SpaceInsomniac's forum posts

#1 Posted by SpaceInsomniac (3630 posts) -

@ares42 said:

I'm curious about the ps4 version, but considering I already own and have played a ton of the game on PC already I'd really want to try it before I buy it. Would suck to buy the game again only to realize that it's just an inferior version.

If you already have the reaper of souls expansion, probably don't bother. If you only have the main game, I think it might be worth it. Lots of people seem to really enjoy playing it with a controller, and I believe a demo is available for PS3 and 360 if you want to get a rough idea of how using a controller with the game would feel.

There are also some console only exclusive features, but the next PC update will bring its own set of exclusive features--mostly tied to leader boards--so do your research before you decide which to pickup.

#2 Edited by SpaceInsomniac (3630 posts) -

@milkman said:

By the way, if anyone was wondering about what's going on in Ferguson, things took a turn for the worse last night and a curfew has been put in place for tonight starting at midnight. A lot of people seem to anticipate that tonight could get ugly and there's has been a very heavy police presence already.

@extomar said:

This seems to be a case where the police are making every mistake they can make even though they are trying to act in good faith at multiple points. At this stage the only way to get this to stop is to get the governor involved and the national guard because none of the local authorities have shown they are any better than circus clowns making up the act as they stumble along.

@brodehouse said:

A curfew is not law being enforced, a curfew is a new law. A curfew designed to prevent people from being capable of committing crimes is like a restriction on entering banks designed to prevent bank robberies.

I used to work overnight shifts at a gas station (because I'm privileged!), and I can imagine how upset I would be to be treated like a criminal for walking to work. This evening, after I finished my shift (at a different company and position, thank Fuck), I walked to a 24 hour store and bought root beer, and I can imagine how upset I would be to be treated like a criminal for buying groceries.

@themasterds said:

@viciousbearmauling: Then martial law were declared, a curfew put in place and the thugs came back out to play.

Something probably worth noting for those blaming the curfew on the local police:

http://www.ksdk.com/story/news/local/2014/08/17/small-crowds-defiant-as-ferguson-curfew-begins/14192029/

Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon declared a state of emergency and imposed a curfew in Ferguson, Mo., Saturday.

...

"If we're going to have justice, we must first have and maintain peace," Nixon said of the curfew at a Saturday afternoon press conference. "The eyes of the world are watching."

...

Margaret Huang, deputy executive director of Amnesty International USA, disagrees with the curfew.

"It's clear that the community doesn't feel heard," Huang says. "It's hard to build trust when the governor won't meet with community members and restricts their movements with a curfew. The people of Ferguson should not have their rights further restricted."

For those who might be wondering about political affiliation, Jay Nixon is a democrat.

#3 Edited by SpaceInsomniac (3630 posts) -

@viciousbearmauling: Cops started smear campaign on the boy to justify his murder. No effort was put into the murder, no witnesses were talked to. Instead the police have focused on character assassinating the kid who was literally assassinated. Then martial law were declared, a curfew put in place and the thugs came back out to play.

Both sides wanted something different and it couldn't work out. The protesters want justice and the cops want absolute impunity.

The cops released that video / information because they had to under Missouri's sunshine request law. It's pretty obvious that such an action would lead to more hostility, so I don't think they would have done so without someone forcing their hand. The same information could have just as easily come out in a courtroom months from now, after tensions had died down.

It would have been just as beneficial then to the defense attorney, who will probably attempt to tell a narrative of a man who robbed a convenience store, and was therefore more likely to resist arrest / fight with an officer than a random black guy just walking down the middle of the street. Ultimately, witness testimony is going to be the most important thing, especially if someone witnessed the entire event, and not just what happened after shots were heard. One or two people saying that Brown never reached for the officers gun, and I would hope this would be an open and shut case.

If that were true, the officer couldn't even claim that the adrenaline got to him or whatever, because he would be lying about what caused him to draw his weapon in the first place.

#4 Posted by SpaceInsomniac (3630 posts) -

I'm playing it, but so far stealth isn't very easy for me at the beginning of the game, and I know that killing too many people will get you the bad ending, which kind of sucks. I'm probably going to just say screw it, finish the game killing everyone, and then watch the good ending on You Tube. I've never been a big fan of stealth in FPS games.

But yes, it's a great title for Games with Gold.

#5 Edited by SpaceInsomniac (3630 posts) -

@spraynardtatum said:

@spaceinsomniac said:

@spraynardtatum said:

That video is terrifying and exactly why they shouldn't be in control of the cameras. Also, we would have evidence of Michael Brown being shot if their was simply a dashcam.

