Yes.

I also predicted the ending.

Seeing his hands covered in chalk dust made me want to wash mine thoroughly. Don't know why I didn't see that coming.

Because I'm assuming that one of the parties to the conversation didn't just write a transcript of the conversation from memory and give it to someone else, to later be leaked.

I just happened to come across an interesting theory that is plausible(The Brits did it). From the Judge who has railed againt the unconstitutional NSA spying, so I don't think you can chalk this up to pure FOX news bullshit. In fact they took him off the air indefinitely for expressing his opinion. All of Comey's statements would still be truthful as well.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/03/16/andrew-napolitano-did-obama-spy-on-trump.html

Of course, just as I give little creedence to unsourced assertions that "The Russians did it" during the last administration, this will stay an interesting theory until the anonymous sources can deliver evidence.

No "apology" necessary -- I can definitely see how it would look like bad AI in a one-off context like this, I just wasn't sure if you were making a sarcastic dig at them or not (and it would be fine if you were, also).

There's actually an amazing level of depth in subtle details that get put into the GTA games. Some of them are immersion-enhancing things that you tend to only notice on a subconscious level, like "tick tick tick" sounds of car engines cooling after you shut them down. And some are little in-joke tropes like this.

Honestly, it seems like it would take a LOT of work to coordinate all of those details and references and keep them fairly internally consistent. On top of that effort, the payoff is arguably somewhat dubious in cost-benefit terms -- a few people with notice these things and find them a little bit funny, a few will notice them and be offended to varying degrees, and a bunch either won't notice at all or will chalk them up to AI / simulation glitches.

But I still think it is cool that Rockstar doesn't shy away from including this kind of stuff, and/or stuff that more blatantly pushes the limits.

"Hillary Clinton was the lesser of two evils...."

I beg your pardon Bill? What part of lesser of two evils was an endorsement for Trump?

If one were to describe Hillary as the lesser evil, would that not effectively be an endorsement? The underlying inference being that Trump was the greater of the two evils surely?

I think I'll just chalk that one up as a brain fart and assume he said it bass aackwards.

Though lets not forget Mrs Sandwitch would have given us TPP and the Syrian no fly zone.

Genuinely struggling to call it between who would have been most disastrous.

Trump was probably worse for America, I suspect Clinton might have been worse for the rest of the world. Not that it matters what any of us think in hindsight.

& yes @LiquidDrift it clearly isn't an actual Muslim ban! The fact that the majority of the worlds Muslim population is not affected by it should probably have been a big clue.

I guess though, given Trumps rhetoric, people can be forgiven for seeing it that way.

But yes it's a list of seven countries compiled by Obamas administration for being hotbeds of terrorism (if not before being bombed, certainly after). Not even close to banning all Muslims from entering the country.

Probably useless and needlessly divisive, but the man does need to at least appear to be fulfilling his campaign promises.

I certainly don't think the Nazi comparisons are at all helpful. There's no shortage of genuine things to attack the man on, hysterical fabrications just make him look right.

You know you're on shaky ground when Piers Morgan is the voice of reason

Ok, I'll play.

I have two boys, 19 months and three years old. I'm in my late thirties, wife in mid thirties. We waited until we were in a decent position financially before having kids. I saw my brother bring up my nephew who is now six so I knew what babies are like and toddlers are like before we had kids ourselves. I took a year and a half off to be a stay at home dad for our first child.

But there's this massive taboo in the UK, and I'm going to guess in America too. Having kids is good, and you're not allowed to say otherwise. I knew that there would be sleepless nights, that on occasion I'd be covered in vomit, or poo, or both. I knew that kids could be annoying.

But I didn't really understand what all that meant. To hear anyone talk about having kids it makes it seem like these things are just background noise for all the wonderful, giggly happy times.

No one told me how relentless it would be. While you can know that you'll be tired if you have a kid that wakes at night you don't really understand it until you haven't had a full night's sleep for three years. Not a single one.

Yes, somehow I should have fully understood everything before actually experiencing it. And of course I shouldn't say anything bad about it, it's all good.

But that's bullshit.

Having kids can be amazing, and getting to know my children's personalities as they've grown has been one of the most incredible experiences of my life. If I had my time again I would do it again.

