their insistence upon drinking buckets of liquid sugar and calories is an enormous part of this. So you can see that connection.
It was just the wrong way to make it.
But, of course, some people think that it isn't the government's job to make sure that what companies offer us is good for us. We should judge. If we want to survive solely on Twinkies we should be allowed to eat solely Twinkies, even if it means there will be a strain on society the taxpayer has to bear. Whatever, I see that argument somewhat, the issue comes from when there aren't many alternatives. Most products in the supermarket have excessive amounts of sugar, salt, and chemicals. It would be nice if the government stepped in and regulated that. Clearly the American consumer isn't very good at doing so on an individual level. Banning certain ingredients would be nice. Hell, there are some things banned in the EU as being carcinogenics that the US still allows.
This, though, will somehow be seen as me saying Bloomberg was anything other than a fool. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > Morning Previews |
|
| 17. |
Re: Morning Previews |
Mar 27, 2013, 16:52 |
Beamer |
|
|
The spray shit missions were neither fun nor funny.
But I always felt their driving was much better than the GTA games. With a good car I can thread the needle through traffic pretty easily. And, if I can't, it's still fun to slam into it and push it out of the way. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > New APB Game Kickstarter |
|
| 11. |
Re: New APB Game Kickstarter |
Mar 27, 2013, 16:47 |
Beamer |
|
|
Dev wrote on Mar 27, 2013, 16:42:
Slick wrote on Mar 27, 2013, 14:20:
200m for the original game? got a source on that? i heard that GTA4 clocked in at around 100m, so i'd be hard pressed to believe a 200m figure on APB without something to back it up.
maybe if you included the other MMO they were working on into that budget, and all other operating costs, and all of their failed ventures into ARG type promotions... maybe that pill i'd swallow, but 200m still seems over inflated. can't see how the original game would have cost more than 20m to make... It was confirmed that they did $100m+. Their genius plan was to spend every penny of it and have $0 at launch. And they actually did it too. Guess they never heard of cash flow.
There was a bunch of bluesnews stories on it if you want to go searching.
Or you can start here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/APB:_All_Points_Bulletin
Anyways, I'm not going to KS something like this, not just because of its $100+m history, but because of the kinda game it is. They can just use their profits from their pay 2 win gameplay.
That assumes there was marketing.
Realtime Worlds burned through $105 million. Period. That's all-in, as RTW didn't have access to any cash beyond that. So, if they did marketing, it's included in that $105MM, unless someone else pitched in.
We'll see someone realize their vision at some point. And it'll be a hit. Titan, perhaps, will include much of their ideas (because they're no-brainers for a huge MMO at this point.) But RTW had neither the money nor the experience to get it done. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > Morning Legal Briefs |
|
| 35. |
Re: Morning Legal Briefs |
Mar 27, 2013, 16:32 |
Beamer |
|
|
RollinThundr wrote on Mar 27, 2013, 16:25:
Beamer wrote on Mar 27, 2013, 16:15:
RollinThundr wrote on Mar 27, 2013, 15:57:
Beamer wrote on Mar 27, 2013, 15:56:
And who here says the government should daddy us?
You come up with these absolutely nuts strawmen that exist only on the Bill O'Reilly show.
Should the government do what it can to fight institutionalized sexism and racism?
Yes. Yes it should.
Should it "daddy" us?
What does that even mean?
Are liberals and democrats in general, generally for bigger government or against it?
Bigger government != "daddy."
No? Isn't much different when you're essentially welcoming government to run your life and tell you what you can and can't say/do/eat/drink etc.
This is like a vegetarian telling me that I'm going to die from heart disease because eating a diet of mostly red meat is bad for your heart.
Great, whatever, I eat a steak on occasion. It's called moderation. A little of it can be a good thing.
I'll again point to the New Deal, and US v. Carolene Products. Carolene Products wanted to sell unhealthy fake milk. It was called Filled Milk, but let's call it Malk, because we all love The Simpsons. Carolene Products claimed it was unconstitutional for the Federal government to stop them from doing this. The Federal government said it was perfectly within reason for them to stop a company from selling something so clearly unhealthy.
The Federal government won.
But people like you claimed it was a daddy state thing. Today, people like you are ok with a company not being allowed to sell us poison that's labeled as a healthy drink. Why?
Because people like you love the status quo. Something is bad if it's more than what you're used to, but it's fine if it's exactly what you're used to.
Or, do you prefer China, where used newspaper can be sold as a protein bar, because no one really gives a shit and it's all buyer beware. Did you buy something called milk that was really poison in a bottle? Well, you should have done research. Personal responsibility! You can't expect the Federal government to daddy you and protect you! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > Morning Legal Briefs |
|
| 33. |
Re: Morning Legal Briefs |
Mar 27, 2013, 16:25 |
Beamer |
|
|
PHJF wrote on Mar 27, 2013, 16:17:
Plus, laws don't necessarily care what your intention was
They absolutely do. Criminal laws establish the culpable mental state of the offender as an element of the crime (negligently, recklessly, knowingly, purposefully).
