Jenksismyhero

f*** and yes. Great win.

Yep, thats good. Great win. Now finish the game hawks!

That was close

Lebron with a very quiet triple double

Safe to say Leonard isnt afraid of the moment. Spurs in good position to take this one.

Jesus christ 5 on 3 and they dont move

But Parker looks amazing. Heat just hot from three so far. That‘ll stop.

Sure would be nice for kane to show up one of these days

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 6, 2013 -> 08:11 AM) Despite similar usage rates, marijuana arrests four times as likely for blacks http://mobile.nytimes.com/2013/06/04/us/ma...for-blacks.html This is what people mean when they talk about systemic racism. My Chicago cop friend's response was basically (1) you're 4 times more likely to see a cop in predominantly black areas than white areas (he used Austin v. Lincoln Park) and (2) in his experience black kids are way too nonchalant about it whereas white kids keep it indoors. He also thought that a lot of times the marijuana charges are tacked on to other crimes that were committed (a kid having a bag in his pocket) which might account for some of the difference.

You could do it on your own for way less than that. You'd just have to mud, tape and sand, the worst do-it-yourself project known to man.

Wow. This could go down as an all-timer. http://www.metacritic.com/game/playstation-3/the-last-of-us

Conan interview with Martin re: the reactions: http://teamcoco.com/video/conan-highlight-...dding-reactions

QUOTE (IlliniKrush @ Jun 6, 2013 -> 10:44 AM) I'll never understand places that have walls that end before the ceiling. It's to make it more open and feel bigger. If that was a single couple in there that used one room for an office and another for their bedroom it would be really nice. But for roommates it's probably not an ideal set up.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Jun 5, 2013 -> 03:26 PM) Which is why comparing Jordan and LeBron is silly to begin with. They are not similar style players. The most recent player who played a similar game to Jordan was Kobe, and Jordan is quite clearly superior to Kobe. You compare LeBron to Magic Johnson, and, to me, there's no debate which one of those two is better - that being Magic. It was unreal how good Magic was. I still don't think anyone can hang with Jordan, in their primes, one on one. An incredibly talented and versatile scorer who also played incredible defense? No chance anybody beats him. The only guy who might is Magic. Sorta wondering why he didn't pick himself...five times. Um. Kobe scored 81 once so....

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 5, 2013 -> 02:45 PM) Like I said, I'm the big government person here, so I'll say again..."to do what?" What would the government do with this information that is so inappropriate? You could obviously come up with some answers, but DNA doesn't tell who you are, it doesn't tell what I'm thinking right now, it doesn't tell when I'm going to decide to go home. The government already is probably collecting this post and having it combed through for keywords at the NSA facilities and that tells a helluva lot more about me than my DNA. The thing that I would really oppose is having the results of DNA tests available to health insurance companies. I'll grant that one, but you're not necessarily going to sequence an entire person's genome to do a criminal test match (in fact that ought to be really unnecessary). You can't really ignore the slippery slope because that's how our system is designed. Day 1 there was no justification for unreasonable searches and seizures. 200 years later there are a number of them, some of which are pretty bogus IMO. Our rights keep getting chipped away. And I think you're thinking too short term here. DNA testing will eventually become instantaneous, so having the government collect a database of everyone just means they can track you anywhere and everywhere you go. Why on earth would we want that?

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jun 5, 2013 -> 02:17 PM) 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. Well, let's be fair, the drafters never knew about DNA testing so I dunno about what they thought really matters here. At the end of the day we're talking about a precedent being set that a specimen from your body can be taken after an arrest solely for the purpose of identifying you. It's simply not the same as photos or fingerprinting which are to identify you as a specific person for the purposes of the present arrest. But I agree that ideally you should have to get a warrant for both situations.

QUOTE (bigruss22 @ Jun 5, 2013 -> 02:37 PM)

QUOTE (Leonard Zelig @ Jun 5, 2013 -> 02:11 PM) That's just too obvious. I feel like Martin wants to come up with some crazy scenario that nobody will have considered.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 5, 2013 -> 02:01 PM) So I guess my question(s) as the big government guy here are... If the only thing this database is used for is "matching up the DNA of people arrested for crimes with people who are being hunted by authorities" (not used for other research or anything like that...) And having such a database winds up being an effective law enforcement tool to help solve unsolved serious crimes like the 400,000 rapes with untested kits sitting around... Why should I get up in arms about this? The reasons to get angry about it seem to me to be based upon the database being used for something else other than its intended purpose. I'll grant that ain't good, but spell out the downside for me if that doesn't happen? I think it's not only that we're relying on the government to keeps their promise for the use of the database, but also the potential for this sort of warrantless collection in other areas of society. As Scalia points out, if identification is an acceptable justification, why not take the DNA of all airplane passengers so that we can identify who is traveling? Why not take DNA of kids in school to keep track of who is in the public school system? Think of what the dirty, immoral republicans could do if immigrants were forced to submit to DNA collection before entering the country!

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jun 5, 2013 -> 01:56 PM) 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. After conviction you're a criminal and lose some of your rights anyway, so I don't see a problem taking your DNA and comparing it to a national database. At least one hurdle (conviction of a crime) has been met. Here there is no hurdle. Presumably an arrest is required, but who knows where the cases will take us from here. Prior to a conviction you're not a criminal but someone who is 100% innocent. You shouldn't lose your 4th amendment rights before that. What's worse is that the Court committed severe judicial activism by reading into an otherwise purposefully written statute to come up with the justification for this exception.

QUOTE (bigruss22 @ Jun 5, 2013 -> 01:01 PM)

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jun 5, 2013 -> 01:43 PM) 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. That's a pretty important distinction though, no?

I'm a huge fan of this line: "Against all of that, it is safe to say that if the Court's identification theory is not wrong, there is no such thing as error."

QUOTE (ZoomSlowik @ Jun 5, 2013 -> 01:24 PM) It looks amazing. I generally don't like forking over $60 for a single-player based game, but I may have to in this case (Yes, I know it has multiplayer. There's not much known about it though and I generally avoid paying full price for games I'm likely to beat once and then leave on the shelf to collect dust). I'm the same way, but the IGN guy said it took him 14 hours to get through. That's pretty good for a single player campaign. I played the demo last week and it's one of those games where you turn off the lights, turn up the sound and immerse yourself into the world.

The Last of Us getting tons of great reviews, including a 10/10 from IGN. http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/06/05/the-last-of-us-review Very excited for it.