But seeing some sanctimonious arse bitching about other people's experiences, which could be very different to their own, just makes my skin crawl. You're saying that because you made a decision you're not ever allowed to moan about it? Even if your whole life leading up to it was full of misleading misinformation? Even if the experience you chose turned out to not be typical through no fault of your own?

Pretty much any path a person takes in life can be framed as a result of a decision somewhere along the line. It's like saying that no one can complain about anything, anytime.

Despite what you say having kids is different to what just about anyone expects. If it wasn't for you then well done, you're in the tiny minority. You probably deserve some kind of prize for being so amazing. Here, I've got a little cup around here somewhere. Wait, I'll find it. Here it is. It's engraved. It reads 'Fuck you, you sanctimonious prick'.

Life is full of ups and downs. For me having kids has made the highs higher and the lows lower. I've never felt as amazing as I have when my kids do something brilliant. But I've never felt as down as I did about three months into my second child who was very colicky and just cried almost constantly and at night slept for an hour or so then was awake and screaming for an hour then slept and so on. For three months solid.

No one told me about that. No one made it clear that this was to be expected. My first was a reasonable, average baby. He had his moments but we thought we really understood what we were getting into.

But there's the rub. All kids are different. Even two boys, close in age to the same parents are like chalk ad cheese. To think you understand someone else's situation enough to bitch about them like you have is just stupid. So your child is good and you've enjoyed being a dad? Good for you. You were lucky. Others aren't so lucky and arses like you bitching about them doesn't help. Stop patting yourself on the back and realise that a large part of you having a good experience is nothing more than luck.

So, there you go. I'm sure I fit into your bad parent category. But at least I don't belittle the experiences of others and don't assume that I fully understand their experience.

Yes, some parents can be annoying, but the vast majority who are moaning are genuinely stressed and down. A little empathy can go a long way. Or you could just be an arse hole and bitch about them.

4.5 billion dollars.

http://www.forbes.com/donald-trump/#7553bc81790b

I wrote that he has a lot of parliamentary power. And he does. Parliament and congress are synonyms. I clearly wrote the president has to deal with congress.

I know of the Bush junior situation, but that's not what the conversation is about (i.e. it's not about a vote miscount).

Trump has many character flaws (as all people do), but it is unlikely those flaws will lead to a fanciful dictatorship as you have suggested they will.

I didn't write that. Syntaxed, whom you were originally replying to wrote "You could vote for a woman who has on more occasions than is accountable, broken Federal Law, covered up her husband's brutalization of women, and God knows what else, and only manages to escape prison because she is one of the sharpest tools the totalitarian American political establishment has..."

You're not following the conversation.

You're welcome to prove yourself correct in regards to court outcomes. I'm just not that interested in it. I'm trying to save you the bother. What am I enjoying by myself? You making a statement and not providing proof? Sure, super fun. You can enjoy that I defended both Clinton and Trump as innocent until proven guilty. How it should be.

I'm "still incredibly naïve"! Lol, once again, you were replying to Syntaxed and called him naive. You're not following the conversation.

I'm glad you asked how it is different. I pointed out that the word naive (especially in your usage) does not encompass a lack of knowledge (as in he did not know the facts of the case). You were using naive as a pejorative, as in he was simple, unsophisticated, guileless. I showed you a definition of the common usage of the word naive. You found a definition that included the word "information". I pointed out that this is not the common usage (and as above it was not your intention to suggest he didn't know the facts). You could probably use the word naive, which is still a synonym for simple, unsophisticated and guileless, in the context of being those things, because one lacked "information", but it would of course need to be contextually evident in the statement.

As a kindness I'm going to chalk you being confused down to tiredness. Go have a lie down.

Let's maybe make a distinction here though when two kids attend the same elementary school, and were good friends that still remember each other years later as adults. When one has made it up to being a judge and the other has messed up and is headed to jail, maybe lets not automatically chalk that up to the color of their skin, no?

Yeah, I hear you. The worst thing in this case is that sometimes you can chalk it up to the cop possibly being under trained in how to handle someone who is struggling, but here we have a military instructor/trainer for non-lethal force using a brutal slam on a 12 year old girl.

