Feckless lawyer sniffs around for a pay-day.
They are “looking into” whether there are grounds for a suit, which in my mind comes to mean “We would like to make money. MS has $-Texas Money. We will see if we have any chance in hell at making MS give us some of their money.”
I fail to see how this can even make it past the initial filing. The ToS for Xbox Live says you agree to not modify your console. If it is modified, and you get banned, your box will still work. It will still play games, you just can’t access the Live service. Your account can be transferred to an un-modified box, and still access Live. The ToS also says that there are no refunds.
How can even a 1st year law student not see that this is doomed to failure?
Edit: Title modified because Xrlq is right. Darn it.
Granted, I’d not seen the girl since she was 14 (gods, had it really been 4 years?), but she looked… I dunno, older.
Far more mature. More confident.
Bootcamp was good to her, I think.
I’ll have pics later, but for now, I just want everyone to know how very, very proud I am of one of the Navy’s newest members.
Seaman Recruit Amber Williams.
God Damn I’m proud of that girl.
Yes, I’m 12. Shush.
If you are as tired of the vampire meme as I am, you’ll enjoy this video remix, where Buffy meets Edward …
I’m going to be in the Waukegan/Chicago area for a friend’ss graduation from Great Mistakes, and would love to meet up with some of the Chicago folks.
I’m staying out at the Candletree in Waukegan, and will be getting into town some time around 1pm (in theory) on Amtrak, and I leave Saturday late afternoon. Friday is spoken for, but I should be mostly free besides that.
Let me know if you’re up for food, folks.
Oh, and a ride to and from my hotel would be utterly awesome. I’m just sayin’.
What is terrorism? How do we define terrorism?
The most obvious definition to me seems to be something along the lines of “any act designed to instill terror.” But are there better/more inclusive/more exlusive definitions that we need to consider? Does violence of a religious nature count as terrorism (in light of the Fort Hood shootings)? Glenn Greenwald’s hyper-punctuated hyper-sensitivity aside, does shouting “Allahu Akbar” during a shooting classify that shooting as a terrorist shooting? If so, why? If the Fort Hood shootings count as terrorism, what about the Columbine shootings, or the shootings in Orlando the day after the Fort Hood shootings? What differentiates them?
I’m not necessarily saying that the Fort Hood shooting wasn’t terrorism – I’m just asking why it might be classified as terrorism, and why it’s so important that we classify it as terrorism. Is it really any more or less abhorrent (and it absolutely is abhorrent) as “terrorism” than as “another Muslim shooting rampage”?
I’m sure further questions will arise over the course of the thread (depending on the length of the thing), but that seems like enough to start. Again, I have no horse in this race; I just want to know what we ought and ought not refer to as terrorism.
Just got home with my copy.
I likely won’t finish it for several days, but I will do my best to give a first impression sometime later in the day Tuesday.
Update: Holy Mother of God.
Leviticus, you are absolutely missing out on one hell of a story. Seriously, the ending is absolutely freaking amazing…
I’ll do a write-up on this game in the morning, but suffice it to say, this is one HELL of an amazing sequel to the first Modern Warfare.
I’m still cheering the ending, and I beat the game 10 minutes ago – it’s that good.
You, sitting over there with your xbox, playing… I dunno what the hell game that is, but you need to go get MW2. Now.
“I’m a Christian first and an American second.” If you heard someone say that, would you consider it divided loyalty? What if a soldier said it?
This does come from recent news events, of course, but I’m not trying to trick anyone with this question, and I’m not trying to make a larger point. Just wondering what you think.
The Stupak amendment has passed, and thus I predict the following:
First, the bill will bring enough social-conservative Dems over to pass the Pelosi bill.
Then, after a Senate bill is passed, while they are in conference, the Stupak amendment will be stripped from the bill.
Thus we will have federal funding for abortion, and I will point and laugh at ever moron who bought into the sincerity of Congressional Democrats.
I was pulling weeds in my back yard a few weeks ago – they were getting out of hand, popping up all over the place, and they were starting to hurt some young saplings that the previous tenants had planted.
Pulling weeds isn’t exactly a mentally intensive activity, so I had some time to think, and something occurred to me: anyone who pulls weeds is a socialist.
Think about it: if weeds play the Plant Game better than the competition, then weeds should thrive and the competition – trees, flowers, crops – should die out. It’s the Invisible Hand of Botany. And yet we pull weeds so that our other plants can live. We interfere with the market on a regular basis by the adverse regulation of more efficient plants (i.e. weeds).
Now: I believe in the notion of the Free Market – that is, I believe that supply and demand will find equilibrium if left to their devices, and that government interference will cause losses in efficiency, and all that good stuff. On the other hand, I believe that there are times where government inter(vention/ference) in the free market is a good and noble thing. Accordingly, I pull weeds in my back yard.
I’ve been lectured numerous times by conservatives who say that all government intervention is bad, and that the Free Market will always – always – produce the best outcomes if left to its own devices. So, for those of you out there who believe that: how many of you have pulled weeds recently?
Don’t worry, gang – there’s no shame in being a socialist, so long as your heart is in the right place.
When are we going to give up on the idea that by banning guns from an area (or in general) we will achieve safety? It’s a nice theory, but it just does not hold up in the real world. Every time some nutter decides to shoot up a bunch of people, he heads straight for the nearest gun-free zone. Schools, churches, restaurants, universities, private employers and now, it seems, army bases all fall into this trap. And it doesn’t work.
So, a question: If the lack of guns equals safety, and free-carry is dangerous, how come there are no reports of mass shootings at gun shows?
Ahead of seeing the actual program, it is hard not to see parallels between Obama’s governing style and the “friendly” aliens of ABC’s “V”. I’d be interested in other people’s take on this, particularly after tonight’s premiere of the reimagined “V”.