Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Feiya

Caineach's page

RPG Superstar 2013 Star Voter. Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber. 4,927 posts (4,932 including aliases). 1 review. No lists. No wishlists. 1 alias.


1 to 50 of 361 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Fergie wrote:

~Shrugs~

My main point was that REAL problems of inequality exist, and result in all kinds of horrific real world consequences. Making the discussion about some strawman fringe argument (and/or making fun of that argument) isn't very funny when women are getting raped/assaulted on a very consistent basis. (It probably could be funny, but that article Fergug brought up didn't appeal to my sense of humor)

Liberals are not afraid of being made fun of, but when the joke is at the expense of people who get the short end of the stick and suffer real world consequences, it is about as funny as blackface whites making fun of silly negros.

1. The author was a woman.

2. I'm sorry, but when a group goes on a crusade (it has made national news and influenced government policy) against people sitting with their knees a foot appart claiming it is sexist, they don't get to use "but we are assaulted more" as a defense against mockery, unless they can somehow show a good correlation to guys casually sitting on subway cars and assault.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Matthew Downie wrote:

I wish people would be clearer about what they're trying to debunk. There's a lot of things being suggested by the video, some of it true, some of it debatable:

Lars can literally fire at twice the rate any other archer in the world can manage.

True, but he sacrifices a ton of accuracy for doing so. Other archers are practicing for speed and accuracy, he is mostly practicing for speed. Thus he will be faster.

Quote:


Some / many ancient archers used a technique similar to this.
This technique was used effectively on the battlefield, not just for display purposes.

Yes. But he also makes the claim that other techniques were not used when they were just used in different areas, and he tries to back up his position with demonstrably false claims.

Quote:


These arrows are fired with enough force to penetrate light/medium armor.

They can be fired from his bow with enough force, maybe. Note, he takes significantly slower shots when piercing the armor, instead of his normal speed shooting, and they don't show him so we don't know if he is using the same equipment.

Quote:


Lars has enough accuracy to shoot arrows out of the air.
Lars has enough accuracy and power to shoot arrows out of the air even when they're fired with full force by a competent archer.

An impressive feat of trick shooting.

Quote:


Quivers of arrows weren't used in real battles.
Something something Hollywood something.

The video of him wearing a quiver is rediculous. First, his arrows are not sized for the quiver he has - they are too long. Second, he is about as coordinated as puppy on a good day, even without the quiver getting in his way. I have run through woods with a side quiver on. The bow in my hand slowed me down more.

Quote:


Not all battles are the same. If you're firing at French knights mired in mud, you have a couple of minutes to shoot at them before they get to you. In this situation, you only need so much rate of fire because if you're firing every two seconds you'll run out of arrows in no time. What you need is good range, and good penetration because they're going to be in high quality armor. (If rate-of-fire was everything, no-one would ever have bothered with crossbows.)
If you're fighting mongol hordes or peasant spearmen, the situation will be different. Or you might be in a siege, or fending off lions, or trying to defeat a single guy with a sword ten feet away, or in an archery contest firing at a non-moving target.

But he isn't making a claim about Mongolians. He is making broad sweeping claims about all archers in general.

Quote:


His technique is impressive, and would be useful in some of those situations, and not so useful in others.

Yes. Unfortunately he isn't making that claim.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
UnArcaneElection wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
This is the first thing I've looked at on the subject..

I read part of the article, up to and even some way past the point where they said this: "You can see it in the slow-motion footage during the tournament scene in Brave; as the arrow begins its flight, it’s oscillating back and forth, swimming through the air like a fish and moving to the left, until the aerodynamic effect of the air passing over feathers causes it to begin spinning, at which point the arrow turns and begins traveling to the right." They even give a link to the trailer to the Pixar animated film, just to confirm that they weren't talking about a different Brave film than what I was thinking of. I am less than impressed with a takedown article that uses this for a source . . . .

Physicists widely acclaimed the movie for its accurate portrail of the effect. As an archer, using that shot in their previews was one of the biggest reasons I wanted to see the movie. I got a huge physics hard on.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
GreyWolfLord wrote:

I admit, I don't know what arrows look like at speeds from a 30 lbs bow, but I DO know the following off of personal experience.

Well, I got my daughter a toy bow for Christmas and her arrows go faster than that. It doesn't feel like a 30 lb bow, her's feels more like something really light...like 10 lbs...and they go FASTER than what he shows.

Not an archery expert, but I CAN say that I've seen her little toy bow with little suction cup arrows, and they GO FASTER than his bow does.