I mean, this guy has years of experience in how to do things right and has trained countless others during that time, but he couldn't find an easier way to take down a child? If anyone did that move, that wasn't a cop, they would be in jail so fast their head would spin and if it was their child it would be taken away from them. To use your example, if I saw a guy hip toss a 12 year old girl onto their face, I would have to do something to that guy. We refrain from doing it because they are police and can hurt us, or the legal system will, but a day is coming when the excrement is going to hit the impeller and someone is going to end up killing the cop or being killed over something like this.

The only thing I would add is that assault numbers across countries as to a measure of violence levels are generally unreliable as different countries define assaults differently.

Also I'm constantly amazed by the US's seeming fascination with mass shootings as if that is the only problem the country has with guns rather than the general, incredibly high level of gun deaths. Chalk it up to the effectiveness of the NRA or that deaths in black neighborhoods are deemed 'not newsworthy'.

Give a fuck whatchya heard
Yeah fuck whatchya heard
Fore this real shit kicked your whole click to the curb
What, what...
But you don't hear me though

Run up bitch ta da death get gripped my steeze is ballin' out
Of control whatchyou know 'bout bubblin'
Hustle bones comin' out my mouth

Hustle bones comin' out my mouth [repeat]

That hot lic a shot
Never not strapped
Wit a Glock tongue cocked
Run it back
That knock a cop off unconscious Molotov
Cocktailin' sound bomb a snitch
Flat line of chalk drawn round the clock
Too many marks dropped ta count the stiffs

Stuck on the fence
How does it feel
It don't make sense
Nothing is

That rip you a new one trick I'm the true one,
And only never know me never will no son
Leave ya laid out ta fade out
Show a cunt the door
Hit and run
Hustle bones comin' out my mouth

Hustle bones comin' out my mouth [repeat]

That can't wait ta blast
Blood stained knuckle brass gives a fuck sick wit it flav on
That ex con
Hard to da bone
Darkness from the zone
Mastered and pushed far beyond

Eons beyond the line never crossed,
By dem punks livin' soft while I ride that bomb
Dr. Strangelove
Into the sun
Look no hands megatons
Rode like man we can't lose
No shit, no shit

That hit it till it drip wit
Da blood of the raw way
It was fore dem forgot
Why doin' dirt, make slang sound tough gong original
fuck da wrong way
Only one real way to work
That shit out da
Beat street spit
Über freaked heat lit
Hell flame to your brain
Blood thirst
What what...
Run it back, run it

Run up bitch ta da death get gripped my steeze is ballin' out
Of control whatchyou know 'bout bubblin'
Hustle bones comin' out my mouth

Hustle bones comin' out my mouth [repeat]

Criminal intent anti-legal ill
Thief in da night peel your life back spin the wheel
[x4]

Run it back, run it

@Imagoamin

whoa whoa whoa...
did you think i was calling YOU a bed-wetter?
like as in actually using the pronoun "you" to direct my fictional interaction as representing an actual person,in this case YOU?

well,that certainly explains the tone of your reply.

if this is the case then i humbly and sincerely apologize.i was not referring to you at all,but rather a hypothetical and totally fictional interaction between a cry-baby and myself.

which you actually just made my point about humor,and in this case sarcastic humor.an over the top referencing of a certain hyper-sensitive group,in order to make my point about bad ideas,bad philosophy and poor judgment.

the sarcasm should have been obvious.
but alas...it appears it was not,and has been misconstrued as a personal attack.

moving on to your suey park rebuttal.
while the response to her initial call for justice can easily be seen as vile and grotesque (because it is) how does that take away from her inanity? her blatant disregard for nuance and context? or that she simply lacks the basic intelligence to discern satire from actual racist remarks?

it does not.

i think that most people would agree that the vile,disgusting and dehumanizing responses that suey park was subjected to,are to be condemned and yes...ridiculed..for the stupid and trollish behavior they represent.

you do not reply to stupid with even more stupid.

i dont really understand your defense of language,or better put,the imposing of certain words being stricken from the language altogether because some people find them offensive.

