Calax

I didn't mean regulate the rights of citizens, more the protection of citizens from abuse and the protection of the rights of citizens. I mean if that was left up to the states in entirety, you'd still wind up with pre-civil rights era south trumping and griping about how "those dastardly liberals" keep moving down there and trying to agitate to change the system. If you keep having the same attitudes and thought processes perpetuated, very little will change.

I'm bipolar, I have a therapist but I don't have a psychiatric professional due to insurance circumstances. It seems that my bipolar always flares up around my birthday.

As my birthday gets closer (a little over a month) I get more depressed due to the lack of success in life and the fact that I'm nearing 30.

It boggles my mind that California's total population makes up about 1/4th of the voting population. That said, the American health insurance system is broken. If they forced a law that made it so that I could get the same level of insurance for the same prices as my employers get, you'd probably see overall costs plummet. I mean, I realize that some things are expensive, but it's taken to ridiculous levels on your bills (again, the 20 dollar surgical gowns).

To be fair, many would say that the "confines of the Constitution" is based around interpretation. And while some may think that means "You should only shoot those who want to shoot us, and earn just enough money to ensure that's done. Also ensure that states recognize each others laws." Others think that the Feds should have significantly more power when it comes to regulating trade, crime, and the rights of citizens. Part of the issue we're dealing with right now, is that the Constitution was set up when telecommunications didn't exist. I mean, at the time of it's writing ambassadors were basically on their own in the nations they were in, and had massive leeway in negotiations. Now you might as well have the SecState on skype for negotiations.

So, I just beat Far Cry 3. Honestly? Underwhelmed. The shooting and hunting was well done, but after a point it seemed like the devs couldn't find a way for you to keep doing your missions (for the story) as a "predator" and instead just had you do the standard FPS "run in, shoot people, run out" schtick in an open world. A few mechanics were WOEFULLY under used too (wingsuit, I'm looking at you!) As to Vaas? Yeah he was cool, but you didn't get much interaction with him. At least it didn't feel like it. Most of your story missions on that island didn't deal with him, and instead dealt with sorting out retrieving your friends or getting your Tattoo empowered or whatever. If Vaas had a bigger role and interacted with you more directly, I'd see the outcry that's been made. Currently, however, you don't get much time with him to enjoy the crazy personality before you off him. The other guy that crops up feels like he is seen a lot more because everything you do is directly related TO killing that guy, and you interact with him a few times. Basically, they needed to keep Vaas in the story line more (instead of being the background enemy for most of the first section of the game) instead of relegating him to the background. One thing I LOOOOVE about this is that it twists one of Valves iffy game design commandments to great effect. Valve has said that they have a goal, when creating a game, of NEVER removing control from the player for any reason. That's why in HL2 you spend stupid amounts of time sitting in a corner and watching other NPC's interact, rather than the more efficient cutscene. Far Cry twists this beautifully into "never pull the player out of first person", and creates a few seriously interesting moments revolving around the fact that the island has some... special properties.

For the record, what we call communism/socialism isn't actually either of those things. True socialism is where nobody has any personal effects, and everyone works to support the state. The State, in turn, provides food, housing and entertainment for it's population and ensures that everyone is protected. Basically, money changing hands is not something that'd happen in a perfect socialist nation. The problem is that most of human history is built around trade and war for things. Rewarding personal ambition is the antithesis of socialism, so psycologically, a true socialist society couldn't happen. By the same token, a pure capitalist society wouldn't happen either. Ayn Rand's vision would only work with everyone being sociopaths, and the lower classes would barely be able to survive. Let's face it, in a purely capitalist society, everything would become a monopoly, and every company would pay the bare minimum they could to have workers.

