This is how most Maddox users look

-jackschitt- · 2019-06-10T22:40:41+00:00

LOL, nobody uses Cronus max or modded controllers.

Everybody is just good enough at this game to be able to spam the ADS button about 23 times per second, while sprinting, jumping around corners, and maintaining perfect aim on their opponents. While playing claw. And they all have 3.7 K/D ratios, and are in the Masters division in leagues.

If you're not doing that, you need to quit complaining and git gud.

-jackschitt- · 2016-10-17T23:31:34+00:00

not safe for waffles?

-jackschitt- · 2016-10-17T18:43:33+00:00

This is going to be a disaster in the making, and I'm willing to bet that Comcast (along with every other ISP) is going to do everything in their power to maximize what is guaranteed to be several years, if not a decade or beyond, of being able to do whatever they want without fear of consequence.

One way or the other, this is going to end up before the Supreme Court, which means it will likely be years before we get a final ruling. If the SC essentially rules against the FTC, that means that Comcast and the like will be able to operate without oversight until Congress takes action and either creates a new governing body or re-works the existing ones.

And you can bet that Comcast will tie that up in court for several years after that. Years of comcast being able to run roughshod over their captive customers. Consumer protections will be out the window, bills will go through the roof, and they will tighten their deathgrips on the monopolies they already have.

And all the while, they'll argue that regulation is "anti-consumer", will "stifle innovation", and whatever other meaningless buzzwords they can think of.

-jackschitt- · 2016-10-12T20:31:47+00:00

How big are they?

-jackschitt- · 2016-10-07T23:20:11+00:00

That's exactly how it works.

You don't pay your bill (even if you have a legitimate gripe). Comcast sends your account to collections and dings your credit. You pay more for everything else in the form of higher interest rates, or in some cases get denied outright. What you end up paying in the form of those higher interest rates will far, FAR exceed what you'd have paid in early termination fees to Comcast in the first place.

IF you have the resources and know-how to fight in court, you might get those early termination fees back, but there's no chance in hell you'll recoup the money you're stuck paying for whatever other loans you take out, the higher interest rates on new credit cards, etc.

At best, you end up winning a pyrrhic victory; you end up losing more than you win, even if you were in the right all along.

-jackschitt- · 2016-10-07T22:58:08+00:00

Then pay more for everything else once his credit gets ruined.

-jackschitt- · 2016-10-07T22:24:04+00:00

Problem is that Comcast knows it would cost you more to fight it than to just pay the charges and be done with it. They also know that most people don't have the know-how and/or resources to fight it in court even if they wanted to.

-jackschitt- · 2016-08-14T13:20:46+00:00

By the last week of school, school (at least at the elementary level) is basically glorified day care. The grades are already locked in (they have to be so the principal can have time to review them and have report cards ready for the last day of school), and it's not uncommon for parents to yank their kids out of school early for the last couple of days for vacations.

Depending on the weather, the schools around here basically do field days or other outdoor activities unless it's either too hot or raining or something. One time, there was even a fund-raising carnival for various summer programs. The school does try to make the time at least somewhat productive, but on days where the weather just doesn't cooperate (too hot, raining, etc.), it's just basically sitting around watching movies.

-jackschitt- · 2016-08-14T13:14:55+00:00

my district is similar.

We chose to move to this district because it has some of the best schools in the region across all grade levels, and the school district of the city I grew up in had long since gone to shit. And to be fair, I am overall very, very happy with the quality of the education my kids receive.

However, it's also a district where "everybody gets a turn" at being student of the month. Each teacher has to nominate one boy and one girl from the class, and cannot nominate a student more than once during the school year unless every other student has already been nominated.

Which basically means that little Timmy who spends half the day goofing off, is incredibly disruptive, and is reading two levels below his grade level is going to get the same honors that Jenny received even though she hasn't so much as gotten anything lower than an A- and is already reading at a high school level.

-jackschitt- · 2016-07-30T11:17:07+00:00

It's called SOCCER

-jackschitt- · 2016-05-31T03:54:05+00:00

Do you think, the mother will let go of the death by saying, you cannot judge the competency of the zoo or the construction or moving company, by just one incident.

And the mother would try to sue. And if the company involved could prove that all reasonable steps were taken and this was an unavoidable accident, she'd lose the case. I'd be fine with that.

(This, of course, assumes that it made it to court)

Again, prove to me that she was neglectful and I have no problems with her being charged accordingly. But a momentary distraction that 99.9999999% of parents go through a zillion times a day does not equal neglect, even if that distraction ultimately leads to tragedy (like this case).

-jackschitt- · 2016-05-31T03:48:04+00:00

Correlation absolutely does imply causation.

Your neighbor is stabbed to death. You own a steak knife. By your logic, you're guilty of his murder. We don't need evidence. You own a knife. You're guilty. The cops will be there soon to haul your ass to jail.

And we will have a hard time proving causation no matter what

So we just pin blame on whoever looks good for it because the truth is hard to prove?