It's kind of hard to recklessly or negligently aim green lasers at an airplane and then a police helicopter. The little shit got exactly what he deserved.
U.S.C. TITLE 18, CHAPTER 2
Sec. 39A. Aiming a laser pointer at an aircraft
(a) OFFENSE -- Whoever knowingly aims the beam of a laser pointer at an aircraft in the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States, or at the flight path of such an aircraft, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.
Bingo bango. Not knowing something is illegal? Not a defense.
Yes, words like reckless imply that a crime can be a crime even if you didn't intend to do harm. This is called mens rea.
But laws don't necessarily have to care.
And some crimes can be a crime regardless of what you meant. Possession of child porn, for one. Have sex with a 14 year old? You're going to jail, even if she looked 60, you checked her birth certificate and social security number, you interviewed her parents, saw a birth announcement from 1953, etc. Most of those laws, as well as things like child pornography laws, or speeding laws, also lack any reference to mens rea.
This is called strict liability. You are liable for doing something regardless of whether you meant to, or whether you were even slightly wrong or negligent for it.
And not knowing something is illegal is never a defense. Well, almost never. If a law is passed and you do something an hour later you may have some kind of defense. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > Morning Legal Briefs |
|
| 31. |
Re: Morning Legal Briefs |
Mar 27, 2013, 16:15 |
Beamer |
|
|
RollinThundr wrote on Mar 27, 2013, 15:57:
Beamer wrote on Mar 27, 2013, 15:56:
And who here says the government should daddy us?
You come up with these absolutely nuts strawmen that exist only on the Bill O'Reilly show.
Should the government do what it can to fight institutionalized sexism and racism?
Yes. Yes it should.
Should it "daddy" us?
What does that even mean?
Are liberals and democrats in general, generally for bigger government or against it?
Bigger government != "daddy." |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > Morning Legal Briefs |
|
| 28. |
Re: Morning Legal Briefs |
Mar 27, 2013, 15:56 |
Beamer |
|
|
And who here says the government should daddy us?
You come up with these absolutely nuts strawmen that exist only on the Bill O'Reilly show.
Should the government do what it can to fight institutionalized sexism and racism?
Yes. Yes it should.
Should it "daddy" us?
What does that even mean? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > Morning Legal Briefs |
|
| 27. |
Re: Morning Legal Briefs |
Mar 27, 2013, 15:54 |
Beamer |
|
|
RollinThundr wrote on Mar 6, 2013, 17:38:
Cutter wrote on Mar 6, 2013, 17:31:
RollinThundr wrote on Mar 6, 2013, 16:01:
Cutter wrote on Mar 6, 2013, 13:13:
Tried the alpha and it sucked. The show looks equally as bad. Both are bound to fail hard.
lol judging a game on an alpha. 
Well, it's pretty obvious, much like yourself. Both failures.
lol keep telling yourself that libtard. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > Morning Legal Briefs |
|
| 25. |
Re: Morning Legal Briefs |
Mar 27, 2013, 15:13 |
Beamer |
|
|
RollinThundr wrote on Mar 27, 2013, 15:00:
Verno wrote on Mar 27, 2013, 14:11:
Hahah who would seriously defend some dipshit getting 30 months for trying to crash aircraft? It's a 19 year old kid, I hardly think he was thinking Oh I'll crash some planes today. Stupid to do? Very much so, throwing the book at a bored and obviously stupid kid to do it twice however seems a tad harsh.
And really it's the other story that should have people far more up in arms. We are becoming a police state and no one seems to give a fuck about it.
This is throwing the book? The maximum is 5 years per offense. 2 offenses. 30 months is significantly less than 120 months.
Plus, with this being fairly common and people not realizing it's illegal or dangerous, an example is being made of him to get the word out. It happens.
Plus, given that this is more than the prosecution recommended, there's another hearing next week, in which the sentence will likely be dropped down to 12-15 months.
Plus, even if he did get the 30 months, as a guy with no priors that did something non-violent he'd likely serve a tiny fraction before being let out.
Plus, just because he wasn't thinking "oh, I'll crash some planes today" doesn't mean he didn't do something that could have led to it. He needs to take personal responsibility for his actions, right?
Plus, laws don't necessarily care what your intention was. Trust me, though, had his intent been to use the laser to crash a few planes he'd be getting much, much, much more than 30 months.
Plus, maybe you'll learn a lesson that confusing your actual point with idiocy like "you libs" and "both these stories" just distracts from any point you mean to make. Had you stopped and said "wow, this one story is pretty frightening, what do you guys think?" you would have had some discussion. But when you say "you stupid libtards didn't respond to these two horrible stories within 20 minutes of Blue posting them so clearly you don't care" then you get people mocking you for the rest of the day.
