QuistisTrepe

@xyzygy: IIRC, if this is a master key, the same used for running only digitally signed software and for PSN authentication, then someone could potentially be able to write new "signed" software to work within custom firmwares that could be used for cheats and other exploits in online gaming.

I'd have to say that this is a good thing. If Sony insists on removing features that PS3 owners paid for, then I see no reason why hackers shouldn't take it right back. The only problem is that a lot of these exploits have some nasty collateral damage such as opening the way for piracy, online cheating, etc. I would hate to see PSN users being harmed as a result of this.

But hey, getting PCSX2 installed onto a hacked PS3 would feel like justice.

In a way I suppose, both games were released past their time. MP3 would have been a more significant game if it had been released five years ago. Doom 3 was mediocre to the point that it didn't keep up with its contemporaries. I thought it was funny back in the day how the hype machine for Doom 3 was huge only to be completely outclassed by Far Cry.

Downloading games that are mostly over a decade old (sometimes two decades) is about as morally repugnant as jaywalking IMO. Besides, I prefer to think of it as art preservation. I don't even know that I would call that piracy to be honest.

@Wrighteous86 said:

@Wrighteous86 said:

Honestly, Media Matters was just the first link that showed up when I searched for the information.

You make some strong points, some of which I agree with, and some of which I don't. I appreciate the fact that you can back them up though, and I respect your opinion.

I realized after the fact that the MM link appeared at the top of Google search. I understand now that you posted the link as an aggregate source. At first I had thought you were being a typical partisan internet douche, but I see now that you're merely somebody with a different opinion with a solid argument. I overreacted a bit and for that I apologize for initially coming off as a bit hotheaded.

@Wrighteous86 said:

@QuistisTrepe said:

@Wrighteous86: Well fuck me, if Media Matters says it, then it MUST be true!

Way to be dismissive, but there are links to and quotes from genuine studies and quotes from experts, in addition to excerpts and articles from the Wall Street Journal. The information is also out there. Rather than combat my points and information with counter-points and information, you went with "teh bias". While Media Matters is a skewed site, you can find this information anywhere, and they directly quoted independent studies and sources.

I assume your silence concedes to the fact that gas prices were $3-$4 throughout 2008 (which is both easily found online on the record, and I can confirm with anecdotal evidence since I drove back and forth to and from college in 2008 and can specifically remember what I was paying for in gas on those trips), that the President has little effect on gas prices, and that we can't win back manufacturing jobs without lowering the standards we expect provided to American citizens. These are all basically factual statements. Yet you will likely ignore this information, knowing that you can't prove it's wrong but you just "feel" it's wrong, and vote comfortably knowing that Obama is the reason gas prices are so high and we are leaking jobs permanently to China, and that some other candidate can cure these economic ills much better.

EDIT: The 2nd link in a google search for "Gas $4 in 2008" was a 2008 article from CNN Money asking why "Gas prices have grown to $4".

A Washington Post article where oil experts and economists explain that the president has no real influence on gas prices.

Hey look, a Forbes article about how manufacturing jobs in general are shrinking, and that countries should start focusing on creating highly-skilled workers for the more advanced jobs that a more tech-dependent society will require.

But yeah, your gut probably knows better than CNN Money, oil experts, economists, the Washington Post, historical facts and trends, recordings, anecdotal information, Forbes writers, business analysts, and Obama combined.

When you post things from a partisan website, you're not going to be taken seriously by anyone, just sayin'. I do see that you have a penchant for dabbling in logical fallacies with unfortunate frequency.

While it is indeed true that the executive branch has only limited means to control the cost of a globally traded commodity such as oil, those limited means are significant nonetheless. Citing weak demand as a reason for lower gas prices (and the demand is never weak) due to a wrecked economy requires one to ignore facts. See, your pals at Media Matters would have us forget about how far the dollar has fallen. The dollar has taken quite a beating in the Obama years, but what else do you expect to happen when you keep printing money to solve your problems? (sorry, unintended Ron Paul moment) As a result, stuff costs more when you make your purchases with a devalued currency. You don't have to have a master's degree in economics to work that out.

Oh, and what did we buy with all that stimulus cash anyways? Did we not try to lower our demand on foreign oil with all those crony capitalism green tech startups? How did that work out? Oh wait, energy prices continued to rise! Was the demand strong all of a sudden? Oh wait, gas prices must have risen so much because the recovery has already occurred and things are all better now. At least this is what we're meant to believe. Yeah, I sure feel the recovery every time I drive up and down the I-880 on my $4.70 per gallon gasoline and looking over at that empty Solyndra building.

@Wrighteous86: Well fuck me, if Media Matters says it, then it MUST be true!

@Wrighteous86 said:

@QuistisTrepe said:

After letting the dust settle, I would call the debate a draw overall, though leaning towards Romney. Regardless of the rest of the debate, Romney completely took Obama apart on the only topic that actually matters, the economy. It was so laughably one-sided and to top it off Obama made what will go down as one of the biggest gaffes in the history of presidential debates:

"He said when I took office, the price of gasoline was $1.80, $1.86. Why is that? Because the economy was on the verge of collapse"

You could tell right there he didn't know what he was talking about. That kind of comment is Biden/Palin-esque, that's the gaffe of all gaffes. Also, Obama unwittingly provided the Romney campaign with a pretty damning sound bite with his comment, "There are some jobs that aren't going to come back." How well do you think that sat with residents of Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan?

Also, the president has little to no control over the price of gas, so that argument has always been moot.

And in regards to some jobs not coming back? The truth hurts. The only way we are getting some of those jobs back is to lower the amount of restrictions we have on businesses regarding wages, hours, working conditions, etc. Capitalism has determined that China and other countries are more cost-effective. Unless we go back to The Jungle, or other countries start protecting the rights of their citizens as well as we do, we've lost those jobs forever. The trick is to create new jobs, in fields where America is competitive.

People really need to educate themselves before they vote. I'd rather an uninformed citizen not vote than vote on assumptions or misinformation, no matter which side they're on.

I'm aware that the executive branch only has limited influence on the cost of energy prices, but that wasn't my point and I'm quite sure you knew that. Obama's statement indicated the utter lack of even a rudimentary understanding of how economics works. That's why the comment was a gaffe.

The comment about jobs was an attempt to excuse his administration's awful record, (which Obama cannot run on) to push the concept of "the new normal" and followed it up with vacuous rhetoric about creating "higher skill" jobs as though he could snap his fingers and make that magically happen. Unless Obama happens to run a major tech company, it was a bullshit statement. I agree that globalization has changed everything forever, but the reality is that we're not encouraging job growth right now, (sorry, involuntary part time jobs don't count) no one is being offered full-employment and things will only get worse in 2014 with the full implementation of ACA. The truth hurts.

After letting the dust settle, I would call the debate a draw overall, though leaning towards Romney. Regardless of the rest of the debate, Romney completely took Obama apart on the only topic that actually matters, the economy. It was so laughably one-sided and to top it off Obama made what will go down as one of the biggest gaffes in the history of presidential debates:

"He said when I took office, the price of gasoline was $1.80, $1.86. Why is that? Because the economy was on the verge of collapse"

You could tell right there he didn't know what he was talking about. That kind of comment is Biden/Palin-esque, that's the gaffe of all gaffes. Also, Obama unwittingly provided the Romney campaign with a pretty damning sound bite with his comment, "There are some jobs that aren't going to come back." How well do you think that sat with residents of Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan?

Definitely, I thought it was worth it at full price. In fact, it was just the second game of this console gen that I've purchased at launch.