Amentep

I never tried to dispute it. All I said is that just because the monopoly of violence is held by the state doesn't mean that any action of a police officer automatically means the officer will commit violence. And you apparently are asserting that anything a police officer asks you, whether its "Let me see your ID", "Pull over, you're speeding" or "Stop stabbing people and put down the knife" is somehow the time to not comply and resist? I admit I don't get your point unless its "Lets stick it to the man! Down with pigs!" Or I have the common sense to (a) get out of the rain and (b) let people do their jobs in a larger society. But at this point, I'm sure there's no real dialogue to be had here.

Depends on the state. Illinois and New York salts, Washington State and Oregon uses sand or those road mixtures, IIRC.

I usually decide when I'm doing character creation. What character idea appeals to me the most at that time. And I also restart a lot, so picking a dude or dudette for first go around may not mean anything in respect to who I finish with. If I like a game enough I'll evenentually get to all the possible combinations around.

As I recall most states don't legislate it (other than saying when they can be used). A couple like Colorado require commercial vehicles to carry chains in their car during certain periods or are like New York who require chains/snow tires if a snow emergency is declared.

Yeah I liked original Fallout 3 on the PC with mods. Well I liked all of Bethesda's games I've played with mods, particularly those that fix bugs and general hideousness (I'm looking at you, Morrowind).

Why would I disobey the officer, unless the request was unlawful? And if the request *was* unlawful I'm pretty much screwed whether the person was a police officer or any other person with a gun. And again, why would I defend myself from a legitimate, reasonable request from a police officer? And if it wasn't a reasonable request, why would I resist (risking being maced, shot, tazed) instead of going to jail and pleading my case before a judge? The general rule of thumb - as I understand it - is play along with people have guns unless they ask you to go to your knees (as at that point you're guaranteed they're going to kill you).

Even going with Webber's theories, the fact that the state owns the monoply of the legitimate use of force does not follow that any command given by law enforcement is backed up solely by the state's monopoly. Its a bit like saying that because a bank holds all of your money that you've deposited, if the teller asks you to show your ID during a transaction that the natural consequence of failure to comply is backed up by the bank permanently taking all of your money. While it might be that ultimately the bank could do that and do it legally, all that is going to happen in the immediate term is the cessation of the transaction. Therefore I stand by my assertion that logically, any given command by a police officer that is not in itself an indicator of escalation to violence is not necessarily backed up by the concept of violence.

I'd pay to own remasters of the games on my PS4, but I'm not sure everyone else would and I think the decision is really in Bethesda's ball court.

I'm guessing that, as a teacher, any threat implicit in your verbal coercion attempts amount to "comply or you will get detention", at worst. When dealing with law enforcement, the implicit threat is "comply or you may be KILLED". Not quite the same thing... I hope. I'd think that - for the majority of cases - the implied threat of an order from law enforcement is "comply or you will be taken to jail" not "comply or I'll shoot your ass".

Sony Computer Entertainment is, AFAIK, the group that handles playstation hardware, R&D and software. Sony Online Entertainment was the MMO division, which AFAIK again was the MMO games and the infrastructure to support them.

Apologies if its been posted before - http://www.platinumgames.co.jp/404/

I guessed it for a different reason - I couldn't believe he'd create a sign using all the space from edge to edge on 5 lines then suddenly center the last two leaving a huge blank area. From there it was easy to spot the letter re-use and find the debunking on Snopes, which led to the original pic.

$.25 in 1974 is like a $1.20 now. However, Fantastic Four (for example) had a PAID SUBSCRIBER BASE of 218,330* in 1974 (average print run 428,583) whereas the estimate for December's issue is 24,716 at $3.99 So for the sake of the math, lets say that Marvel got a third, the printer a third and the post office a third. So with Marvel's 1/3 of the subscriber base's $.25 in 1974, Marvel had $18,194.17 (or $87,367.44 in today's dollars) from the guaranteed sales of Fantastic Four each month. If we assume a similar third situation (Marvel, distributor, comic shop) for Fantastic Four's sales estimate, than Marvel got $32,872.28 on December's issue. So even with the 1596% increase in cost, Marvel is actually making about 38% of what they did in 1974 adjusting for inflation on that specific title. The real answer to decreasing the cost of comics? Get 180,000 more people buying Fantastic Four each month. It'd be great to get comics back on the newsstands except...newstands don't exist any longer by and large. And the chain stores that sale magazines and newspapers make more money per space for those than they do comics. Which is why they stopped selling them in the first place as chain stores put mom and pop stores out of business in the 1970s, which is what necessitated the move to the direct market in the early 1980s in the first place. *Almost twice the current estimated sales of the top Batman title

Pic is manipulated. Real picture here - http://blogs.riverfronttimes.com/dailyrft/2014/10/jailhouse_tales_an_protester_who_was_arrested_sunday_night_tells_about_her_experience.php Snopes article - http://www.snopes.com/photos/politics/fergusonsign.asp

Or you'll get the really great Ms. Marvel character and series. Cheaper paper (and thus worse production values) is probably not going to help anything (unless you're talking reprints only which...probably still isn't going to help). The problem with comics can't be solved without a different distribution model to go along with ensuring they still fill a disposable entertainment niche. Which is why there's so many digital pushes for comics.

