Jenksismyhero

anyone here ever bother with homebrew on their psp? I consider myself to be really computer/video game savvy, but the whole homebrew crap is in another language.

pc

QUOTE(Capn12 @ Oct 24, 2007 -> 10:16 AM) CoD4 is going to be great, but I'll be damned if I'm gonna enjoy getting knived by 12 year olds online anymore. That just frustrates the piss outta me. Lol, good point. I still haven't purchased Warhawk for that reason. I made the mistake of picking up Battlefield about a month after it was released. I was such a n00b that it wasn't much fun.

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Oct 24, 2007 -> 09:06 AM) Then the "real" candidates need to do a better job of inspiring 18-34 year olds to vote for them. Absolutely agree. I guess that's my issue with it - voting and being informed about whats going on with government used to be an important part of American life. Now we're more interested in Britney's crotch and guys who look at the camera funny and crack jokes.

Really? How did that work for them in the Iowa game? Or the Michigan game? Lots of rushing yards? I'm not saying that can't be a component to the offense, but it's really not hard to understand why a bottom-feeder team can lead a conference in rushing - thats all they did to move the ball. The passing game is one of the worst (if not THE worst) in the big ten, and damn near the bottom in all of d-1a.

It'll prove what a terrible state our democracy is in. I think it's a good laugh that Colbert is doing this, but the minute he becomes serious (while still cracking jokes) IMO he's just pissing on the whole system. It's really not that funny to get 18-34 year olds voting because they think you're good for a laugh.

They stress the option because they have no passing game. McGee gives them a passing game. I think the decision is pretty simple.

I just played the cod4 demo - it looks amazing. That'll be a purchase. I'm also planning on Guitar Hero III and Gears of War on the PC.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Oct 23, 2007 -> 11:34 AM) We are literally talking about massive shifts here. Just a smattering of examples can be found in this section of the IPCC report. Things like significant changes in the glacial melt patterns that feed the rivers of southeast and central Asia on which 2 billion + people live, continued drying of the Southwestern U.S., northward shifting of growing seasons (imagine a U.S. that is too hot and dry to grow corn). It's also probably worth noting that the IPCC contains a cost estimate as well. I'll cite an executive summary since the language and diagrams are a bit hard to follow: From what I've heard about the IPCC, they have about as much legitimacy as Rush Limbaugh in speaking the truth about any given issue. They have known activists on their membership lists (who aren't scientists) and they refused to remove prominent global warming authors from their "reports" once the authors found out the "reports" were not an accurate account of what they had written.

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Oct 22, 2007 -> 12:52 PM) Never mind. I'll go start a few tire fires and break a few mercury thermometers over Lake Michigan this weekend. What difference does it make? And who is saying that? I fully admit we could help the environment because God knows we've done some bad things to it. But that's not the issue. The issue is whether the debate about the human involvement in global warming is over. I say no. But in like two years Gore et al have effectively brain-washed the country into believing we are at fault for it and unless we act the Earth will explode and we'll all die.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Oct 22, 2007 -> 11:42 AM) I believe the Gore / Bush analogy is as erroneous as the Bush / Hitler. If by tactics you mean thousands of scientists and hundreds and hundreds of studies, I do not believe it is the same. Gore is relying heavily on mainstream knowledge from the majority of scientists. Bush relied on dismissing the inspectors and a smaller knowledge base. If by taking the "mainstream" opinion and spinning it for his own purposes, then yeah I guess it's the same. Look, i'm not saying Gore made up figures and quoted fake research. But he did take those real pieces of scientific research and plaster them alongside pictures of poor black kids on the roofs of their homes after Katrina with a big monotone voice essentially saying "look what we've done. if we don't shape up, we'll all be victims just like these people in two weeks." It's not only utter-nonsense but its also fear mongering. Its just like how BushCo has tried to paint every Muslim as a terrorist. As Southsider points out, worst case scenarios are meaningless in this debate.