It's about money GD, not control. You can take your dogs to a vet for the fact they look like they're in bad shape, but if it turns out to be to bad a shape, you can just ask for him to be put down. Not many people (myself excluded) would go to a doctor, get an MRI that shows that they've got a giant lump the size of a baseball in their kidneys, and say "It's to much money and suffering, kill me". Vets rely on your goodwill to keep you coming back through the lives of your pets. Doctors don't, Doctors rely on your trusting them to make you better, while at the same time trying to keep you alive to pay your bills. And while they aren't some dastardly fiend that'll keep you alive JUUUUST enough to keep paying the bills while being sick, their accountants wish they were. Odd piece of info I heard last week on a Daily Show interview with Steven Brill, the surgical gowns Doctors use at the hospital are charged to the uninsured at 22 bucks a gown. Insurance companies get it for 10 (wow, great cost cutting!). Ebay, and medical surplus sites have it for a whopping FOUR DOLLARS plus shipping and handling. >80% discount if you just buy all the equipment they're using to cut you open. THAT is where our system is breaking down... well that and the fact that an individual person cannot easily go and get cheap health care that covers as well as an employers, so "competition" is really just "Who can attract business clients" rather than "who can attract clients".

If I get the tax refund for makin babies every year for every kid made >.>

Didn't Diablo3 get HUGE amounts of flack it's loot system? As did KOTOR 2 until the first patch.

Well, due to the nature of the industry, they're the ones allowed to set those rules. They're pouring more money into games than movies now, but games aren't generating as much revenue due to the fact that players are getting 2-3-10 times as much distraction from the leisure activity. So the companies have to find some way to keep that particular product pumping out revenue. Could they go about it in a more friendly fashion? Sure, but the industry feels like it's hitting the point where the controlling execs are arrogant jerks who feel like they can do what they want because they control what's put on the market. Valves Project Greenlight and Kickstarter in general are starting to chip away at it, but I doubt you'll see many games published due to those publishing platforms that are anything but niche. EA and Activision have spent a few years like children fighting over a toy. I don't know why, but the keynote speech at the E3 EA press conference 2 years ago really bugged me when John Ricitello(?) deliberately called attention to the legal mess that was the IW/Respawn entertainment battle. Basically it felt like he was telling Bobby Kotick "Nyah nyah nyah! I stole your employees!" which is a REAL no-no in any industry. But they can get away with it because they're the two biggest publishers and nobody's really been able to crack their profits. Their closest competitors are Ubisoft, who stab themselves anytime they start picking up the pace, and have NO IDEA what "Public Image" means (their E3 disasters, PC DRM stuff). THQ who just went under for about 6 years of REALLY stupid contracts. Take Two who have Rockstar, 2k, and three other franchises that are big deals but that's about it. When you get down to it, the Games industry is a very homogeneous bunch, but don't seem to have the business experience that an industry like auto makers would have. IF Project Eternity ends up commercially viable, you'll see quite a few changes in how business is done. The Publishers will end up with a lot of power being lost because a developer can stake their reputation on their dream game and go to the customers straight instead of having to make a deal with the publisher. If P:E fails (as much as you may not like it, this is a possibility) then it's back to business as usual with OE needing to go back to a publisher for their projects.

Seconded. Thirded.

Yep. Even in California, double digits was only for Assistants (now Department Managers). And that was with the 8 bucks an hour minimum wage.

I think the best example I've seen of DLC is actually Lair of the Shadow Broker. The segment was well made, had good writing, was self contained, and generally held up to the standard that had been set by it's "primary". But the story it told was fairly tangential and you wouldn't miss out on to much in the (itty bitty) main plot by not having it. Compare it to From Ashes; where you're given a character who's so well dovetailed into the game that he feels totally integral. Also his story is almost totally tied up directly into the primary plot, and provides a few glimpses into previous versions of the plot, and the game without him feels somewhat incomplete (especially after you've played the game with him). Ultimately I think DLC needs to work well within the game and setting, but not be so... tied into it that it feels like everything else. Kasumi and Zaheed in ME2 were DLC's that had their awesome moments, but were to obvious about being DLC characters. The reason Liara worked and they didn't was because she had her plot tied into her moments already within the game, and she was not entered into the party.

