The Unofficial Official Chat Thread

[Ramirezoid]

I wonde rif my cd key for h2 will work or if I’kll have to buy the steam version?

Also halo 3 has the most comfortable use of motion blur I’ve ever seen. Almsot completely offsets the unintentional blurring you get out of most upscaled 720p wonky-ass refresh rated 360 experiences

[sersoft]

does anyone know if there is a triplehead fix for Dead Island? I love how well optimized this game is, it wants to run but all the menus are stretched and mostly rendered off screen.

[Winged_One]

What are you doing playing Dead Island, mang?

[sersoft]

I just got around to trying it.

[bur]

playing F.E.A.R. for the first time, it’s pretty awesome, but quite easy

[Kairouseki]

^Play it on a higher difficulty

I’ve never really liked Halo too much but I’d be willing to try playing again if they’re ported to PC and on Steam so I don’t have to pirate them.

[bur]

playing it on extreme, it’s the highest one

[Pyroclase]

@bur

playing F.E.A.R. for the first time, it’s pretty awesome, but quite easy

This is the chat thread, not “what game are you playing”.

[Kairouseki]

Hm, I’m playing on hardest difficulty too and dying quite a bit. I die in like 1 or 2 shots usually.

[Winged_One]

Maybe you just suck?

[Kairouseki]

[Nerdguy]

Try to beat the game without using slow mo

[Bloodshot]

Actually the last time I played fear on the hardest difficulty I remember thinking slowmo made even the hardest difficulty not too bad. I didn’t really die unless I chose not to use slowmo.

[bur]

yeah, i just use slowmo when i’ll probably die if i dont

even still, it’s pretty easy for extreme, it’s not easy but its not that hard either

[Chickenprotector]

Incase you’ve lived under a rock:

In case you missed it, or just saw people screaming about it on Facebook, the US Supreme Court just ruled that the federal government will now recognize gay marriages as legitimate (specifically, that the Defense of Marriage Act that had been preventing it, was unconstitutional). BUT individual states are still free to pass their own laws.

Millions of people, most of whom are neither gay nor looking to get same-sex married, are loudly asking on the internet how exactly this case impacts their life.

https://i.crackedcdn.com/phpimages/quickfix/9/5/7/188957.gif?v=2
The Free Republic Message Board

For them we have provided a handy guide:

If You Are a Homosexual and Are Already Married:

The federal government now recognizes your marriage as a thing, and you are eligible for tax, health and pension benefits under federal law like any other married couple, pending further political shenanigans. You can file taxes jointly, all that shit.

If You Are a Homosexual and Want to Get Married:

This does nothing to affect you UNLESS you live in California. States are still free to decide whether or not same-sex marriage is legal, if you live in Mississippi this does not help you. But, the voter initiative to ban gay marriage in California is now dead, pending further legal challenges or other fuckery.

If You Are a Heterosexual and Do NOT Want to Enter Into a Homosexual Marriage:

You will not be required to marry a gay person. This is a common misunderstanding. This decision actually does not affect you in any way.

https://i.crackedcdn.com/phpimages/quickfix/9/7/2/188972.jpg?v=1

If You Are Currently in a Heterosexual Marriage:

This decision does not affect you in any way.

If You Are a Heterosexual Who is Not Currently Married:

This decision does not affect you in any way.

If You Are a Heterosexual Who Hopes to Eventually Marry:

This decision does not affect you in any way.

If You Are a Member of a Church That Performs Wedding Ceremonies But That Does Not Believe in Gay Marriage:

This decision does not affect you in any way.

If You Are a Religious Official Who Performs Wedding Ceremonies But Who Thinks Gay Marriage is Wrong:

This decision does not affect you in any way.

If You Are an Individual Who Believes Gay Marriage or Homosexuality in General is Wrong for Religious Reasons, and Wish to Continue Expressing Those Beliefs:

This decision does not affect you in any way.

If You Are an Individual Who Believes Gay Marriage or Homosexuality in General is Wrong for Non-Religious Reasons, and Wish to Continue Expressing Those Beliefs:

This decision does not affect you in any way.

If You Are a Heterosexual Who Fears This Decision Adversely Affects Your Marriage or the Concept of Marriage in General:

This decision does not affect you in any way.

If You Are a Heterosexual Who Fears This Decision Negatively Affects You in Some Way:

This decision does not affect you in any way.

If You Are a Heterosexual Who Suffers Anger or Anxiety at the Thought of Gay Couples Getting Married as an Abstract Concept, and Believes the Only Cure is to Legally Prevent Gay Marriage:

This decision will cause you some degree of anger or anxiety. Otherwise, this decision does not affect you in any way.

Hope this helps!

Check the links if you want further proof. You can also google DOMA…

On a side note: I LOVE how this is bringing out all the religious nut-jobs out of the wood work.

[amazingcomedy]

I can’t believe that gay marriage is an issue. Marriage is a stupid tradition in my opinion, but still, if two people want to get married, who cares if they’re straight or gay?

What’s rich is how the people who claim to be about little government intervention, absolute freedom, etc are the very people who want the government to be in every single part of your life: the conservatives.

[Fnork]

About damn time.

Maybe the US can finally move on to actual political issues now.

[Chickenprotector]

@Fnork

About damn time.