Reading most of this thread, its become clear that you cannot distinguish between those that believe global warming is a farce and those that believe global warming exists but the extent of human involvment is unknown and therefore question whether the "debate" is truly settled. Watch the Stossel piece I've linked. Don't think of it as some scientific research piece proving one sides point that we aren't causing any of it. Instead try to be open-minded and understand his entire point is - what happened to the debate? Why don't we have a choice anymore on what to believe? Should we ever get to a point where side A can completely shut out side B because the majority of the scientific world thinks one way (which btw I don't believe is true. The majority of science tells us that we are in a warming period, I'm not sure a vast majority agrees humans are to blame, or at least agree by how much humans are to blame - another oversimplification of the debate). Rehashing old arguments - science has been proven wrong before. Pesticides were supposed to kill us all 10 years ago. Y2k was going to ruin the world. I'm not saying we should use this to prove science is dumb and we can't learn anything. But we can use that argument to say look, nothing is 100% until it happens, so why allows douches like Gore to continue to spout nonsense about the debate being over. We should be concerned about the earth getting warmer. It probably will have an effect on radiation levels and sea levels - we'll probably have to change and adapt regardless of who is right or wrong. But it's another thing to argue that we need to throw billions and billions into a problem we may or may not be able to help anyway or that we need to change how we live just because someone tells us we are the cause of it all.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Oct 22, 2007 -> 10:33 AM) How many have died because of Gore? Bush? How can you even compare the two. Fair enough. The tactics are the same though, and its the fear mongering tactics that BushCo is mostly cited for.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Oct 22, 2007 -> 10:13 AM) I can't help but think if Al Gore was a Rep, his fan base would be so much different. Isn't it funny though that a guy who uses faulty information, generalizes, oversimplifies, and downright misleads people into thinking that Katrina part 2 will be at their doorstep if they don't change their lightbulb or start riding a bike tomorrow can be given an Oscar, a Nobel Peace Prize, and sainthood in the eyes of the liberals across the world, but someone who tried to "sell" people on the war is on par with Hitler? Both are douche-bags for not doing their homework and trying to trick people into believing something. I'll grant you that. But the disparity in the treatment of the two is just downright laughable at this point.

This was on Friday night and I thought it was an interesting piece. Especially the IPCC stuff. Political agenda? Me thinks yes. http://youtube.com/watch?v=_FI0U5JOtoo I've said my opinions on global warming a ton, but seeing as I was called out earlier I want to reaffirm my position: 1. Global warming exists. Problems associated with the warming could pose a danger and change the world as we know it. 2. Key difference: the question of the human element is still up for question. Most important, is it significant? I don't think anyone knows for a fact - thus the debate is not "over." 3. Al Gore is a douche - if you complain that the Bush admn are a bunch of "fear mongers" then Al Gore is equally evil. It makes me sick that he's been made into a saint for this crap.

QUOTE(WhiteSoxfan1986 @ Oct 21, 2007 -> 06:21 PM) I swear there has never been an Illinois thread without people complaining about officiating. Bah. I'm pretty sure in the "How to be a Fan" manual there's a requirement that a fan of any team in whatever sport is required to question or argue about the officiating after a loss.

QUOTE(Rex Hudler @ Oct 21, 2007 -> 04:37 PM) Just out of curiosity, which calls did you think were questionable? In terms of officiating this wasn't the Anthony Thomas two bogus fumble calls that literally gave the win to Michigan to the point it looked downright fishy type game. But there were a few I thought were questionable. The roughing the punter should have been the 5 yard variety. And I think the pass interference penalty a few plays later was bogus. If they start calling that regularly, every coach across the country should tell their qb's to throw the ball 10 yards short of their receivers anytime you get a one on one matchup on the outside. It wasn't a catchable ball and the refs shouldn't have bailed out the qb by calling interference just because he wasn't facing the ball.

Ugh, upsetting night last night. Illinois lost the game more than Michigan won it - stupid penalties (and a few questionable calls IMO) and of course the unexcusable drop by Hudson on the punt. They also failed to get the ball to Mendenhall and Benn. Overall I thought the defense played really well - essentially limiting Michigan to only one, maybe two good drives the whole game. But really the game should have been put away before that. Up 14-3 the offense stalled (suprise). I think the Juice Williams experiment is over. Not only can he not pass to wide open recievers (save the TD pass), you can tell he doesn't know WR routes or defensive coverages. He's the Sexy Rexy of college football - if his first receiver isn't open he's screwed. Whats worse is that this lack of football IQ could be excusable because he is so young, but he's shown zero improvement over the course of the season. I think Zook needs to make a choice to stick with Juice for the rest of the year, regardless of the record, and see if he can improve going into next season, or you give the ball to McGee and see how much he can progress. For the season I'm still happy, but admittedly after the Wisky and Penn St games I thought Illinois had a chance to contend for the Big Ten title. It's pretty clear that the offense is not good enough. We'll win the next two games, lose at Ohio state, and then have a decent matchup with Northwestern. That'll put us at 8-4, or 7-5 at worst - considering we've won 4 games the last two years, I'd say that's a pretty succesfuly season. Hopefully Zook can bring in some more talent (defensive secondary and WR's for sure) and with another year of experience we can make some noise the next couple of years.

QUOTE(mr_genius @ Oct 19, 2007 -> 02:48 PM) I like Ron Paul (and the Libertarian party in general), but all this liberal support of the guy is very precarious. He is pretty much 90% against everything they support. If they thought the Bush tax cuts were too much, a libertarian would go way over the top of those. Also, the federal governments role in just about everything would be greatly diminished, as would our involvement in the United Nations. Also, he isn't going to just be against a war started by the GOP, he is going to be against just about any military action the Dems will take. Man that'd be terrible.