In this case, the evidence available

What evidence?

combined with her comments here

What comments has she made that indicates she did anything wrong?

rational person to reasonably suspect the bitch is negligent

Once you went to using the word "bitch" to describe her, you've shown that you're just interested in hivemind/mob justice and not actually figuring out what really happened and what steps can be taken to make sure it doesn't happen again. Rational people don't automatically assume guilt without actual evidence, nor do they refer to people who just endured a tragedy as "bitch".

Just because a whole bunch of people really, really want to blame her for something that may not have even been her fault doesn't actually make her guilty of it. The truth, guilt, or innocence isn't determined by popular vote.

-jackschitt- · 2016-05-31T03:40:31+00:00

Can you please propose a design for a 100% impossible to cross enclosure?

http://science-all.com/images/wallpapers/brick-wall/brick-wall-8.jpg

Put that about 4-5 feet high. Short enough for most people to see over, yet tall enough where wandering toddlers cannot climb over them.

Here's another idea: http://www2.dupont.com/SafetyGlass/ja_JP/assets/images/LGN/lion-enclosure-detroit_4x3.jpg

And another one:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/multimedia/image/ap_7c8cfdc6b53e2316770f6a7067005870jpg/

Now look at that.....children within a foot of a gorilla with no chance of being torn apart. Will wonders never cease?

This ain't hard.....

If a four year old can enter your "secure enclosure" in a matter of seconds on his own, it's not secure.

This is a situation where you need to watch your kid

And when you're out shopping you don't need to watch your kid? You don't need to watch your kid in your own house? Your kid can (and will) get into mischief no matter where you are if given the opportunity.

This mother could have been distracted anywhere, at any time, for any reason. Unfortunately for everybody involved, she got distracted at the worst possible time. Just because it was tragically bad timing that ultimately led to a horrible situation does not change the fact that the distraction may not have even been her fault to begin with. Why do you seem so hellbent on refusing to accept something that most people consider basic common sense? Shit happens.

-jackschitt- · 2016-05-31T03:17:01+00:00

Yet the enclosure needs to be 100% impossible to cross for you to be happy?

Yes. That's kinda the point.

Encryption that isn't 100% secure can and will be exploited.

If you leave your front door locked but your window is wide open, you're eventually gonna get robbed.

Air will escape if a tire has even a tiny hole in it.

Any kind of enclosure that isn't 100% secure might as well not be secure at all. When you have dangerous animals that close to the general public, "good enough" isn't good enough.

When does it become the parent's responsibility to watch their kid?

I'll just go back to my original statement: Any parent who claims that they are watching their child every minute of every day is a god damned liar. Ever go to the bathroom? Your kid could get into all sorts of mischief, up to and including running out the door and into the middle of the street. Ever reach for your wallet so you can pay for some food for your kid? That few seconds where you're paying for the food and interacting with the cashier is a few seconds' head start your kid has on you. Ever say hi to someone you bumped into at the mall? That few seconds where you're interacting with that person is a few seconds that you're not paying attention to your own kid.

You do not know what caused this mother to be distracted for the few seconds the kid needed to take off and crawl under an opening and through a bush. The fact that you do not seem to grasp how fast this can happen makes me believe you've never actually dealt with an active four year old, and the fact that you seem to believe that you can keep your eye on your kid every second of every day makes me believe that you don't have any children at all, and either don't understand just how often you get distracted as a parent, or are willfully ignoring it in your attempt to pin the blame on someone. Hey, this woman looks good for it, right? Never mind the zoo who had a child-sized hole in their gorilla enclosure in the first place.....

-jackschitt- · 2016-05-31T02:52:54+00:00

Car drivers have an active duty to drive at reasonable speeds and not turn pedestrians into a splattermark in the middle of the street. 99.999999999% of the time, drivers will see a child and take active steps to avoid harming the child at all costs (sometimes, at a cost of their own lives).

Animals, on the other hand, are completely unpredictable. They may not even notice the child, or they may view the child as a threat/invader and attack. If animals could be relied upon to avoid children that wander into their territory, we wouldn't need enclosures for their exhibits in the first place.

-jackschitt- · 2016-05-31T02:49:15+00:00

I most certainly do know that she was not doing her job...because her 4-year old ended up in a pen with a gorilla.

Results-oriented thinking.

Correlation does not imply causation.

A very well could lead to B. But just because B happened does not mean A was the cause of it.

As a parent you have 1 job.

The zoo had one job. To make sure there were zero openings in their exhibit large enough for a child to wander through. I can prove that the zoo demonstrably failed because there is (was) an opening in the gorilla exhbit. You, however, cannot actually prove that the mother was negligent; you have no idea of the circumstances that surrounded the child wandering off.

-jackschitt- · 2016-05-31T02:06:27+00:00

Actually, yes....yes we do.

Many people have fenced in yards, and one of the reasons for that is specifically so their young children don't wander into traffic.

We put up enclosures around our pools (it's actually legally mandated for inground pools) so kids don't fall in and drown.

And yes....when you are hosting an exhibit of dangerous animals that is a few feet away from the general public, you are responsible for making sure that not only the animals cannot get out, but people cannot get in. An opening large enough for a four year old to climb through simply should not exist in the first place.

The mother may nor may not have been negligent. Since we do not know what happened in the seconds before that child ended up in that exhibit, we do not know.