This is why people think you troll. Your posts are so well structured to avoid any real conversation that you have to be planning them that way. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > Morning Tech Bits |
|
| 4. |
Re: Morning Tech Bits |
Mar 27, 2013, 14:39 |
Beamer |
|
|
Ozmodan wrote on Mar 27, 2013, 14:33:
Where do they find such idiots like Joe Wilson? Tablets are nothing but toys at this point. What you can do on them beyond games, is so limited it is not worth mentioning. So far most of mine have moved down to the young where they play lots of games, even the college kids find little use for them. Like one college kid told me, you can't even keep class notes on them.
Five years ago you couldn't even browse the internet on your phone (well.)
Today it's where significant site traffic comes from.
Trends are things that happen over time. I still don't get why people keep arguing that a desktop is a better form factor. It sucks. Its only advantage is power. Once that advantage is stripped, it becomes a heavy, immobile, useless piece of crap.
Other than the ability to build your own I don't understand why people love them. If someone offered me a tablet that had the same power as a desktop (today? No. But in a decade? Duh), with HDMI out (or whatever is used), and the ability to connect to my mouse and keyboard then hell, why wouldn't I use it? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > Morning Tech Bits |
|
| 2. |
Re: Morning Tech Bits |
Mar 27, 2013, 14:25 |
Beamer |
|
|
jdreyer wrote on Mar 27, 2013, 14:10:
Sad to see desktop PC sales declining. Hopefully the PC gaming niche stays strong. It's going to take me years to clear out my steam queue!
You'll be able to play those on things not permanently tied to the same desk in your home, though. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > Morning Previews |
|
| 13. |
Re: Morning Previews |
Mar 27, 2013, 13:39 |
Beamer |
|
|
Verno wrote on Mar 27, 2013, 13:33:
Creston wrote on Mar 27, 2013, 13:25:
Verno wrote on Mar 27, 2013, 12:22:
a return to the older style of character customization, etc.
The character customization in SR3 was pretty awesome, imo. What was different about it in the older games?
Creston
The older games let you customize way more aspects of your character, you could mix and match items more freely and there was a shit ton of items/outfits to find and buy. There was a fair amount of custom music to buy in-game for the radio too. I'll have to make a video of it later for you, I still have my old SR2 copy laying around.
I still appreciate the Mix Tape function, but am I incorrect in remember that old games let us block certain songs from radio stations?
Each station had maybe 3 songs I liked and 10 I did not. Would have been nice to just cut those 10 rather than make a mix station that started on the same song every time I loaded the game. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > New APB Game Kickstarter |
|
| 6. |
Re: New APB Game Kickstarter |
Mar 27, 2013, 13:25 |
Beamer |
|
|
jacobvandy wrote on Mar 27, 2013, 13:23:
jdreyer wrote on Mar 27, 2013, 13:00:
Given that the original cost $200m to make, I'm not sure how much they'd be able to do with a few hundred K on kickstarter. And given the games rocky history, I have no idea why they think they can make that much.
This Kickstarter isn't being done by those financial geniuses at Realtime Worlds. And even if it was, a sequel to the original really shouldn't cost very much at all.
Realtime Worlds had huge, huge, huge dreams that went beyond gameplay. They put enormous time into the in-and-around game stuff. Their customization was unparalleled at the time, but probably got way too much attention. They'd planned on letting you buy shirts you designed in game, too.
Their plans were too big and too grand, with their attention in the wrong place. I mean, that stuff would have been awesome had the game been awesome, but... they ran out of money before they could make the game awesome and released it too soon.
So yeah, I guess "financial geniuses" is apt. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > Morning Previews |
|
| 10. |
Re: Morning Previews |
Mar 27, 2013, 12:55 |
Beamer |
|
|
Verno wrote on Mar 27, 2013, 12:22:
SR2 did similar over the top humor but tied it into the story structure really well without it being completely absurd. It also had well paced missions with a definition sense of progression as you slowly picked off the other gangs and took over Stillwater. I would have liked to see a return to that style but it seems like they're going in the other direction (Player is the president with superpowers, stomping around in mech suits, aliens, etc) which is a bit disappointing. Also I know Daniel Dae Kim is busy with Hawaii Five O but killing off Johnny Gat offscreen was super lame.
I can live with that though as long as the side activities and Steelport as a whole are more fleshed out this time. More enterable buildings, more hidden stuff, a return to the older style of character customization, etc.
Yeah, I assume it was due to timing/costs, but agree, no need to kill him. They said they did it to really make you hate the Syndicate. For one, I barely was aware what The Syndicate was (I was a ways into the game before I realized the 3 factions were outright unified), and c'mon, it's SR, all I need is a red arrow above a head to shoot it.
I can live with the over the topness powers, but feel it would have absolutely been better as an add-on than full game. The crude humor... it works more than it misses by now. SR1 was just terrible in that regard.
Still, the business names are beyond lame. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
10535 Comments. 527 pages. Viewing page 18.
< Newer [ 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 ] Older > |
|
Twitter 