Are they trying to create a "gang" simulation in GTA? 16 people get together and look for trouble? That'd be an interesting idea.

good piece there

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Oct 17, 2007 -> 01:57 PM) While I agree that acceptable risk is part of many life-and-death decisions made by society... I think your calling the anti-death penalty position "high and mighty" and "bogus" is a over the top and maybe a but insulting. You may disagree with it, but its not as if its evil or something. No one is saying these people should go free. And the reason we do less about traffic fatalities isn't about freedom, its about cost. Sorry, I don't mean to be insulting. I just find it odd that people consider one innocent life so important when we deal with death on a daily basis. If people are so strongly opposed to the death penalty because innocent lives are taken, then it shouldn't matter that the costs of society prevents us from protecting every life. How is that not a double standard? What if the statistics show that for every innocent person wrongly convicted and put to death, 10 lives are saved from criminals convicted of murder who kill again after they do their time? Would your positions change?

QUOTE(Soxbadger @ Oct 17, 2007 -> 01:51 PM) I disagree that it is an acceptable risk, because I believe that life imprisonment is an equal, if not worse punishment than death penalty. Death penalty is flawed for a variety of reasons: 1) I do not believe that humans are infallible, and therefore should not be able to end another persons life. A criminal case is a game, no game should be able to end with some one dieing just because one side played the game better. Prosecutors are playing to win, defense attorneys are playing to win, they are not playing to find the truth, or to make things right. If they have a suspect, and he is on trial, the game is conviction. Normally this is not a big deal because a 1 year sentence, life sentence, etc, while horrible can at least be salvaged at the end if turns out the guilty verdict was incorrect. The going rate for 1 year wrongfully imprisoned is about $1mil, maybe not as good as never going to prison, but I can tell you if I was wrongly convicted for murder Id much rather have spent 30 years in prison and get $30mil, than have spent 20 years in prison, been executed, and then 10 years after my death exculpatory evidence was found. 2) Death penalty presupposes that death in itself is a penalty. This is because for many death has spiritual ramifications, they believe the killer will go to hell, and face some worse fate than could be doled out in this life. But if there is no heaven, hell, or after life, death penalty is far superior to life imprisonment. Having to be in jail, confined, having all of your rights taken for the rest of your life, is far worse than the equivalent of sleeping. I wont even go into the idea that death could lead to something better for the person killed because this is all unproven and I really hate basing things on the unprovable. I could go on, but basically I just dont believe that society killing 1 person wrongly is worth the death penalty. And Im not religious myself, but I have to believe that there would be some ramifications in the after life for wrongly putting some one to death, even if the govt allowed it, even if it was in line with the rules of the state, county, etc. Because many people have done horrific things following the rules of govt, but they are all just rules of man. And men are fallible, they are petty, they are wrong, and in the end they should not be deciding who lives or dies. But then again, in my opinion, 1 wrongly convicted executed man completely undermines the whole system. Because it makes the system the murderer, and who pays for that price, who goes on trial and gets executed for that wrongful death. Six months from being a lawyer, and with plenty of experience in a trial setting, it's not a game. Talk to a victim of sexual assault, talk to someone who was shot because an intruder opened the wrong apartment door, they'll tell you its not a game. Yes both sides work towards winning their case, but that doesn't mean its just a game of competition. Law and Order et al has warped your mind I think. And I disagree with point two. Death is a penalty. If you're dead, you can't kill anyone else. And I understand you think its wrong that people are killed, and on occasion innocent people are killed. but why value those linnocent ives over the lives of drunk driving victims or hit and run victims or obesity victims or whatever? Take away peoples cars and make fast food illegal if your so worried about innocent lives being taken.

QUOTE(StrangeSox @ Oct 17, 2007 -> 12:57 PM) If the percentage is greater than zero, then we are allowing the government to murder innocent people. Incarciration is reversible. Execution is final. That's the whole point -- they didn't take another life and are wrongly being put to death. It's an acceptable risk. Just like we know that hundreds of thousands of people have died from car accidents yet we continue to let people drive; hundreds of thousands have been killed from acts related to alcohol, yet we still allow people to drink, etc etc. The high and mighty moral position here of innocent life is just bogus in my opinion considering in all aspects of life we continue to walk through life knowing that people will die everyday.

QUOTE(StrangeSox @ Oct 17, 2007 -> 12:02 PM) It seems like this point has been been ignored. It's an incredibly small percentage of cases. And really if you want to use that argument then we should just not prosecute people and put them in jail because mistakes have/are/will be made. My personal belief is, just like every other fundamental right we all have, there are exceptions. When you take the life of someone else in the case of murder, you have lost your right to be treated as an equal with the rest of society. If that means death, then so be it.