Hmmm...I wonder, if I put arrow points on her arrows and shot from 2 feet away...if I could pierce chinzy cheap chainmail with a cloth behind it too?

What's worse, is I DO sports, and I play Baseball (among other things) and I can even throw a BALL FAR faster most of the items that I saw moving in that video (PS: Lars doesn't appear he can throw that well...as an aside).

I can catch a thrown baseball...

Are you telling me arrows move slower from a 30 lbs bow than a thrown baseball or a toy 10 lbs bow?

If so, I can see why it's so easy to catch an arrow (though truthfully, catching one from daughter's bow wouldn't be so easy unless shot right at you). The experts seem to say it's impossible to catch an arrow from a real bow though (as opposed to my daughter's bow or a baseball).

Considering the arrow used in the grab an arrow and shoot it back only is visible in flight for about 5 frames, it is really hard to make that claim. That being said, lets look at some simple sources

This site on compound bows has information on what the minimum recommended speeds for hunting game are. Taking their minmium medium game number of 25 lbs point blank, adding 5 for distance, to get to 30 ft/second, you have an arrow going 20mph as the recommended minimum. But bows will probably blow away this in the real world. The minimum recommended bow for hunting game that size is generally a 40 lb draw weight.

Playing with some base numbers with a speed calculator, I wouldn't be surprised if a 30lb bow only shot at around 60mph. (IBO 150, 28 inch draw, draw weight 30, 250 arrow weight, 0 extra on the string). I'm not really familiar with IBO, it seems to be something for compounds only, but they assume a general number of 5 for every 1 lb in the draw as a default, so I assumed the default. The arrow weight I got from my wooden arrows with target tips - broadheads would be slower.

Edit: This speed makes sense in my head for how fast the arrow is traveling when I shoot at long range targets. I have almost been able to get 2 arrows in the air at 100 yard targets. At at 60mph, that would be around 3 seconds.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
GreyWolfLord wrote:
Caineach wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
This is the first thing I've looked at on the subject..
The only thing I really take issue with here is the guy claiming the arrow would not break like that. I find that failure entirely plausible. Most of his other take down is really good.

Well, in truth, unless Lars hits the arrow every time, Lars should be dead from having arrows shot at him and trying to split them in half.

However, there are TWO reasons the experts say it's not doable to shoot an arrow in half in the air. First is the grain of the wood on a real arrow, it's impossible to shoot in half lengthwise supposedly (as tried twice on mythbusters in season 3 and 4 supposedly).

The BIGGER reason though, is that there is an arrowhead at the front of that arrow. If you are in an archery contest, your arrow head will converge on the back of the other arrow, hence possibly going through it.

However, if it is coming at you, your arrowhead is going to hit that arrow head...and that's where they are going to smash together. Going through another arrowhead just as strong as your's would be harder than punching through platemail.

That's just getting through the head, prior to getting through the shaft itself.

Most likely, it was done by Lars having non-pointed and non-headed, slow moving bamboo sticks tossed at him (I could say shot, but with the speeds he's dealing with, it's more like someone tossing them at him as someone can throw faster than the shafts are coming at him in his catching video).

1. He isn't making the claim that he is splitting it the whole length, just that he is splitting it. He obviously isn't splitting it in half, since the pieces aren't even remotely the same size.

As for the speeds of the oncoming arrows, they look pretty typical of what would come off a 30 lb bow.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Kryzbyn wrote:

I don't even know what the point of that comparison is. He's not using a longbow. Nothing he's showing involves shooting arrows at a field full of targets from a great distance with a longbow.

He talks about using techniques other cultures used, NOT English longbowmen. Techniques used in skirmishes among close targets on the field of battle, not shooting onto it from a distance.

It's like comparing trap shooting to a sniper, and saying the trap shooter is doing it wrong. "He's not even using the right rifle..."

EDIT: ninja'd

He uses the first half of his video to talk about how bad English longbowmen are. That is where the comparison comes from.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Charon's Little Helper wrote:
GreyWolfLord wrote:

They also mention that though possible with bamboo, with real arrow quality wood used in war...shooting through an arrow is basically impossible due to the grain of the arrow.

Yeah - they did a couple of Mythbusters on that. It's impossible to split a real wood arrow.

