Soxbadger

Jake, Yep. I can remember the day I bought my PS3. It was slightly more expensive than Xbox, but PSN was free. So 6 years later I can take the $300 I saved and put it towards a shiny new PS4. Playstation network may suck, I wouldnt know. Outside of a network issue years ago, Ive never had any complaints. Steve, Yeah I got a nice windows 8 machine, but its not like when I use it I go: "Oh Microsoft youve really brought me the future" its more like "Oh Microsoft how did you fall so far."

lol The future. Sony has been/is likely to stay more involved in home media than Microsoft. Microsoft is an Android OS for computers away from being Atari. Whats funny is you say windows 8 and surface like they are good things. When in fact Microsoft is releasing an update to Windows 8 because most people dislike it. Ill get playstation 4, I see no reason to change.

They may. Im just saying that if the game is on at 8pm est, it may be beneficial if at the bottom corner of NBC it said "Check out NBCS for Hockey Finals". And I found the game, I looked it up online. Its not my first sports rodeo, Ive found much more difficult sporting events. I guess I would just maybe consider it somewhat of a problem. I know hockey fans knew etc, but we are talking regular joe sports fans, and I hate to say it, but NBCS isnt a channel I think about. And thats the irony, both the NHL and NBCS would greatly gain from having more exposure.

Oh I have no problem with it being on NBC Sports. I just believe that NBC/NHL could do a better job of telling people that. When the BTN started, the Big10 made sure everyone knew what games there were going to be missing if they didnt have BTN months in advance. That gave those people plenty of time to b****/moan/complain which eventually lead to the BTN getting on a lower tier (larger audience.) I just feel that NHL/NBCS should be advertising more about how you will miss playoff hockey if you dont have NBCS. I cant complain about the NHL not being on ESPN/ABC/CBS/ etc if those companies werent going to offer a good deal. But the NHL should definitely be doing more with the hand they are dealt.

Steve, You seem to be missing the point. The NHL has X fans who are diehard who will find the games, who will watch the games regardless. You then have Y fans, who are not diehards, who may want to watch 1 or 2 games, but arent necessarily going to go searching for the content. It seems ridiculous that the NHL is not trying to at least advise Y fans where they can find NHL playoff games. You know how easy it is for NBC to run a ticker at the bottom or during news to say "If youre looking for the Hawks turn into our sister station NBCS", or do something to let casual fans know "HEY THIS IS WHERE YOU CAN FIND AND MABYE BECOME INTERESTED IN HOCKEY." I own the stupid channel, when the first Hawks game was on it, I had to go on the internet and type "What channel are the Hawks on." I would think that the NHL/NBC would want people to already know where the game is. But hey, Im not a real hockey fan, what do I know?

Dont fret, I actually have the channel and it took me a while to find it because they are basically doing no marketing for it. Im also not a super hardcore hockey fan, but I readily admit that and if the Hawks/NHL dont want my fandom/money I can go elsewhere. I hear MLS will take anyone!

Yeah for a 6th to Tampa. Tampa just hired Bob Bostad, so it makes a lot of sense that they would bring in Carimi. http://www.buccaneers.com/team/coaches/bob...db-45fadb5d5667

Reminds me of PS1 and Final Fantasy VII.

I got an early release Ps3 and love my decision every second as it is backwards compatible.

Yeah I dont even look at any of those comments cause Im not sure if its a TV spoiler or book spoiler. Im caught up on TV, but obviously dont want to glean anything from the spoilers. (edit) But if you are discussing where the tv show is going to go and have read the book you have insight that a tv person would not. IE If in the first season I was saying "Ned is going to be King" after the 1st episode, people who read the book would have said....

No, but the DNA would tell you if I had 1 drop of x blood. The DNA would tell you if I had some sort of recessive trait that they govt deemed unworthy of living/reproducing. Or maybe I figure out some sort of disease/virus/weapon that attacks only people with certain DNA. Or I genetically engineer something to go after those people. I dont like my name on lists, history suggests that I am correct in that thinking.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 5, 2013 -> 02:22 PM) I'm still unconvinced about why this is obviously a bad thing. Because ultimately you either trust the govt or you do not. Historically govts have never been kind to my people. How much easier would it have been for the Nazi's to catch Jews if they had a DNA database and could search for "Jew genes." Its not obviously a bad thing. I think most people like the idea that DNA will catch criminals. I think people like that fingerprints catch criminals. But what happens when the govt uses those tools against us?