Maybe the US can finally move on to actual political issues now.

5-4 yes and no. It ain’t over, but congress sucks at keeping its act together. I’d be happy if they would focus on bringing down those lobbyists who work the prison system(s) and other stupid shit…

There’s also my political leaning about giving the fucking states incentives for overhauling the road systems and infrastructure inside of their borders because they won’t do it otherwise.

[k3nny1550]

The government shouldn’t be defining what marriage is or isn’t. It’s no one’s business but the people getting married, in my opinion at least.
The case’s manner of getting to the Supreme Court, however, was a bit strange.

Pulled from the dissenting opinion of Justice Anton Scalia:[scroll to page 35]

The Court is eager—hungry—to tell everyone its view of
the legal question at the heart of this case. Standing in
the way is an obstacle, a technicality of little interest to
anyone but the people of We the People, who created it as
a barrier against judges’ intrusion into their lives. They
gave judges, in Article III, only the “judicial Power,” a
power to decide not abstract questions but real, concrete “Cases” and “Controversies.”

Yet the plaintiff and the Government agree entirely on what should happen in this
lawsuit. They agree that the court below got it right; and
they agreed in the court below that the court below that
one got it right as well. What, then, are we doing here?

The answer lies at the heart of the jurisdictional portion
of today’s opinion, where a single sentence lays bare the
majority’s vision of our role. The Court says that we have
the power to decide this case because if we did not, then
our “primary role in determining the constitutionality of
a law” (at least one that “has inflicted real injury on a
plaintiff ”) would “become only secondary to the President’s.”
Ante, at 12.

But wait, the reader wonders—Windsor won
below, and so cured her injury, and the President was glad
to see it. True, says the majority, but judicial review must
march on regardless, lest we “undermine the clear dictate
of the separation-of-powers principle that when an Act of
Congress is alleged to conflict with the Constitution, it is
emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.”

That is jaw-dropping. It is an assertion of judicial supremacy over the people’s Representatives in Congress
and the Executive. It envisions a Supreme Court standing
(or rather enthroned) at the apex of government, empowered to decide all constitutional questions, always and every-
where “primary” in its role. image of the Court would have been unrecognizable
to those who wrote and ratified our national charter. They
knew well the dangers of “primary” power, and so created
branches of government that would be “perfectly coordinate by the terms of their common commission,” none
of which branches could “pretend to an exclusive or superior right of settling the boundaries between their respective powers.”
The Federalist, No. 49, p. 314 (C. Rossiter
ed. 1961) (J. Madison).

The people did this to protect themselves. They did it to guard their right to self-rule
against the black-robed supremacy that today’s majority
finds so attractive. So it was that Madison could confidently state, with no fear of contradiction, that there was
nothing of “greater intrinsic value” or “stamped with the
authority of more enlightened patrons of liberty” than a
government of separate and coordinate powers.

For this reason we are quite forbidden to say what the
law is whenever (as today’s opinion asserts) “‘an Act of
Congress is alleged to conflict with the Constitution.’”
Ante, at 12. We can do so only when that allegation will
determine the outcome of a lawsuit, and is contradicted by
the other party. The “judicial Power” is not, as the majority believes, the power “‘to say what the law is,’” ibid.,
giving the Supreme Court the “primary role in determining the constitutionality of laws.” The majority must have
in mind one of the foreign constitutions that pronounces
such primacy for its constitutional court and allows that
primacy to be exercised in contexts other than a lawsuit.
See, e.g., Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany,
Art. 93. The judicial power as Americans have understood
it (and their English ancestors before them) is the power
to adjudicate, with conclusive effect, disputed government claims (civil or criminal) against private persons, and
disputed claims by private persons against the government or other private persons. Sometimes (though not
always) the parties before the court disagree not with
regard to the facts of their case (or not only with regard to
the facts) but with regard to the applicable law—in which
event (and only in which event) it becomes the “‘province
and duty of the judicial department to say what the law
is.’” Ante, at 12.
In other words, declaring the compatibility of state or
federal laws with the Constitution is not only not the
“primary role” of this Court, it is not a separate, free-standing role at all. We perform that role incidentally—by
accident, as it were—when that is necessary to resolve the
dispute before us. Then, and only then, does it become
“‘the province and duty of the judicial department to say
what the law is.’” That is why, in 1793, we politely declined the Washington Administration’s request to “say
what the law is” on a particular treaty matter that was
not the subject of a concrete legal controversy.

Yes, that’s a big chunk from the opinion, but if the case was basically pushed up the courts in such a manner, isn’t that a little odd? If every lower court agreed with the plaintiff, there shouldn’t have been a reason for pushing it up the chain of courts. The only one I can think of is that the case was deliberately being forced up the chain of courts to ensure the Supreme Court could enforce the decision on the whole country, which could complicate the state’s rights vs. federal jurisdiction issue a great deal. Thankfully, the decision only states that “you can’t ban gay marriage,” rather than forcing all states to recognize it.

Again, not arguing with the results- just the methods by which we got them.

[CatzEyes93]

Many have known about this for a LONG time. For years, there has been a VERY purposeful and hand picked selection of very specific cases that have been pushed up and promoted to go in front of the Supreme Court for the reason of making exact and grand sweeping changes in the U.S.

To be honest, this behavior and tactic is old news.