I agree that putting 4 friends together + comic relationships isn't inherently gendered. I'm not sure that's all SitC is, but as I've never seen it, I can't really assume one way or the other about it.

I don't see anything in the plot of Ghostbusters that said the four people had to be guys. What inherently about being thrown out of academia and creating a blue collar business in the private sector implies you're a man? I don't get it. Guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

I'd argue that SEX AND THE CITY only works conceptially with a specific gender because its so specific to the relationships of women. Ghostbusters doesn't strike me as an inherently gendered concept, I don't see how you couldn't make those relationships the same with different gendered characters. YMMV. Regarding Aliens, since the Sigourny Weaver part was written as male originally, I wouldn't have a problem with casting a guy as Ripley (or another woman). Similarly I wouldn't have problem if you changed Dallas to a woman or Lambert as a man. I don't think that any of the parts are gender specific (although I do think casting Kane as a woman would bring a lot of additional/different baggage to the storyline). I've never seen that sentiment expressed. Were there people saying Die Hard 3 should have been a Lethal Weapon movie? Or did we all just think it was fun trivia that it started that way? Were there people going around saying that Disturbia should have been Rear Window 2? I don't think Disturbia or Die Hard 3 ended up being their source materials in all but name, which is how I took your implication of making a Ghostbusters film but calling it something else.

Which will lead to everyone saying "I don't understand why they just didn't make it a Ghostbusters movie!" I have to say I don't really see the problem with sequels, reboots or remakes as so many others seem to. Its not like Disney, et al, snuck into my house, knocked me unconsious and stole my copy of the original movies and then made sure I could never, ever see them again. The idea that it "spoils" the earlier film is just maddeningly confusing to me. Does Robert Downey Jr or Benedict Cumberbatch playing Sherlock Holmes suddenly make one forget Jeremy Brett or Basil Rathbone? Does remaking Psycho invalidate Hitch****'s original (or similarly, did the sequels)? Did rebooting Bond invalidate Connery, et al? If you don't want to see it, don't see it. If its good or bad though it doesn't reflect on anything else but itself.

I think its fair to say based on existing statements with the prequels, he was more excited by the technologies he could use than he was in the narrative he told. Even though the original trilogy had its actors complain that Lucas couldn't direct them well around the special effects, the word on the pre-quels was that he was even less able to direct the cast for making sure the special effects pieces were going to work. Mind you I think Lucas also suffers (in some respects) that fandom and Star Wars kept moving without him due to the EU and that created a lot of expectations that Lucas wasn't ever going to fulfill.

I suspect the reality of publishing gets in the way here. Game Reviewers are probably more than likely backgrounded as gamers and not journalists (because one of the pre-requisites is being willing to play a lot of games for a long time). Game Reviewers probably don't get to finish a game before having to review it, making their reviews more of extended hands-on previews than reviews that can discuss the game as a totality (and thus keeping them from making more nuanced critical analysis if that is their want).

I'm not sure I agree - in so much as I think any thing that is created has to be artistic or fail. What I would say is that games could use more art and could use more ambition. If you look at film, for example, we have decades of criticism but we also have some fairly prestigious awards that aren't simple popularity contests. Wonky politics of the Academy Awards or Golden Globes aside, studios see winning those awards as worth the risk of investing in narratives of questionable commercial value. There really doesn't seem to be a non-commercial reward for taking risks in video games (The Spike Video Game awards are essentially a popularity contest and the IGF awards seem to be a vastly different sort of thing than the artistic awards of the motion pictures).

I understand that, I just think that a rating system should be clear and consistant which it doesn't feel like it is with the mixed concepts. In other words, if "Needs Improvement" is the lowest rating, then your average rating should be "No Improvement Necessary" and your highest rating could be "Other games should follow this standard", therefore being clear and consistant. "Needs Improvement" isn't the opposite of "Excellent" (although now I'm thinking "UnExcellent" would make a great low end rating). But again, I'd go for something more complex altogether. Probably a two tiered goals/expectations based review system where each game was reviewed against what it tries to do (goals) and where it fits within its genre and system and even what the reviewer felt it should be (expectations). And I'd probably be the only one who wanted to review it that way. lol.

Oops, posted new instead of editing my previous post. Not really sure how this is relevant to GamersGate - and bothering to discuss it in a GamersGate context (IMO) just feeds the idea that GamersGate isn't about ethics in journalism. Relevant? It's fun goddammit! While gossip about celebrities has always been fodder for entertainment, I'll stick by my assertion that gamersgaters in general are handing the anti-gamersgate group "proof" that gamersgate isn't about ethics in journalism the more people who profess to be part of the movement spend their time talking about the personal lives of the people on the other side.