Balta, That is why this entire ruling and argument is nonsense. At the end of the day you can get warrants for DNA. The person has been arrested/convicted, its simply going in front of a judge and saying: "Your honor this person is a violent offender, we have reason to believe they may have committed other offenses and would like to do a search against outstanding crimes." Judge says okay, and we move on. But that way there is some protection against the govt doing whatever it wants, there is a person who has to decide "okay that is reasonable." That way we do not get a DNA search based on a parking ticket conviction. Farm and Jenks, And I simply do not believe that the 4th amendment was created so that previously convicted criminals would have less right to unreasonable searches. In fact historically speaking, these would likely be the people who would have been most needing of protection. What good would it have been to have a 4th amendment, if the King can search your house every day because 1 time you were arrested for speaking out against the King? The entire point of a warrant is to ensure that it is reasonable. I see no good reason why DNA (before or after conviction) has to be done without a warrant. Will DNA ruin? No Will it disappear? No Will it change? No So there is basically 0 reason to skip the warrant step, except that its a hassle. And Im sorry but the 4th amendment shouldnt be completely eroded just because it hassles the govt.

QUOTE (farmteam @ Jun 5, 2013 -> 01:56 PM) I would say so. Not if you are truly a defender of the 4th amendment. Because back in ye olden times when the 4th amendment was written, the simple way around this would be to convict someone on a small bogus charge and then run their DNA after. If you really are trying to protect against govt intrusion, fishing shouldnt be allowed at all. You can always get a warrant if there is reasonable suspicion. IE: This man is being accused of assault. We have another old case(s) with a similarly described man. We would like to test his DNA against those cases. Its a throw away argument.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jun 5, 2013 -> 01:50 PM) That's a pretty important distinction though, no? Not really. If a general warrantless search is such a grave offense then it shouldnt matter. In both scenario A and B, they have no evidence to connect me to any other crime, they are putting on complete fishing expeditions. So its okay to fish, but only after the person has been convicted of a crime. Guess Im not really seeing a huge victory for the 4th amendment. If he is such a protector of the 4th amendment, perhaps he should argue that a fishing expedition like that is never allowable.

That he would go after the guys he is generally on the same side, especially as his opinion is extremely narrow as he explicitly states in this dissent that after the defendant was convicted it would have been absolutely fine to do the DNA test. So basically he calls out all of his friends over a procedural difference of opinion. Group A: You should be able to DNA test after arrest. Group B: You should be able to DNA test after conviction. In either scenario you are allowing for a general search based on a completely unrelated crime.

Yeah that is surprising from Scalia.

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/highschool-p...-095119074.html If that is BGRA its the league I grew up playing in lol

To the best of my knowledge sports are segregated, but the segregation ironically is that men cant play on a woman's team. If its just about the best players, why cant guys play in the WNBA?

I went on Friday, they were really good. And Taylor Swift did a song that they almost never play, so its likely hardcore Stones fans were somewhat placated by that.

http://news.yahoo.com/father-man-fbi-shot-...-143828926.html FBI kills a guy while interrogating him. When I first read the story I thought it was Tsarnev's father alleging that his son was executed. I then realized its actually an entirely different person, who was killed in Florida.

And we are getting a free look at their military.

Probably because unlike the articles insinuation, the US and China have no real incentive to actually go to war with each other. Thus you invite them instead of creating some sort of stupid international incident when China gets upset they werent invited to play imaginary war with everyone else. Or maybe its a treat for China playing well with others and trying to further isolate NK.

Well y2hh's statement was that gun rights people dont fight the consequences of having guns illegally, so I wanted to show that they did. And its your opinion that gun crimes are "incredibly rare", I find gun crime in America to be "shockingly common" when you compare it to the rest of the world. But no point in arguing opinions. And the rest Im not sure what you are arguing about, seems like you are just trying to throw nonsense at a wall. If you believe that Muslims/Cleavers are as dangerous as a gun, then you can argue for banning them like a gun. I dont believe most reasonable people feel this way, but I am sure that there are some people with that opinion, which they are entitled to. And if you think that cavity searches are the equivalent to filling out a piece of paper to get a license, then once again, that is your opinion, but it doesnt seem to make a lot of sense. A better comparison would be that to drive a car in Illinois you need to 1) have a license that requires you to pass a test and 2) have insurance to protect against other people who you may hurt. That would be closer to gun registration. I dont believe most reasonable people would suggest gun owners have to have a chip inserted into their body so we can track them at all times. That would be a comparable invasion to a cavity search. But then again, you arent really here to discuss reasonable ways to try and curtail gun violence. Its as if you dont even care, which is fine, you are entitled to that. But we arent going to lower gun violence by sticking our heads in the sand and comparing every restriction to "cavity searches." "You want gun owners to have a license, you might as well force everyone in America to have their dick cut off to protect against rape!" Its as if you cant even consider the idea of compromise or trying to make America safer for everyone.

Good way to sell a book is to put in controversial statements.