Seraphim's forum posts

#1 Posted by Seraphim (104 posts) -
@example1013: I apologize if you were joking, but the question says how long will it take to decay to  99.9999% of its original value, not how long will it take for 99.9999% of it to decay.  Thus the result makes sense, since we're only asking how long it will take for a very small portion to disappear (namely .0001% of it).
#2 Posted by Seraphim (104 posts) -

Happy Birthday Vinny!

#3 Posted by Seraphim (104 posts) -

As I'm sure we all heard, Vinny is out for complications regarding the eye.  On an earlier bombcast, he also mentioned that he was seeing spots, and Ryan alluded to his having contracted macular degeneration.  Just thought this would be a good place to post our well wishes.  Vinny can power through color blindness, but plain-old regular blindness might be a little tougher.


FEEL BETTER!!
#4 Edited by Seraphim (104 posts) -

first?  Fuck me...; oh well, no Speed tree, then I'm out.

#5 Posted by Seraphim (104 posts) -

Romeo and Juliet, Suite No. 2, Op 64c: Montagues and Capulets.  It's one of those classical pieces that once you hear you'll realize you've heard it a bunch of other places.

#6 Posted by Seraphim (104 posts) -

Honestly, Sentinel is the way bigger problem, at least in the short-term.  Like someone else said, just keep a beam character/assist, and a rush-down character, and you'll be fine.

#7 Posted by Seraphim (104 posts) -

Because he is secretly the Christ-figure in their trilogy.  In the upcoming Call of Duty: Resurrection, he comes back!

#8 Posted by Seraphim (104 posts) -

So, Cali senator Leland Yee proposed a law which banned the sale of violent video games to minors punishable by a fine of $1000.  The Supreme Court is considering the constitutionality of such a law. (Schwarzenneger is on the side of California obviously).  The EMA is the side contesting this.  Violent was defined vaguely, but tried to stick close to the same criteria we use for censoring sexual content (lacks artistic, literary, etc. merit; and is gruesome and offends community standards...).  The lower courts struck it down as unconstitutional, but the Supreme Court did agree to hear it which means they might not necessarily agree with their reasoning.  Yee is calling for a free speech exception on the grounds that these games are psychologically harmful to children, and cites Ginsberg as analogous case law.  Thoughts?

#9 Posted by Seraphim (104 posts) -
#10 Edited by Seraphim (104 posts) -

Hey guys, I know there are some threads on this already, but they didn't really get to the heart of what I was wondering.  I know that since this is a video game enthusiast forum board, it's unlikely that anyone will support the law.  However, I would like to know what your argument is against it, and whether or not you actually think this is unconstitutional, or if it's just a stupid law to have on the books in general (and why you think that).  I have to do this assignment for an English class research project, so any feedback would be much appreciated. 
  
EDIT: Also, if you do not mind, please indicate whether you yourself are a minor, (only if you're comfortable doing so). 

Thanks guys, 
~Seraphim