I’ll probably be shooting for a PS5 maybe next year or so?
I’ll probably need a new VCR by then. Then again, I’m all booked up on streaming and with the PS3 still playing DVD’s and Blu-Rays when the internet is out, I may never need to buy another console ever again.
Wow what a weird thought.
Pretty sure when and if money allows I will end up with both at some point Ars. If it was not for the fact that my eyes are pretty much gone I would probably be doing an excited scrabble for cash to get them both. Losing my eyes means I can no longer play anything competitive any more so I don’t really have the same urge and excitement this go round 
I can’t believe this is still going on.
You may remember our mulleted friend Billy from 2007’s King of Kong where this aaaaaaaal started
13 years over a high score on a 40 year old game. Honestly.
yeah that’s why I loved the ps3, if it wasn’t for those dang copyrights keep you from backing up your save data it would have been the best system of all time.
Plays dvds and blue rays, as well as playing 3 generations of games in hd quality!!
Just make sure you get your system routinely cleaned of dust and the hot glue/tape replaced ever 5 years or so.
That should keep it from literally burning out. I lost my first ps3 that way unfortunately.
I kind of wish there was a book on the great and diverse language that is monosyllabic male-grunt, so I could stop having to translate myself.
& Im not leaving out the other gender on this, its just a completely different dialect with different meanings.
I’m not hyper worried about it. DVD use aside I swear I think this thing has maybe a total of 50 hours of game time on it. A little bit more wear from when I fire up a venture brothers dvd instead of watching it on hulu every 6 months or so, but that’ about it.
Sadly this is one of the less frivolous law suits I have seen coming out of America Jefe.
Woman Sues New York City Over “Scary” Poster Promoting Dexter
The woman who was shocked to find out Jelly Beans had sugar in them so sued.
The guy who sued his date for using her phone.
Many people have a story about a date gone wrong, but most would forget about the whole ordeal as soon as it was over. A 37-year-old from Austin, Texas, however, could not let go of his bad experience and sued his date. He was so offended that his date spent the time they were at the movies watching “Guardians Of The Galaxy Vol. 2” texting on her phone. He claimed her behavior was breaking theater rules and affected his movie-watching experience. She agreed to pay him the $17.31 for her cinema ticket, if he left her alone. Soon after he withdrew the lawsuit.
The guy who sued Red Bull because it did not give him wings.
I could carry on with this list all day it’s fun
Yes…but…how many of them had mullets? 
It is true Jefe. The mullet does add that certain je ne sais quois. I now feel shamed at my mulletless lawsuit offerings.
There are a lot of documentaries that show that this was not a frivolous lawsuit.
Some common misconceptions-
The reason anyone thinks it was frivolous is because McDonald’s legal team spent a fortune pushing it to the press as an “only in America” story about some greedy old woman who dumped coffee on herself for money.
It still gets brought up around the issue of tort reform as people “gaming the system” when it’s one of the only instances of a corporation being brought to heel by litigation.
I actually have no real knowledge of the case Ars. It was simply listed in a crazy lawsuits list I was quickly browsing mate.
After reading your post though I will defo remove it from my above post
I am if anything more concerned about people not pursuing legal action against major entities. The local hospital here for example is absolutely infamous. I’ve talked about how it killed my grandfather, and left a family friend who worked there having a heart attack in their lobby (her husband bullrushed the ER door to get her to doctors eventually, they had to fly her out and she barely survived) before, but noone ever does anything against them out of fear of lack of medical service.
Frankly, frivolous lawsuits are grossly overstated. While they do exist (such as Phelps, the scumbag from Westboro Baptist), they tend to mostly be lawyers who focus on such deliberately frivolous cases.
Hey, I’m not browbeating. I just get overly excited when it gets brought up because I actually know something about it.
Plus you made me look up the “big” doc about it which I’ll be watching tonight while I do my work reporting.
(It’s “Hot Coffee” by the way and is on prime and “tubi”, whatever the ■■■■ that is. It’s a fascinating case that’s worth a watch.)
