Recent content by CustomMagnum

That was only Tricell, and even then Wesker only worked for Umbrella, he was never in control of it. None of the people involved with running Umbrella were running Tricell. On account of being dead or wanted criminals. Even Wesker wasn't officially in charge of Tricell. Due to being legally dead...

Actually, going by the logic that they should've only gotten points for stuff the company was actually involved with, Chris should've lost on the technicality that Umbrella didn't do half of the stuff he even mentioned, at least as far as the games (and cgi movies) are concerned (haven't seen...

... Wow, that's really expensive. I mean, even going by what amazon lists the list price (the price they constantly ignore to undercut the price by like, ten time) that's still twice as expensive as an SD card.

But they do the exact same thing and need to be combined together and voted on by both houses of congress again. So they're basically the same bill.

... Wow, you're right. I could've sworn that I read that he was going to veto this, but now I can't find it for sure. Still, I really can't see him supporting a bill that allows corporations to completely block and destroy websites without having to answer to everyone while at the same time...

Nope, they'll be perfectly in fine. They have the power to demand that the ISPs block the sites entirely, without any sort of oversight at all, without even having to state what the site is doing at all. And yeah, they will. Heck, for all we know, they'll probably be able to claim using the...

Yeah, that's the other problem. There'd be nothing stopping them from introducing the same bill again if he looses the next election, or after his second term ends if he wins.

I already did, but it actually has a scary high chance of passing. Thankfully Obama already said he would veto it if it does pass, but there's nothing to stop them from rewording the bill and trying it again and again until they get something that he thinks wouldn't be too bad. Or supporters...

Nope. The law also gives those corporations the ability to force an ISP to block sites with infringing content that come from outside the US.

Yeah, don't worry. They're the same bill. So this country's only trying to kill itself once, not twice.

No, it's not. From the MPPA's own website at http://www.mpaa.org/ratings/what-each-rating-means So no, what you're saying is the R rating is actually what the circumstances are supposed to be for an NC-17 rating.

But wouldn't those other games, if they have online play, require an EA Store account, which you need to be 13 or older to register for, and therefore couldn't be used for his son's account?

Because the credit for the EA store would mean that his kid wouldn't be allowed to play whatever game on his own account anyway.

... Oh, okay. I was just going by what the article itself just said here, but if that's not the case then he has no leg to stand on then.

It might be true that it says that he's not allowed to get a refund, but the issue here is that EA and Microsoft didn't make it clear that his kid wouldn't be allowed to play the game because he was too young until AFTER he bought the thing. That's the issue, and that's why he's mentioning this.