[QUOTE="ProjectTrinity"]Would there happen to be some sort of law that could better squeeze in the banning of protesting during funerals, or does freedom of speech really cover it all?Palantas

You might be able to make a law that simply bans all demonstrations within a certain distance of a funeral. Speech is restricted in all sorts of situations for a myriad of reasons, "disturbing the peace," being the most common and obvious. Freedom of speech is intended to protect citizens who want to speak out against their government. It's not a blanket protection for people to be disruptive jackasses.

President Bush already passed a law banning anyone protesting at soldier funerals. You cannot protest at one of these funerals any closer than 300 meters I believe. I read through this entire thread and knew exactly what hate group was being referred to from the post: Westboro Baptist Church. This group is absolutely NOT protesting the war. They believe the USA is doomed because of homosexual tolerance. That is 100% the sole reason for all of their protests.

They do not just protest at funerals. They protest anything related to homosexuality. They will travel all over the country to do so. Their travel budget for this exceeds $200,000 annually. They believe every time something bad happens to American citizens or inside the US (9/11 included) that it's a sign from God that we shouldn't tolerate homosexuals.

[QUOTE="Crimsader"]

I'm interested who made this research and asked 6.8 billion people?

You wouldn't need to ask 6.8 billion people. It's called a statistically valid sample size. If you were to actually spend all the time, effort and money to ask that many people and then, as a comparison, you took the time to just use a valid sample size, you would find the results to be close enough that it makes no difference. Using the following link, you can determine the minimum valid sample size for 6.8 billion people.

http://www.surveysystem.com/sscalc.htm#factors

Using the calculator on this webpage, you'll see that amounts to 384 people. In terms of cost, time and effort, it's obviously a lot easier for a company or research group to survey a small group of people rather than the entire world. Very likely a survey such as this would involve more than 384 people but that is the minimum.

I'm interested who made this research and asked 6.8 billion people?

Crimsader

You wouldn't need to ask 6.8 billion people. It's called a statistically valid sample size. If you were to actually spend all the time, effort and money to ask that many people and then, as a comparison, you took the time to just use a valid sample size, you would find the results to be close enough that it makes no difference. Using the following link, you can determine the minimum valid sample size for 6.8 billion people.

http://www.surveysystem.com/sscalc.htm#factors

Using the calculator on this webpage, you'll see that amounts to 384 people. In terms of cost, time and effort, it's obviously a lot easier for a company or research group to survey a small group of people rather than the entire world. Very likely a survey such as this would involve more than 384 people but that is the minimum.

if people stopped buying the DLC, they would stop making it. I honestly havent even beat the original story of Fallout3, so i dont plan on getting any of the add-ons. same with Saints row2. but I know what you mean. its really stupid that a game comes out, and THAT day there's an update AND DLC available. That means the developers could have 1.fixed the bugs before releasing and 2. included the dlc on the disc you paid $60 for. if they at least waited til AFTER they FINISH the game to start working on DLC it would not look so bad. If DLC is released right when a game comes out, they are saying they could have included it in the disc, but didnt want to. Thats just mean.

Talldude80

Something just occured to me. In another topic, the thread creator was complaining about the newer Rainbow Six and Ghost Recon games not being like earlier ones in the series. In this topic, he's complaining about a lack of innovation and change.

:question:

[QUOTE="Palantas"]

[QUOTE="ThePRAssassin"]

Necessary Improvements: A shooter that takes some skill.

Oh Jesus, more of this. Every game you don't like takes no skilll, right? That whole MLG thing must be a big hoax. I mean, the games take no skill, so every match will be decided by random chance. There is a 50% chance of any team winning against any other team. Right?

No, they don't take skill.

Why do you think Gears of War and Call of Duty are only played in MLG? MLG isn't about games that take skill, it's about what games are popular. They tried to bring in Shadowrun, it failed because it wasn't popular. They tried Rainbow Six (takes more skill than COD/Gears..but not enough to be considered a skill game) and it failed due to it not being popular.

They talked to Infinity Ward to try and get LAN support so it could be played on the main circuit, why? Because it's insanely popular and I believe 4 of the 5 top active ladders on GB are Call of Duty games.

I also like Gears and Halo by the way, so that throws out your assumption. Maybe next time you should actually try to prove me wrong instead of making assumptions, k?