No. What they found was that the incoming arrow would follow the path of the grain - just like splitting logs. Good, high power wooden arrows will use parallel grain, but you don't even bother trying to do that before 70lb test arrows. You don't need it on the target arrows for low power bows that they use, so when they tried to split the arrow it just sheared off the back end. I've seen target tips do that in the SCA, usually taking off no more than a hand span of the back of the arrow. But in the SCA, very few people are shooting over 60lb bows, and the vast majority are shooting 30-50.

The mid flight shear that happens in the video is exactly the type of failure I would expect from wooden arrows. The majority of the arrow moves to the left, including both the head and fletching, while a portion of the arrow, likely a single ring, split to the right. I've seen damaged arrows fail that way in mid flight from the bending stresses, and that type of failure is one of the things marshals in the SCA are supposed to look out for when checking someone's arrows.

As for the strength of the bows he is using, I would put money on them being between 50 and 60 lbs. It is a weight a trained archer can sustain for extended durations without as much compensation for low power, and on typical foam will drive the arrows about as far as he does. Trained archers wont strain to pull it back.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
thejeff wrote:
Lemmy wrote:

There was talk that fanservice make men see women as nothing but sex toys, that it has a subtle but real negative effect on young women and and that it should only be done "in moderation". There were comparisons between fanservice and racism and homophonia, FFS.

1- There is no evidence that fanservice (or even porn) makes anyone sexist. It's a claim as empty as saying that video-games and rock n' roll music make people violent.
4- If you think a cartoon showing overly-sexualized fictional characters is as bad as thinking less of people just because of their ethnicity or sexual preference, then you really need to lower your consumption of PC-Holier-Than-Thou Koolaid...

1) These claims seem to get perilously close to saying that media or literary portrayals have no impact at all. That mass media has no effect on shaping culture or individuals. There's a lot of space between that and "violent video games don't turn people into murderers".

4)Fanservice (of the kind we're talking about) is sexist. It's an aspect of sexism. It's putting women's bodies on display draw male eyeballs. And money.
Is it, all by itself, the moral equivalent of all of racism or homophobia? No. Of course not. It's an aspect of sexism, so it's equivalent to an aspect of racism. Parallel to the way black people were portrayed in film and tv, rather than to all of racism.

Anime has some differences from Western sexualized portrayals. The anime girls are sexualized with plenty of shots designed to titillate, but are otherwise often competent well-developed characters. Western equivalents tended to be just there to be seen or for the male leads to rescue. That's been changing, but the differences are interesting.

1. Put up some studies that can show it is bad then. Don't shout that something is terrible for doing things you can't show it does.

2. It is only sexism if it is a pattern that is shown to favor one group over another. As I pointed out when I commented on the difference between the US comic market and anime, while individual titles may favor one side or the other, anime as a whole does a whole lot of sexualization of both genders. They target material for a specific audience.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
thejeff wrote:
DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:

I tell my players this when it comes to backstory:

You get one paragraph to tell me the salient points of your back story. Anything you tell me may be used during the course of the game as an adventure hook, or as a motivating factor.

One paragraph is enough that your history will have plenty of blank space for me to add shocking revelations, and sudden twists!

For example:
Luke Skywalker's backstory is that he was raised by his Aunt Beru and Uncle Owen on a moisture farm on the desert planet of Tattooine. His father was a spice trader and he doesn't know who his mother was. He yearns to become a pilot and leave the boring life he leads behind.

During the course of the game as a GM I can introduce:
** spoiler omitted **

As a GM, my goal is to integrate the story of the player characters into the plot of the game!

To me, a player who has a back story that has no effect on the plot of the campaign may as well not have a back story at all. We could be playing a board-game instead. A short back story that allows the GM to help customize the campaign and make the players feel like their characters are a key part of the story is so vital to the fun of my campaigns.

In my campaigns:

** spoiler omitted **...

Actually in the Star Wars game, I'd be more upset over the GM railroading me into being a Jedi. I wanted to play a fighter pilot.

Unless of course, we'd actually talked that over out of game and agreed I'd be going that direction.

I disagree that back story having no effect on the plot of the game is anything like playing a board-game. For me, it's the in-game decisions that make that difference. For those it doesn't have to matter whether I've got a mysterious past or not. Bilbo's family history never played any role in the plot of the Hobbit. Conan's Cimmerian childhood friends and enemies never came back to haunt him (in the Howard stories at least). Their backstories influenced their characters and thus their actions, but not outside...