They aren't. I'm not even in a field related to restaurant management so there's no way to get that. In theory, I can actually be put entirely through school by my company to become a manager at their store. Mostly I'm doing this for resume fodder, and am debating, after it's done, asking to swap to another store just because I'm realizing how terrible the management core is at my current one. Even though we're the busiest store, several things that should be done, aren't, which instead generates more work for everyone else. Also, the store I'd be looking at seems to have less of a college crowd, and a different customer base. Still same franchise, so the owners wouldn't lose their investment. And GD, if you ever went in and worked at a McDonalds, you'll find that except for maybe four people, McDonalds is always going to be a low wage job that nobody gives a crap about. Part of that is due to popular stigma of it being the "lowest of the low" employments, and the first job many high schoolers take, but a lot of it stems from the fact that even as a manager, your base pay is only a tiny bit better than the dumbass who just started after getting out of jail for kicking somebodies teeth in. (I think the difference here is a total of 60 cents from minimum wage) I technically didn't even really get a pay raise when I was promoted to manager, because I was able to come in with McD's paystubs wayyyy above Iowa minimum wage (yay California minimum wage). By the time I got bumped up in the fall, I was earning an extra quarter on top of what the new managers start at. If a company came to me and asked me to be the logistical coordinator/HR manager for them for 10 bucks an hour? I'd happily take it and give my store the finger. Although if I made the right moves I could go total "Chaney" and get half the other managers fired for having inappropriate work attitudes. And have one of them sent back to Chicago on a FTA warrant.

lucrative is good. tiring doesn't have to be bad.I'm curious, what kind of training do you give? It's management stuff. I'm ServSafe Certified right now, and am getting certified as a manager with McDonalds. It's a lot of explanations about "How little things add up" and sort of leadership skills. Basically a stereotypical conference that you see in some RomCom that's only used as a backdrop for some stupid thing happening. Among other things, they're trying to teach us what customers are looking at in the store, how to motivate the crew to be better, and how to save serious money. The two biggest things they're hitting you about money is A) "Hidden minutes" where an employee clocks in for a few minutes early while they get ready, or just like 3 minutes before they are scheduled. When you extrapolate that it ends up that 3 minutes per shift, every day comes out to about 150 bucks a year, per person. Pulled 10 hours today, 12 yesterday, and got probably another 8-10 tomorrow from this. I have to get up at 6 am for the classes (they start at 8 in Des Moines and it's been taking us an hour to get there with the weather), so my life has been quite tiring.

Christ, this is crazy. Beyond my health issues, which I'm gonna try to deal with on friday. I'm spending about 12 hours in Des Moines doing training. It's pretty lucrative for me (probably gonna get over time this week for little effort) but it's still time consuming and tiring.

I dont' know. I just know I can't miss my training that's happening this week. I'll probably find myself a quick check up friday/saturday from a doc at the nearby clinic. I have insurance, but I don't know how far it goes.

Stressed over my current future of driving for 40 minutes to an hour to get into a CC class, so I can get back into college. Plus my health insurance Plus drama at my job that I had no hand in (well, recently. I accidently stirred some crap up but have been staying away) but am being blamed for And finally, I apparently have blood coming out my backside. Not much, but that and the small amount of abdominal pain has me thinking I'm probably gonna call a doctor if/when I ever get the time. But nothing can happen because I've got a class for work that I have to wake up for in four hours, but this BS at work has me so wound up I can't sleep. Delightful.

