i just find it funny that he goes on about people walking out of a gun store with a gun they know nothing about, when all his post demonstrate exactly that. he knows nothing about weapons.

i wish I knew where that gun store he goes to is, so i can just pick myself up some m16 and rocketlaunchers

This is a formal warning to everyone in this thread: keep on topic or keep out. If you want to have a discussion about the 2nd amendment, start your own thread.

So what will happen if this guy wins? 

Except it is 1080p, and that should've been Sony's argument. 

1. 1080p (also known as Full HD or FHD and BT.709) is a set of HDTV high-definition video modes characterized by 1080 horizontal lines of vertical resolution and progressive scan, as opposed to interlaced, as is the case with the 1080i display standard.

Wow, that's like suing because a tree in my yard has branches that stretch into your yard.

Crazy world.

Edit - I actually quoted myself...

I still remember that woman that killed a kid with her car and sued the family after, because she had nightmares with the accident.

You need to look at the law suit this way: Was Sony using the 1080p mention to attract consumers that don't know that 1080p may not be FULL HD. That being said they will probably have to check if : 1. Was Sony doing this knowingly and with the purpose of making their product more attractive to the general consumer. 2. They would have to check how the 1080p mention is perceived by the general consumer (in other word do people in general know that 1080p may not be full hd (1980x1080p) in some cases. 3. If Sony was doing it knowingly and the general public is not aware of the vertical and horizontal distinction of the 1080p mention, then they will have to check if it falls in the "false advertisement" section of the law they are referring to and apply the sentence that goes with it. In the end it may only be that Sony may have to stop using this scheme to make their product more attracting or to stop referring only the verticals (1080p mention) when it comes to resolution. Now, take this as a an example, would you think that somebody buying a TV with sticker stating 1080p ready, would go home thinking that he may not be able to display the 1920x1080p HD standard? Would you think that the company that applied the sticker used the 1080p mention to sell an inferior product or a product that is not able to do what the majority of people think it should be able to do? In the end, if that guy wins, no matter how much money is given to him, all consumers will have won as this will make jurisprudence and companies will have to be honest about the real specification of their product. If companies cannot be sued for small lies then they will lie to us invoking that it was just a small lie. I, for myself, do not want company to be able to get away with lies, be it a big lie or a small lie...

This is so sad. It's like he doesn't know technical information on how HD works. There is a thing called interpolation. And not to mention "Anamorphic" aspect ratio, to save on size. Might as well sue all the TV shows that filmed in 2006. When HD became common. They did the same thing. The res was really 1440X1080i. All this will do is get another dumb person to win. And will have even more text on back of the case. Just like miss burned herself with hot coffee.

That will probably read like: "HD output - 960x1080p Anamorphic HD" Are we gonna really need everything on the back. From bitrates, res numbers, i/p etc now? All the terms where originally picked so people don't have to get spammed with all this nonsense. And confuse more people in this mess.

Lol, you think I don't know about firearms? I own several and go shooting at the outdoor range pretty regularly, weather permitting. And if gun nuts had it their way, you could go to a gun store and pick up an M16 and that'd be that, because it's your "right".

Forget knowing about safety, when it's permissable to use the weapon, open carry vs conceal carry, how to de-chamber a round, etc. People who think they're guns are gonna get taken just want "you to leave me and my guns alone", so they should just be able to go in and get whatever they want. Lmao, thinking I actually think you can just get an M16, when my example clearly says if getting guns "was as simple as invoking your 2nd amendment right, you could just go in an get an M16". No restrictions. But I guess you ignored that, and only bolded what immediately followed.

Man, talk about selective reading and taking things out of context.

But I don't wanna derail the thread anymore, as this all started off as off-topic ranting anyway

User was moderated for this post.

--Veknoid_Outcast