Dyne

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot...!? Seriously, the dubbing is horrible. I too stopped halfway through, I couldn't take it. There's just no feeling in the dialog. Hell, I could do better.

I'd buy THAT for a dollar.

Unnnnnnnnggggghhhhh......Booooddddickeeeeeeer!

If Tim Burton directed this film, Robocop would be a brooding, dark mess of a revived dead cop, out for revenge.

Now you're just being a dick. Just make it look more official. Ya know, with some information about Otakon, maybe find out about panels n' such. That's all I'm saying.

I think we need either a more official thread, or something with some information other than just who's going. But in any event, I'm going.

bLiNd's an awesome remixer, and it's very tragic to hear about something like this. I really hope that he beats this thing. My prayers are with him and his family and girlfriend.

I remember Thunder Force IV on the PSX, that was an awesome game. I hope they port this to the US.

Oh, that's the test subject with the portal projector running amok.

Well I certainly had fun. Can't wait to do it again, and I'm getting geared up for Otakon! Can't wait for the OCR Panel.

There's a way to do it, you can either use Guitar Rig from Native Instruments or GearBox/GuitarPort from Line 6.

A slight twist of events has enabled me to get there sooner. So I should be at the apartment before you leave for 30th Street Station. See you all then.

Says the guy using the MacBook.

Honestly, I have to agree that Cliffy B has come out of left field with this comment. Any intelligent person knows that you don't knock your competition, because they'll run right over you. So really, his comment is just an unfounded jab at Konami. On the other hand, I've actually played MGS4, and beaten it (though I don't know if Cliffy B has done so). MGS4 is, to me, the culmination of every MGS game thus far, rolled into one, and punctuated with improved movement, stealth and story. I understand some people may not enjoy sitting through long cut scenes, but that's just tough. What's a game going to be like without a structure set forth by a story? What, are we all going to be playing shooters and puzzle games without stories? Anyway, not to get off point, but I think MGS4 was innovative as far as the series is concerned. There are definitely some things it could've done without. I won't go into specifics, because I don't want to spoil anything for anyone who's not played the game yet. What I will say is, if you haven't played it, but you already don't like it, I suggest you rent it and play it for a few hours. Give it an honest shot. If you still don't like it after that, well, at least you know for sure. For those who haven't gotten it, but love the series, GET IT. You won't be disappointed.

Yeah, makes the RIAA's initiative to thwart piracy look good, doesn't it?

Speaking of maps, you know you could always set up map voting and let the players decide. Though I have to say, some maps win more often than others, so rotation can be better by not having voting. Anyways, that's just a thought. Also, I need to get more achievements. I'm slowly picking up the ones that need you to do a certain action so many times, but I need to get on 2Fort more so I can fire some guys into the water.

Hey Wes, Fastlane is a lot of fun, you just have to make sure you get that middle point, otherwise it's a huuuuuge tug of war until you do. And even once you get it, there's no really good way of keeping it. Anyway, I can't wait to play some more.

I'll join you brother!

Well, I could totally go for a 3X t-shirt. I'll hold on the hoodie for now since it's summer time. But a black, 3X t-shirt would be awesome.

I thought the game was awesome, not just in story, but also graphically and gameplay as well. I think the Snake/Liquid Ocelot fight was awesome. I definitely enjoyed that. I finally completed the game last night, and now, hopefully today, I'll go back and make an attempt at unlocking more gear.

The choice is obvious. The decision clear. You'll have another reunion in five years.

All I really wanted was for you to explain what you meant, not link me to something and not say anything about it. Linking me to something without so much as an explanation is being a smartass. At least in my own point of view. I am however sorry if I have offended you and your perceptions. I don't want to argue with you to the point of hate. I don't. It's not, and was never, my true intention. I admit, I do lead my argument with emotion, but unfortunately, I'm a human being with emotions and I do feel perplexed by people in society that don't even bother to consider the human component. So I was wrong to sit here and chastise you. But let's not let that stop us from actually going somewhere intelligent with the conversation, after all, that's what we're here for, an intellectual conversation. If I don't understand something, I'll say so, and if you're so inclined, feel free to answer it. I just ask you not to response with just a link and no explanation whatsoever. A link by itself just tells me that you'd rather not take the time to explain something that you could either A) make simple, and not insult me with. And again, I am sorry for my previous comments, the derogatory ones I've made in previous replies. I can see some of your points, and maybe can concede a few, but not all of them. I honestly do not believe that one side or the other can be 100% right on how to handle the interpretation of this kind of law, or the ramifications on the people. And when I say people at this point, I mean everyone involved from the consumer back to the top of the chain. No matter who it affects, I realize that it will eventually directly or indirectly affect everyone. I just don't believe that you should alienate everyone for the sake of catching the few. It's like one person does something wrong, but you punish everyone. Sure, it certainly discourages the same behavior, but what have you really done? You've driven a wedge that cannot easily be removed, and possibly damaged any future relationship, business or otherwise, quite possibly irreparably. Economics aside, how do you deal with that potentiality?

That is the most pathetic response I've ever seen. Instead of sitting there, linking some article, why don't you explain it in terms I'm going to understand, and then I'll ask you questions. How about that, instead of a link to an article? Or is that what you wanted me to see? Is that it? Is that the lynch pin of your argument?