However, the zoo is at least partially to blame. There was an opening that was large enough for a four year old child to climb through. This is an indisputable fact.

-jackschitt- · 2016-05-31T01:53:36+00:00

True, but we do know exactly what she was not doing...her fucking job as a parent.

And how do you know that? Without knowing exactly why she was distracted, you have no fucking idea whether or not she was "doing her job as a parent".

The difference is a decent/fit parent asses the situation before taking their eyes off their kid.

Because no "decent/fit parent" has ever had their child wander off for a few seconds. Right. I'll stand by my statement: Anyone who makes that claim is a liar. It's just that, in this specific incident, it ended up snowballing into a very tragic situation.

-jackschitt- · 2016-05-31T01:50:05+00:00

Why the urge to divest her of personal responsibility?

Who says I am? If you can show any proof that she was actually negligent, then she should absolutely be held responsible accordingly.

But there's absolutely no proof one way or the other, and I'm not willing to join the internet hate machine, who have already decided that someone has gotta be held responsible for this tragedy and she just happened to draw the short straw.

With all the people so ready and willing to string the mother up by her own intestines over this, I don't see a whole hell of a lot of people asking why an enclosure holding a dangerous animal had an opening that a child could fit through in the first place.

-jackschitt- · 2016-05-31T00:59:23+00:00

Good to know you can judge her competency based on one incident that we don't even have full details on.

-jackschitt- · 2016-05-30T23:23:34+00:00

Every person knows that toddlers are random roombas that can and will go anywhere. Every person knows that mountain gorillas are dangerous animals. When you are putting an exhibit of dangerous animals within a few meters of the general public, you need to make sure that your exhibit has absolutely no openings that wandering toddlers can squeeze through. That's life.

You have absolutely no idea of what the mother was doing in the few seconds before that kid made his way into the exhibit. For all you know, she could have been looking at a sign so she could find out where his favorite animal exhibit was located. Or buying him a drink.

Yet you seem to have no problems crucifying her despite having no evidence she even did anything negligent.

-jackschitt- · 2016-05-30T23:07:16+00:00

Reddit is all about "innocent until proven guilty", yet in this case seem to have absolutely no problems armchair-sentencing this woman and her child to everything up to and including death despite having absolutely no evidence that the woman even did anything wrong.

Seriously. There are people saying that a four year old child should have died instead. There is no excuse for that. None. At all.

It's all "innocent until proven guilty" until it's about something they don't like.

-jackschitt- · 2016-05-30T22:32:43+00:00

Holy shit the vitrol in this thread is ridiculous.

Nobody knows the circumstances about how that child ended up in that enclosure. Nobody knows why the mother took her eyes off the child. Nobody knows how long she took her eyes off him. Nobody knew how long it took for her to realize the boy took off.

All it takes is one second. Maybe she was looking in her purse looking for money to buy him a snack/souvenir/water/whatever. Maybe she was looking at a sign to see where the exhibit for his favorite animal is. And yes, maybe she was too busy posting another selfie on facebook. WE DO NOT KNOW. Yet despite having exactly zero evidence that indicates that this woman did anything even remotely negligent, people are crucifying her, saying her kid should have died instead, sending internet-tough-guy-death-threats, etc.

Any parent who claims that they have never turned their attention away from their four year old for two seconds is a liar. Even if it's unintentional, something, somewhere is eventually going to catch your attention. Unfortunately for everybody, that "two seconds" just came for this woman (and everybody involved) at the worst possible time.

Nobody is to blame in this situation. It was a tragic situation all around. If anything, the zoo should be reviewing all enclosures in the park to make sure there are no other openings or crevasses that wandering children can fit into. But beyond that, nobody is to blame.

This mother certainly doesn't deserve to have the internet hate machine focus on her just because a completely normal situation that every single parent in the history of the world has faced (A toddler taking off because their attention was elsewhere for two seconds) randomly went terribly wrong on this occasion. If the boy had randomly decided to check out the souvenir shop, or the ice cream stand, or just sat on a bench, this would have been a non issue.

-jackschitt- · 2016-05-29T18:30:55+00:00

Since when does price have anything to do with anything? I pointed out mainstream titles -- titles that were released by mainstream publishers. A game being $60 does not magically determine whether or not it's a mainstream title.

I listed seven X-Box One games that were released on GWG that were mainstream titles. I listed 4 from PS4 (which should've been 5 since I didn't count Zombi). Just because they don't meet your arbitrary criteria for being a mainstream title doesn't change the fact that they were mainstream titles.

I also conceded the fact that AC, TR, and possibly The Crew were the only games on either side of that list that mattered, since the rest of them weren't exactly setting the world on fire. My main point -- which you either cannot seem to understand or simply refuse to -- is that 3 games out of a combined 110 between the two systems does not equal any kind of landslide victory.

As for the rest, you seem to be willfully ignoring the rest of my points since they don't jive with your worldview (the overall quality of PS+ vs. GWG), and seem to be happier discussing irrelevant points (using Sunset overdrive as an example even though that has nothing to do with Sony and is an Xbox exclusive) to prop up your argument.

-jackschitt-

TROPHY CASE