Well, that depends. I mean ideally the eyes of the law don't care about the fact that it's an American flag vs a USSR flag. Similarly, a memorial for the "Public Good" is entirely in the eye of the beholder. I personally don't think that another memorial for the soldiers is going to be "Public Good" in the long run because those suckers are becoming very very very populated over the US. I think that revitalizing other local monuments and historic sites would be better, but to each their own. As to the flag itself, the specific law he's fighting with “The Flag of the United States of America and the Flag of the State of California may be displayed on a sidewalk located in or abutting on a state highway situated within a city…." States that the flag can't be on a little walkway 50 feet away from the highway, and the memorial would just end up creating more of an issue for the public walking than be a "memorial". And you're right, I can't say that CalTrans would have to foot the bill for the power. But then the power that he wanted for his flag pole would still be coming from the CalTrans Park And Ride. And they didn't want to foot have him drawing off their power. Except that each of those things has a point. If one arm of the government is planning to slam down a water pump on that land, CalTrans can't just up and sell it. That's kinda the point that CalTrans is trying to make, they aren't so monolithic that the same guys selling that parcel of land to the City would know what each different branch of CalTrans would want that particular part for. Have you ever tried to run an organization? Like, at ALL? In my McD's you have to check with three people to make sure you can trade shifts, because each of those people is involved in the hours you work and the shift you work. CalTrans is that taken to a different magnitude of organization. And to say that much less bureaucracy would be magically better is asinine and short sighted. Again, it's not a memorial yet. I don't know what it's classified as, but a hole in the ground is not a memorial. There's nothing in the law that explicitly says that I can't scream "GUN" at an airport. It's stupid to do, but technically I've still got the legal ability to do it. BUT due to legal precedent, I can't and would be jailed for endangering public safety due to the panic and hysteria. This is CalTrans property, and they've been burned for allowing flags to remain up before, so they are trying to play it safe. There's a legal precedent that they cannot display a flag on their highways, particularly as political "speech". And whether you like it or not, a flag and memorial have become a form of political speech becuase of the people that push for them to be some sort of magically untouchable thing. In El Dorado Hills, there was a rock that sat on a hill side that the kids could paint and write little messages on. After 9/11 and the wars started, it got painted with "we support our troops" and the entire thing became a battleground because one camp said it was now sacred and that message should never be taken down as a monument to the troops, while the other side said "No, it's something for the kids to mess around with!". Eventually somebody got a second giant rock and things got even more insane. THAT is why CalTrans is attempting to freeze this issue. Because no matter what they do, some pea brained idiot like you, or the reporter at the standard, will turn the entire situation into a political row if they don't get their way. There's a vast difference between a restoration, and just building something new. Generally the first requires much less money than the second, particularly in situations like this, and can be used as a community outreach program.

Yes he was, and I'm saying that the reason CalTrans was saying "No" to various things (although they're obviously getting pettier) was because the guy didn't want to follow the rules. He wanted to have lights for an American flag plugged into another property. Source? That was the closest electrical service to there, probably bringing it in from elsewhere would be prohibitively expensive. And does it say anywhere he was unwilling to compensate them for the cost of electricity? Plus the usage of one light would be miniscule compared to an entire park-and-ride. He wanted to put in the middle of the memorial, not right by the sidewalk. What law tells you you can't put your country's flag in a memorial, that's insane. It wasn't a memorial yet (you're acting like everything is said and done), and thus was governed by the same laws as your jackoff neighbor who wants to run up the flag of the USSR. And to the Electricity, true, the lightbulbs required might not have cost that much overall to power, but it's still him and his memorial using the energy, not the park-and-ride. And if they allow a precedent to be set, they're SOL when another memorial that's built like a christmas tree shows up and asks to be put on a CalTrans meter. I mean, would you let your neighbor steal your cable? It's not like it costs you anything in the long run... Everyone agreed intiailly to sell the very tiny parcel of land that Caltrans didn't have any use for to the county, not to him. It was just a way to try to avoid all the ridiculous bureaucratic requirements. The sale was supposed to be at a nominal fee, your house appraisal doesn't cost $10000 . True, but my house isn't directly next to a freeway, and considered public land. To steal from the article "“In order to sell its property, Caltrans is required to review and approve metes and bounds, draft property descriptions for fair market appraisal, and obtain review and approval by the Right of Way Division, the Environmental Division, the Project Development Division, and Maintenance and Operations Division of Caltrans to ensure that no other public projects require the property and that there are no archaeological or environmental impediments to the relinquishing of the property. “This process requires extensive public labor and other resources. A conservative estimate to cover the cost of these resources is $10,000.” " To get that one process done it had to go through everyone that'd possibly want to use it at CalTrans, then had to be appraised, and then checked to see if anything would be damaged if they did sell it. All of that costs money and time, which they were asking him to pay for. They're pretty specific about the flags not being near the state highways. And initially, CalTrans probably didn't care WHAT the land was being used for, all they cared about was that they wouldn't get in legal hot water over it. For the purposes of the law, it doesn't matter if it's flying over the freeway, or held by a giant statue of Uncle Sam stomping on the enemy of the decade, All that matters to them is that it conforms to zoning laws and ordinances about public displays. Source? When was the mural painted? There is a date of 2005 in your picture. Then why is the park a Transportation Art project? And why did Caltrans have to sanction it? And what better place? He wants to put it by a miltiary base where it'll be visible and accessible to the public. Is a memorial to people who died for their country something to hide and keep off public land? I can't believe we're even having this argument, you guys have been completely brainwashed by the left. http://www.chicanoparksandiego.com/history/page2.html So CalTrans might not even have to do anything on upkeep. And the mural was painted in the 1970's by Chicano's who were expressing their cultural identity.