It has occurred to me that I have really not explain truly what it is that is frustrating me. Now I understand that we've been over this topic a lot, and that it may seem like I have no problem with piracy, when in fact, I do. It's not the issue that bothers me, it's the methods being taken to to stop piracy, methods that, like the police's use of entrapment, seem illegal. So really, what bothers me is how they're going about this, not the reason why. I guess maybe that's what you wanted me to say, or at least needed me to say. I reiterate, it's not the why, it's the how, and the how violates rights. Not the so-called "right" to pirate product, the right, rather, rights, to be secure in your person, property and effects. Being searched isn't anything new. They do random searches, I know all about that, I understand that. But being able to take away what's your's, and even to destroy it, isn't that theft? And destruction of property as well? Even if it's for a lawful purpose, that doesn't make it right. Sooner or later you're going to have a lot of people angry that even though they actually do have legal media stored on their laptop, computer or mp3 player, they're still having their property confiscated and destroyed instead of the realistic approach of just formatting any drive with music stored on it. Yes, it's aggravating, but what else is there? Something else to consider with search and seizure. Are they going to search a business executive's laptop for illegal downloads? That's probably when pigs will fly. They may say it's random, but it can degenerate into both profiling, and bias in terms of what kind of "person" you are. It may sound racist or sexist, but think about the current climate in the country too, even around the world. That should give you an idea of what this will be like for people, innocent or not.

I never stopped caring about the airport searches and seizures thing, I just chose to move on from that to another topic within the main topic. As far as the Patriot Act is concerned, yeah, I'm not happy about it. I think the Patriot Act is a blatant violation of both civil rights and the Constitution. But what else is there to say about it? We all know it's the truth. So that's why I'm not going on and on about it. Actually, I sincerely doubt that entertainment is the largest, and if it is, it is because of the way things are priced. Look at movie theaters for example. Even before piracy is a huge hot button topic, prices started to rise. Whether that was because of inflation or because studios continuously increased their budgets, I don't know (though honestly, that doesn't excuse concession stands from being exorbitantly priced). I do agree that piracy does affect the workers, producers, and manufacturers of products no matter what they make, however, I sincerely doubt it affects the bottom line of the executives, because they get paid no matter what happens (which we seem to agree on), and I think that that right there has the biggest effect on jobs in that industry. I don't honestly know where you're going with the "under-allocation" you're talking about, maybe you could explain that further. Movies and software aside, music is a true intellectual property, and should be owned by the artists themselves (though I realize that it often times is not). And it should not be by virtue, it should be cold hard fact. I'm pretty sure most artists write their own lyrics and music themselves, though there are some who don't, and just sing or play what they're given. Still, the fact remains that the artist should have control over how their property is used. Firstly, places like Tibet and Darfur aren't worried about piracy so much as loss of life because of rioting, protests and violence in those countries. There's really no way you can argue that point with me unless you can tell me how it directly affects their economies. I'm also not calling lawmakers evil for wanting to help stop piracy, but instead of making trade agreements which they may not even be able to make good on, they should try enforcing laws they recently passed instead of levying new ones against people, especially ones that infringe on their privacy, as well as their dignity. Also, with that statement, I'd like to add that they really need to think about how they're going to determine what's pirated and what's not. Certainly pirated software will have its own markers, but what about music? Movies may even be easily detected as pirated, but again, what about music? Let's say I rip a CD to MP3 format. It's stored on my hard drive for personal use. Let's say I get searched, they find it, and call it illegal. Is it really illegal? Or is it personal use? How do they determine that? Also, we're not here to talk about rent-seeking or profit-seeking. We weren't talking about the exchange of money to begin with. We were talking about methods and tasks being taken to stem piracy through law that seems to be set up outside of international law itself. A trade agreement immune from international law is dangerous, and if you really want to see what that's like, let them pass something like this, or even better still, something that directly violates peoples' rights, and then complain to me about it. Let's try to stay on topic here. As far as the RIAA is concerned, they do not have a squeaky clean record as you may think. And also, they are, as far as I know, a not-for-profit organization that is funded directly by the four biggest record labels in the country (most likely the world). Also, as far as I know, the RIAA does not own any copyrights to intellectual property, they're just the "lynch mob" so-to-speak that's out there to stop piracy through what seems to be any means necessary, even if it violates a person's rights. Oh yeah, and unlike farmers petitioning a government for something, the farmers won't hack your computer. Again, to restate what I said above, they do not hold any copyrights. If they did, they'd have the right to file lawsuits left and right. They are merely the arm of the industry that seeks out the violators, and then prosecutes them on behalf of the industry. The hell is isn't. You're way off center here. The labels exist to market, license, distribute, record and protect the music for the artist. But the artist, if he/she doesn't already, should own the rights to their music. Who the fuck are the labels to tell them what their property is, and what they deserve to get paid? Yes, the labels do a lot of work, but why shouldn't the artist get paid for what they've done? Why don't you go be an artist for a while, and see what kind of screwing you take? Yes, please keep the oil industry argument out of this thread, not that I'm attempting to moderate that, but the fact does remain that the oil industry, SPECIFICALLY OPEC, controls the price by controlling the production which is part of supply and demand. Do not stand here and dictate to me or anyone else how their strategy is one of benevolence and that they are completely innocent of any wrong doing. You can also thank the US government for making it illegal to lease the areas on the East Coast, the Gulf of Mexico and certain parts of the western US for the drilling of oil and natural gas. Nice work, reserves aplenty, but we can't touch them. (You can also blame inflation, but that is an argument I don't even want to begin to fathom getting into.)( So what the hell does that have to do with anything? Why should the executives make millions of dollars a year on the backs of the artists who work hard at their craft? Shouldn't it be the artists who get paid millions? Oh yeah, that's right, you're going to tell me all the fringe benefits the artists get, right? Not all of them get their own jets, or have their own entourage to follow them around. Yeah, they get SOME help, but I seriously doubt the industry pays for it all. If they did, wouldn't that cut further into the executives paycheck?