Yes, but the Hobbit and Lord of the Rings are each basically a single plot arc of a campaign in my experience. The Hobbit is maybe 6 sessions, and the LotRs is probably close to 12. If I have a game that runs 50+ sessions and covers years of time, why should I not have you ever interact with your past?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Aberzombie wrote:
houstonderek wrote:


Inflate a ball to 14.5 PSI (the minimum) in a room at 72 degrees, have them inspected inside, then take them outside into freezing weather. Let ideal gas law do its thing. "Cheating" without cheating. Voila.

This was my original thinking, but then I saw the article saying they reported as much as 2 psi below minimum. Temp changes probably wouldn't account for that much difference.

And I saw something today that Belichek is claiming no knowledge of what went down, saying it was a Brady thing.

Depending on the temperature of where they were measured, it could easily account for more than half the deflation. As was pointed out by the calculations above, if they were inflated and measured at 80F, then you are looking at 1.5psi difference, and 90F accounts for 2psi. (edit: The game temp is significantly warmer than I was expecting, at 51F. People were talking about the game being cold, and 51F is t-shirt, light jacket in rain, weather.)

But this still doesn't answer in my mind how it could possibly happen. They get supplied by the team to the officials for measurement. They should be in the hands of the officials after that, so any tampering should implicate officials. Not to mention how many officials were handling the balls during the game with none of them noticing.

Why teams are supplying their own balls is another question I have. Can the NFL really not afford to pay for all 27 game balls, they can only spring for the 3 kickoff ones? And why are teams supplying the balls that get used with their own offensive line? That just asks for them to be tampered with. Those balls should be mixed up so teams do not know whether they are getting one they supplied or not, so any tampering can backfire.

I have no real stakes in this. I don't care about the Pats. I just am laughing at how ridiculous it is that this type of cheating is even possible. The whole system has to be designed to allow it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Captain America Vs Star Lord superbowl bet.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Randarak wrote:
I don't know if that is accurate. In my experience, the majority of comics buyers aren't teenagers. They generally seem to be college age and older. Comics are generally $3.99 and up. Its easy to run up to high cost if you are buying more than just a couple. Maybe I'm speaking out of ignorance, but I generally didn't have a lot of money as a teenager.

That's because most comic purchasers are people who got into a few comics in high school, grew up, and then got real jobs that can support the habbit. What you need to think about is not existing sales, but growth. I would put money on the vast majority of new comic readers starting before the end of college, with most of those starting before college.

Edit: Its like cigarettes, you need to hook them while they are young.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Tacticslion wrote:

"Trick" being the only word I could come up with, it was probably poorly chosen. Twenty-four hours sans sleep. Otherwise, I tend to agree, Lauefindel.

And Jiggy, much like a CG Bob, I started out with the impression that Dash was CN... but I don't think so upon reflection. While it's true that the only people he ever directly fights for are his family, he also is shocked - stunned - that anyone could ever actually kill someone else.

I would still peg him in the CG range - though with some CN leanings - but any 'neutralness' seems to come from a combination ignorance and thoughtlessness. I don't think he realizes that what he's doing is actually harmful (his pranks) - instead, he simply shows all the hallmarks of having a low wisdom.

That said, I wouldn't fight a CN assignment - I just think that his willingness to do the right thing, as seen much later in the film, and his youthful tendencies tend to get him a bit of a pass.

Considering he is starting from the point of all children (evil malicious bastards), I think he shows definite growth towards CG.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
mechaPoet wrote:

1. Okay, couple of things. First of all, if players are offending others, how is that "having a good time with friends"? Second, it's really not about whether something is offensive (e.g. someone saying "F@*! you" or something), but rather about whether someone has said or done something a) oppressive (rather than offensive--the difference being between just hurting someone's feelings and reinforcing societally normalized forms of dehumanization/objectification/etc. whether it's in the form of sexism, racism, homophobia, anti-Semitism, transmisogyny, what have you), or b) trauma-inducing (trigger warnings exist not to censor, but to give people a heads up so they can avoid or prepare for a triggering factor that will literally make them re-experience trauma that will f*~! them up).

This is part of the reason I have trouble believing any woman whenever she says she wants to be treated just like one of the guys. They never seem to understand that men are generally a&%#%#$s to their friends. Mocking and ridicule are some of the surest ways to know that you are an accepted part of a group. If I can't make an anti-Semitic joke with my Jewish friend, I question if we are actually friends. I'll joke with my gay friends to stop checking out my ass, and they will joke about how I'm not good enough for them. Like I said above, we through peanut M&Ms at my friend with a sever nut allergy.

