So your complaining about DLC then?

DLC is no more missing from the game then the pre-order bonuses are. Was the DLC released months after the game came out also missing from the original game then? The game and story is perfectly fine without any of the DLC.

What does the AC mean by that? What content was missing?

Thank you alot for explaining that.

But what information is it trying to add? I see "free (as in beer)" and "free (as in speech)" alot but I have yet to figure out what the difference is between them is.

Any suggestions on where to get started with the microscope stuff? Maybe some amazon links to some products or software, or a hobby website?

The game is actually called...get ready for it...I Wanna Be The Guy: The Movie: The Game. It was designed to be insanely hard and frustrating.

http://kayin.pyoko.org/iwbtg/index.php

I was thinking more along the lines of this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kmd7bsHAhzw&feature=PlayList&p=7DF55B4EC14DFEC3&playnext_from=PL&index=9&playnext=2 at about 7:00 in.

Wait wait wait...there is a frame rate hit when going from XP to 7? That is odd, I could swear that every game I'v played so far has ran BETTER in windows 7 AND I get to run them in DX10.

And Torchlight is suposed to be a single player version of a MMO they are making. The company made Torchlight to fund their MMO.

Brother Cavil said it best. If someone said they could give me a shot and then a few weeks later I would go from thick glasses to better then 20/20 my only question would be "Can I charge it?"

Rats are much better human analogs then politicians.

Finally, an event in my area (Salt Lake) that actually appeals to my interest. Maybe I'll actually leave the house for a few hours next week.

Off topic.
Fuck the "Filter error: Please use fewer 'junk' characters."

Representative
Bradley M. Daw
District 60
Party R

Email: bdaw@utah.gov

Born: February 7
Spouse: Laura
Address: 842 E 280 S, OREM, UT 84097
Home Phone: Work Phone: Cell Phone: 801-850-3608

I sent him a e-mail and actually received a response. Here is the text of my e-mails and his replies with edits to remove my personal information.

-
Dear Rep. Daw,

Today I was deeply offended and appalled to see the article in The Deseret News concerning HB0150. This bill is a clear violation of a citizen's Fourth Amendment right to due process. American citizens should not be subjected to warrant-less searches, and that is exactly what HB0150 does. The law first passed last year was restricted to child-sex crimes, now you want to change it to be restricted to felonies, e-stalking and e-harassment (both are misdemeanors).

What is next, warrant-less searches for supporters of your political opposition? Warrant-less searches of non-Mormons? Can you not see how this law can be abused and the very slippery slope you are on? I thought that republicans were suposed to be opposed to this sort of big government intrusion?

I urge you to reconsider your support for this bill, both on a moral and constitutional grounds.

Thank you,
K
Ogden, UT

-
K,

Citizens are not being subjected to warrantless searches. Citizens aren't being searched at all. All that the subpoena can do is request a phone company or internet service provider to supply the name and address of the account owner of a phone number or IP address. The bill narrowly defines what information can be requested of the business and requires that any subpoena issued has to be put on file with the Commission for Criminal and Juvenile Justice for later review. This is no slippery slope but is, I believe, an appropriate response to anonymity afforded criminals who use the internet and cell phones to commit crime.

Brad Daw

-
Rep. Daw,

First, I do honestly appreciate that you took the time to reply to me in such a timely manner. When I sent this e-mail I honestly did not expect it to even reach your eyes. Thank you.

Now, I must respectfully disagree about this not being a slippery slope. First the law was restricted to one of the worst crimes possible, child-sex crimes. Now you are broadening the law to all felonies and two misdemeanors. Originally you wanted this bill to encompass all crimes. If this bill gets passed then it would be a simple matter for someone to come by next year and amend the law to broaden the it more.

Also, I consider my personal information to be part of me. I consider obtaining this information, including bank records, without judicial review or my consent, to be a violation of my privacy.

Thank you again for taking the time to read my e-mail and reply to me. Now, I must again urge your to reconsider your support of this bill.

-

K,

Bank records is a misreport in the Tribune. The bill allows the AG to obtain the method of payment to the provider, not bank records. Let me walk you through the safeguards that are in place.

1. Very limited scope of what can be requested on the subpoena.
2. At least three people in the AGs office have to sign off on it.
3. A copy of the subpoena must be filed with CCJJ for later audit.
4. The provider is free to refuse the subpoena at which point it would have to be ajudicated.
5. This power has been exercised by the federal government for decades with no evidence of abuse.
6. This power has been exercised by the federal government for decades with no constitutional challenge.
7. This can only be used for felonies or two specific misdemeanors.
8. If there is any hint of abuse, ISPs could complain to the legislature and the law would be repealed in one quick hurry and the AG would very well know that.

So...why would total not have been good enough?