Yes he was, and I'm saying that the reason CalTrans was saying "No" to various things (although they're obviously getting pettier) was because the guy didn't want to follow the rules. He wanted to have lights for an American flag plugged into another property. He wanted to be able to put that American flag where he chose (Which he can't, particularly on public land). He put the flag where the Law said he could. And whined when they wouldn't let him change the sidewalk so it let him do what it wanted. He wanted Caltrans to sell him extra land so he could do his initial plan, but refused to pay for an appraisal (basically). Even when you sell your house, you HAVE TO get an appraisal dude. And now he's switched it from a memorial to an art project. An art project which falls under different guidelines with CalTrans. And on the flag thing And persuant to that, they consider that the monument would end up falling under that. The Chicano park was built in... wait for it... 19 bloody 70. Before the Brown ruling existed, and when racial tensions were peaking with Chicanos trying to find their racial identity again. Here's the mural they're complaining about

California has non-city funded public transit? WHAT MADDNESS IS THIS!? Also, I think the reason they brought up Chicano Park is because Chicano Park features those "dirty commies" that the right hate so much, so this private citizen decided he was going to build the antethesis. And from the first paragraph, I get the feeling that it's not just a case of "woe is me" but more a case of "the guy who's setting this up is a complete jerk, and feels Caltrans should jump to his fiddle". They appear to be relatively cheap, wanting caltrans to pay for everything they ask except the actual monuments. I mean the whole thing with the flag pole? These guys practically demanded that it be put in place, and used a law that said that flagpoles can be placed next to streets to get it done. That's from an article specifically about the flag. And if you look at it from another view "OTORA" is asking if they can have the park and ride pay for their electricity, and then are whining that they actually have to do work for the flag. Gives me the feeling this is less "A patriotic citizen can't do something patriotic" and more "A jerk doesn't want to follow the rules".

You do realize that none of the shotgun pellets stayed IN the watermelon right? The fact that it splits has to do with the nature of the rind and flesh, nothing else. Both an AR with ball ammo and a shotgun with #00 are unlikely to overpenetrate unless at point blank range. And? The idea is that the energy would be expended in a different manner, which could be more destructive. And it's not the Splitting. It's the fact hat one flat out disappears, while the other it's still mostly intact.

This has been frustrating me. The Bushmaster was used in the shooting, along with the pistols. The gun kept in the car was Izhmash Canta-12 12-gauge shotgun. The AR was the primary weapon used in the shooting. http://www.greenwichtime.com/newtownshooting/article/State-Police-All-26-Newtown-victims-shot-with-4220548.php