language is a fluid animal,and it is ever-changing.words and terms are dropped from the vocabulary or they morph into something altogether new.i have no skin in on the game in that regard.that is how language progresses,and yes,certain words can be offensive in certain contexts.so we should avoid using them,if only to be a decent human being.

my issue is with the FORCED attempts to re-integrate new words.to control what people say and attempt to bring real world consequences upon them,and then turn around and call it "justice".that is not justice! that is censorship!

maybe this will help a bit.
i view words and language as such:words are the means to express thoughts,feelings and imaginings.when we consider the complexity of our thoughts,feelings and imaginings then it becomes quite apparent that words will NEVER suffice to truly,and accurately,express those very human creations.

words will always be inadequate.

so when some people get it in their head that certain words are just too offensive to even utter.this narrows the field of expression that is already inadequate.(i am not talking about BLATANT,and archaic terms that are not only offensive,but are no longer relevant,and in existence still to simply disparage,insult or dehumanize).

now maybe some words no longer serve a valid purpose or are truly offensive and need to be re-examined,but the only way to reach that conclusion as a people..we must actually TALK to one another,and it is in this free market of ideas where bad ideas go to die.

but we have to able to conversate for that to happen.don't you agree?

now i am not going to bother addressing the rest of your comment,because your tone was just a reaction to where you presumed i was coming from.

and you did presume.

you seem like a decent sort,so i will just chalk your final response up to finding my comment offensive and replied in kind.

just know i wasnt heated,nor enraged.
and i certainly wasnt calling you a bed-wetter.
though the extreme end of social justice warriors are STILL humorless cunts.

@bareboards2 @ChaosEngine and @newtboy Most want a particular church, or prefer a particular church. But a very few NEED a particular church--ie., they can't live without one. Take my mother-in-law. She survived a fire that nearly killed her, was forced to have sex with animals by her abusive father, was beaten by her husband, then lost all her children to DCF and well that sums up her life. It is easy to chalk up her reliance on Jehovah's Witness' faith as her "choice," but then that is denying the biological need to be accepted and loved in a certain manner. Hers is that faith alone. Take it away and she would either A-shut down, or B-more likely kill herself.

You need to draw a line somewhere. Humans, from the very beginning of humanity, always tried to get wasted, so you won't be able to pull of another prohibition era. On the other side you can legalise everything and decriminalise everybody (I see no reason why a methcook shouldn't go to jail, fuck Heisenberg). However, the US government is extremely shitty at drawing lines as they give the chalk away to lobbyists and other people whose job depends on prohibition and criminalisation. Maybe we should let actual drug and addiction experts in on this.

I'm pleased for you. My experience has differed. I was charged at 16, and again at 18, for minor personal amounts, well under a gram the first time.
I also have had 18 cops surround my car to drag a single meek 90 lb 16 year old kid off to jail for .2 grams of weed in his back pack (about 1 bong hit of dust) in California... and he was in for 4 months (his parents insisted). They had to search SO hard to find anything to get him for, they were obviously intent on taking him. (Oddly, they let me go on my way with 3 bongs, 5 pipes, and 15 empty schnapps bottles in my car....I was 17.)
I've also been ticketed for drawing a 4" long line of sidewalk chalk on a sidewalk. That cost over $200, for using the product as intended in front of my own home.
My brother, on the other hand, had a 16th birthday party with 300 kids and 12 kegs, and my dad hired the Houston police as 'security' to 1.stop drunks from driving away and 2. stop other cops from busting the party (that's how it was done in the 80's, pay them and they look the other way...probably still applies)
It's nice to hear about reasonable cops existing, I just seem to not run into any.

Yeah but he drinks that after he's already walked in to the room. Everything was plainly insight immediately entering the house, the boxes are every where, the camera is sitting on a tripod in the middle for the room.

Not to mention the very nature of idly accepting a photo of two people fucking in the face of "customer service". Feel it might of been better to have the photo he gives over cropped with perhaps a subtle hint of a few arms. Then leave the larger photo on the kitchen bench, letting human curiosity sneak a peak.

You can only chalk so much up to the drugging, still have to put a little effort in believability. Good concept but fell flat for me on the details.