avianflu wrote on Mar 20, 2013, 10:14:
I liked the qte's in the first god of war (you felt like you were making something happen because you saw it gradually happen/change on the screen).

But I havent like a single use of QTE since.

RollinThundr wrote on Mar 19, 2013, 22:23:

Beamer wrote on Mar 19, 2013, 21:35:
I'm fairly certain RollinThundr has blamed Islam for terrorism.

So, the gun isn't to blame, the person is. But the religion IS to blame over the person?

Extremist aren't the same thing. I never equated the two. Enjoy your strawman though. Personally I think the world would be better off without religion but people have the right to believe in what they want as long as it doesn't interfere with someone elses beliefs imo anyway.

InBlack wrote on Mar 20, 2013, 04:50:
Beamer, you have gone on a tangent. The real question is why you or I as a consumer arent allowed to unlock our celphones/cars/farm equipment/tablets/etc?

I mean since we signed on for a plan, we arent violating the plan are we? We still have to pay our rates so its not like we are defaulting or refusing to pay the contract price.

TurdFergasun wrote on Mar 19, 2013, 20:19:

Beamer wrote on Mar 19, 2013, 15:19:

InBlack wrote on Mar 19, 2013, 10:29:
Thats got nothing to do with production costs though, we are talking about costs right?

From what youve said you are talking about plans which are offered to large carriers because of the large number of phones that they order for their plans. Its a simple bulk discount for large carriers who lower the inital costs of the phone for their end user, but the user ends up paying all of it (depending on the model, sometimes even over the cost of the phone) anyway over the course of the 2-year (or whatever) plan.

Its a ploy, the consumer ends up paying full price for the phone anyway alebeit at a rate like you said.

The phones cost the same to manunfacture, regardless of what the consumer ends up paying.

So why wouldnt consumers be allowed to unlock their phones if they wish to do so??

What the hell does cost to a manufacturer matter? We're talking price to consumer.

Regardless, do you know how much Samsung makes for that Galaxy S3 someone just got on AT&T for $199? Helpful hint: more than $199. They get a chunk of that $100 a month service plan.

And for fuck's sake, I'm not saying that this is the only way to do things or the right way, I'm saying that it's the way we do it for reasons that benefit more than just the person selling the product. Consumers derive benefit, too. Whether that benefit is greater than the benefit they get without it is up for debate.

so why are nexus phones the same price? boom crappy 5 post argument debunked in 1 crappy sentance. back to being a glad handing yes man for you.

RollinThundr wrote on Mar 19, 2013, 16:20:

Beamer wrote on Mar 19, 2013, 16:11:
RollinThundr, you're the first to get angry when people talk negatively about Republican Culture, but you defend someone talking negatively about Black Culture.
Inevitably you usually come back to "tolerate my intolerance you stupid libs!" or "freedom of speech you tards!"

But whenever anyone says something critical about something you like you pretty well explode. Usually with accusations of someone being a lib, a tard, or a libtard. Because in your world people either agree with you or are a mentally handicapped liberal.

It's fascinating. Please donate your brain to science (tomorrow, if possible.)

Oh now It's republican culture? Wow there's a lot of new cultures apparently. No what I get mad at has nothing to do with skin color, it has to do with logic and liberals general lack there of. What makes me angry is a president that swore to uphold the constitution, hates the damn thing. What makes me angry is liberals preaching tolerance and acceptance ad nauseam when they're the most intolerant, snarky, hateful group there is.

Lets take all the guns away from law abiding citizens! We'll be so much SAFER! Guns KILL! It's the inanimate object "enabling" people to kill! Meanwhile only the criminals are left with guns because they, being criminals don't follow the law to begin with.

Meanwhile ignoring that every time through out history that a government disarms the public usually leads to some serious bad shit.

Look at you in this thread, multiple cries of racist and essentially implying someone you disagree with politically to go kill themselves. You sure seem tolerant to me, yes siree!

Fibrocyte wrote on Mar 19, 2013, 16:20:

Beamer wrote on Mar 19, 2013, 10:18:

InBlack wrote on Mar 19, 2013, 10:08:
Huh? I agree with the article and Im trying to make sense of what Beamer said, locked crap makes devices cheaper?

So a cellphone that is locked to a single carrier (or account, person) is somehow magically cheaper than one thats unlocked (something that in most cases can be done with a software hack alone)....

Yes. Yes it does.

I don't get why it's a hard argument for you to comprehend, but then I remember all the stuff you couldn't comprehend in the atheism discussion and wonder why I didn't block you during that massive bout of failure-to-read.

Really struggling with you here. Look at how much it costs to buy a smartphone in Europe. Look how much it costs to buy one here. Do you see a huge difference? Yes, yes you do. The phone is cheaper. The plans cost more. You're saving on one very large upfront fee and instead getting it broken down over time. The phone is cheaper. The plan is not. Like with printers: the printer is cheaper, the ink is not.

Some people benefit from this. Some people do not. It depends on the buyer you are.

Can you link me the atheism thread? That sounds fun!

Quboid wrote on Mar 19, 2013, 15:53:

RollinThundr wrote on Mar 19, 2013, 15:42:

Quboid wrote on Mar 19, 2013, 15:33:
But the original statement from David Starkey said black, not rap culture. Do you even know what you're arguing anymore?

I think both you and I know what he was referring to. But that's ok, write off anything the man has to say because you think he's racist.

I'm not particularly interested in what a bigot has to say but I haven't written anything of his off in this thread.

As for what he was referring to ... that's the point! He referred to all these negative things by stating a race as if these are intrinsic to said race. Can you really not see what's wrong with that?

Verno wrote on Mar 19, 2013, 15:58:

netnerd85 wrote on Mar 19, 2013, 09:36:
Are you kidding? Have you seen gamers comments and game reviews? If you don't up the ante, you get no sales and a very bad review.

I would ask you the same question. The companies largely ignore user comments and buy up a good portion of their reviews with advertising dollars anyway. Have you seen what development costs have become? It's not sustainable at its current rate of growth, there is no math to support it other than titles moving unrealistic numbers on each platform. That's why the industry is trying to wring every last penny out of DLC and etc.

Creston wrote on Mar 19, 2013, 11:55:

Beamer wrote on Mar 19, 2013, 11:30:

Creston wrote on Mar 19, 2013, 11:01:
Okay, wait... So the Supreme Court ruled on something, and now the Feds are taking it to an appeals court?? What? Since when can you take a SCOTUS ruling to an appeals court?

Creston

The SC case was a bit open-ended. They said that the government might need a warrant. They did not say the government always needed a warrant.

The government is now testing when "might" comes into play.

It wasn't a very clear or, uh, decisive decision. They didn't say "you can't do this," they said "you can't do this in this case, and you might not be able to do it in other cases."

So now we have lower courts clarifying what the SCOTUS actually meant? Great.

Quboid wrote on Mar 19, 2013, 15:25:

Beamer wrote on Mar 19, 2013, 15:02:
Man, he goes into it RIGHT in this same thread. Annoyed to be called racist, then says something racist.

What are you referring to, anything in particular? I thought that "when he's just calling it pretty much as it is without further intent implied" was pretty racist considering the statement (without any further intent required) was racist.

However, that's just us "playing the race card", apparently. That's not really what that phrase means but I didn't want to confuse him, I know what he meant.

We're just typical lefties, accusing people of racist just because they are.