You keep saying that, but I don't think you're explaining yourself very well. WHY should they not be "in control" of the cameras? You're acting like they're going to edit footage as if they were creating a movie or something, but either the footage would be UNCUT or it wouldn't. There's not much of an issue being "in control" of video that you have to present in its entirety, uncut and unedited.

Perhaps I'm wrong and there's something I'm overlooking that you're not explaining very well. If that's the case, then I'll be happy to listen to a better explanation.

Lastly, a dashcam wouldn't have picked up any video from the side of the car, which is likely where the majority of the altercation took place.

People don't like to be filmed. Especially when they're caught doing something bad. Or if they're being accused of doing something bad. 99% of people wouldn't want to be filmed while being questioned by a police officer, that statistic may be completely made up but I think it should be higher. People are already on edge when they're being questioned by cops and the last thing the officer needs is another excuse for their perp to feel cornered.

It would severely hinder the usefulness of our Miranda Rights. The right to remain silent disappears. Innocent people/guilty people could inadvertently incriminate themselves without knowing to a much further extent than right now. Unless we all just hired lawyers to walk around with us at sporting events or around police cars.

Now I understand a little bit more where you're coming from, but if you're being arrested and you're going to be interviewed by the police, you're already going to be recorded. It's not a matter of not wanting to be filmed by a police officer while being questioned, because it's already going to happen.

If you've never seen this before, I highly recommend watching the entire video. It's very informative and entertaining.

#6 Posted by SpaceInsomniac (3630 posts) -

@inspectorfowler: Thank for your input. Not that I'm going to ask you to be too specific, but are you a police officer in the US, and if so which state?

#8 Posted by SpaceInsomniac (3630 posts) -

Not to oversimplify things, but that argument comes down to "If you give cops video recorders, they could just turn them off, so it's better that they don't have them at all," right?

No video ever is somehow better than some video sometimes, and some highly suspicious "technical problems" where video can't be made available at other times, right?

I'm sorry, but that still doesn't make a lot of sense.

#9 Edited by SpaceInsomniac (3630 posts) -

@spraynardtatum said:

That video is terrifying and exactly why they shouldn't be in control of the cameras. Also, we would have evidence of Michael Brown being shot if their was simply a dashcam.

You keep saying that, but I don't think you're explaining yourself very well. WHY should they not be "in control" of the cameras? You're acting like they're going to edit footage as if they were creating a movie or something, but either the footage would be UNCUT or it wouldn't. There's not much of an issue being "in control" of video that you have to present in its entirety, uncut and unedited.

Perhaps I'm wrong and there's something I'm overlooking that you're not explaining very well. If that's the case, then I'll be happy to listen to a better explanation.

Lastly, a dashcam wouldn't have picked up any video from the side of the car, which is likely where the majority of the altercation took place.

#10 Posted by SpaceInsomniac (3630 posts) -

@gaspower said:

I'm not disputing that it's fool proof but it's much better than not having it at all. Whether or not it'll be prone to abuse is possible but that is another step that would need to be taken to deter that kind of behavior. It is not the perfect solution but again, from the looks of it, its better that we start having it than doing nothing at all about it.

I'd like to point out that there were cops in Ferguson with camera head mounts and it didn't AT ALL change the way that they were handling themselves.

I'll say it again. You're giving them more power to abuse if you require cops to film everything they see.

Did any of them kill an unarmed suspect?

If the officer who killed Michael Brown was wearing a camera, and the police could present an uncut video of everything that occurred from right before he first saw Brown until the moment after he fired his last shot, don't you think that would help paint an accurate picture of what really happened?

@leebmx said:
@spraynardtatum said:

@leebmx: I think it would be ludicrous to put a camera on every police officer and a huge invasion of privacy but that's probably the way things are going. Sure it may keep some of them in line but a camera would probably be used more against citizens than the actual police officers.

I don't see how it would be an invasion of privacy. They wouldn't have to wear it at home or anything, just when they are interacting with the public. It has already been trialled in areas of the US and UK and complaints of police malpractice drop significantly.

I can only see benefits really. It keeps the police in line and stops the naughty citizens from making stuff up. I am not really sure how it would be used against citizens - how were you thinking this might happen?

It would be Googoo Glass but government controlled and that freaks me the fuck out. I'm sorry but that's just not something I want. If a police officer is abusing their power someone could just take out their phone and document it. Agreed? I think adding a camera to their uniform would just give them more power to abuse. If they store all of that video data they could later scrub through it and do god knows what with it.

Oh, you mean like this?