My big reason for going ham on it like I do when I see it is what tem says below-
The industries that get sued a lot are really good at pushing this narrative that the country’s systems are just swamped with all these greedy people looking to get a settlement over anything. This is so they can push something called “tort reform” which would be a big nationwide limit on the amount of money any person could get from such a settlement.
The reality as anyone can put together is that the amount of these “big” civil cases is horrendously small because it’s a situation where the government won’t appoint you a lawyer, so you either have to find one who thinks your case is winnable and will get a percentage of winnings, or fund the entire legal defense yourself, which usually runs into hundreds of thousands of dollars.
I pulled that one out specifically, but any corporation worth it’s salt will absolutely use it’s PR wing to make the case seem small, illegitimate, or otherwise “frivolous”.
I mean this one was one of the more well documented ones because it set crazy precedent with how the jury voted because of all the negligence on McDonald’s part… but they did such a good job that you can pull 10 people off the street and 9 of them will tell you “that lady was just a scammer”.
After seeing behind the curtain on that one, and knowing first hand what coal companies did to suppress having to pay black lung benefits, my default position is “to the plaintiff” until proven otherwise.
I get that mate. It’s simply after reading the facts of the case it clearly did not belong on that list.
I don’t want you to get me wrong I believe in challenging big corporations on their wrong doing.
I don’t class those as frivolous in the slightest and it’s a shame that case was on the list I was browsing and did not give any detail.
I was more thinking of things like Jefe’s original case, suing for nerd pride for the last 13 years or the guy who sued his date
Honestly I missed all that, just caught the bit about new consoles lol.
Billy’s case is… theoretically not frivolous, even though it entirely is.
All you need to do is a few youtube scans on him to see that he had built being “The King of Kong” into his entire persona - it was how he made a living, basically.
The evidence against him is amazingly damning, so I think all of it is absolutely pissing into the wind, but if he wasn’t a ■■■■■■■ moron grasping onto the last few straws of relevancy and wasn’t lying out his ass this would probably make for a pretty good slander case 
Unfortunately, that is not the case and he is a pathetic alpha personality type latching on to the only reason anyone knew about him an where his royalty checks came from.
There has to be a more sensible and fun way of deciding on this case.
I think the judge should start rolling barrels from either side of the bench towards the defendant and plaintiff. Whoever makes it to the bench first and whacks the judge with his gavel wins
Ideally they’d get a consensus from the gaming community because the evidence is really easy to explain.
I don’t know if it will be a jury case but I get the vibe that two of the questions on the docket will be
“Are you familiar with video game emulation?”
and
“Do you follow retro gaming?”
I’d love to see jury selection if nothing else.
So, this touched a nerve.
First, I feel you big big biggly brother, because that’s what happened to my dad. Malpractice by a rehab facility and hospital after a neck surgery is what killed my dad, and using this exact reason:
practically verbatim, we were convinced to abandon litigation. They said because my father’s medical history was so lengthy and fraught with confounding factors that the research costs would eclipse the winnings. It has made me very bitter toward both the for-profit hospital system (though I do feel they did their best with my mom this past year considering the plague was on and peaking at the time) and the lawyers that handle such cases.
As an outsider the US health system and the legal wrangling that surrounds it, is just frankly terrifying to me. Growing up not knowing anything before the free health care system I was lucky enough to be born into it all seems so alien to me.
Tragedies like losing a father or a grandfather to medical incompetence, yet not being able to hold them to account because the process is deliberately made too costly (especially for someone that has probably been lumped with the huge medical debt of the lost loved one even before you start looking at legal fees) is just a ■■■■■■■ joke.
For profit hospitals should be forced to pay into a fund to create an independent 3rd party watchdog to investigate these events. If they are found to be at fault by the independent body the person that initially wanted to bring the suit is then offered legal support paid for by the fund to either work out a settlement or pursue it through the courts.
Institutions like hospitals need these checks and balances more so than most as the consequences are often quite literally life and death. If they are too financially unviable to take action against the bodies will just continue to stack up 
Talking of hospitals, this is really scary:
I’ll assume that at some point the hackers will turn their guns on other countries too. But, given the current covid situation in the US and the turmoil over the election, that’s one barrel of bad news.