At the same time, you pay attention to how people react. If someone goes cold after a dead baby joke, you don't make more. But you learn those boundaries though actually interacting with the people around you and poking them.
Quote:


2. See my above point about oppression versus offense. In any case, if you aim for offending "everyone," that necessarily includes oppressed groups. Mocking people with power and calling them out for s%&&ty behavior (which is certainly an offensive action toward them) is not equivalent to offensive sexist behavior. The notion of "it's fun to offend everyone!" is well within your rights, but recognize that "everyone" includes oppressed groups.

So? If they are friends they will join in with their own insults and jokes and you will bond. If you cross the line, you will learn where the line is for them, and not cross it in the future. If they're not yet friends, you jumping the gun. You need to establish the relationship first.

Quote:


3. Well, it's not really passive aggressive, is it? The X-Card has a direct function that is explained to the table, and is to be used not in place of talking, but as a supplement to talking. If someone at your table, one of your friends, asks you to stop doing something that's bothering them, is that also "censoring"? Perhaps, but it is a request for you to self-censor for the benefit of a social activity--the X-Card is not some magical compulsion effect that goes around suppressing your freedom of speech, it's a request that you can honor or not.

It puts a barrier between you and your friends that prevents you from bonding. The person you flag is either going to already know he went to far or be completely confused. It starts with a stage set for not offending people, putting people on the defensive before you even begin.

Quote:


You are correct in assuming that I've never played with military people. However, I think the X-Card would be great for military players, considering the astounding rates of PTSD and rape that occur in the U.S. military (I don't know any stats on this in other militaries).

Game time isn't a therapy session. Its a time to shoot the s&$$ with friends and make new ones. Just having the X-card rules sets the tone for the game in a way that will change how people will approach the game, and that will turn a lot of people off.

Quote:


And, I'll just reinforce this point: the X-Card is just as "censoring" as someone asking with their words for something to stop--for high levels of gore, for phobias, etc.--and this tool makes games more accessible by making it easier for people with anxiety, trauma, and even just plain shyness to play games with people.

And it puts other people on the defensive, makes them uncomfortable because they feel like they have to watch what they say, and becomes a barrier for them to interact with others.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
TOZ wrote:
Relevant to the tangent.

And in comics there is a problem because the only fan service is for men. If you think that is true about anime, you have never seen shoujo. There are tons of shows geared towards women, and I can think of a number of reverse harem shows.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
mechaPoet wrote:
Caineach wrote:
mechaPoet wrote:

Here's a concrete and potentially productive suggestion: introduce the X-Card to more public gaming spaces.

It's a free set of rules to be used as a safety tool in RPG's, among other places/spaces/situations. Would it be feasible to encourage the use of this tool in more public gaming spaces? Would it help? What would it take to make its implementation more widespread?

If that got attempted in any group I have ever gamed with, the person who brought it up would probably be laughed at so much they would flee from embarrassment.
What makes it so funny?

I'm guessing you have never gamed with military people.

1. It treats everyone at the table like children and forces people to use baby gloves. It puts not offending people at the front of the list of people's minds, instead of just having a good time with friends.

2. The idea of not offending people is very frequently seen as not a worthwhile goal. Offending everyone is one of the primary ways groups bond.

3. It is a passive aggressive way of censoring people in the name of avoiding confrontation and will probably cause just as many issues as it attempts to fix.

Personally, I'm more likely to play a game of cards against humanity with a new person and throw in the most offensive things I can to test their response than I am to play with something like this. Hell, the last time we introduced a new person to my current game group we played cards against lego creationary (use lego bricks to make cards against humanity cards and people have to guess what the card is). We mocked the guy because he didn't know what the card was but made a highly amusing rectum.

If a GM I didn't know brought the X card to a generic table, I would probably find a way to politely excuse myself, because I doubt I would enjoy the game, and probably wouldn't enjoy that person's company very long. If I knew the game was designed to be intentionally emotional, I would stay, because those types of games are designed to test the boundaries, but you know that when you sign up for those games. For a generic game this really isn't needed and will only distract people from having a good time.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
TOZ wrote:
Dragon Half is one of the few examples I like to reference where the dub is superior to the sub. Cowboy Bebop also managed to equal the original language in quality.

El Hazard was interesting because they intentionally changed a significant amount of dialog for American audiences. The original show has a lot of puns and idioms that do not translate well, and they turned it into American humor. I definitely enjoyed the dub more, and the show overall was pretty good. How can you go wrong with lines like "What you call cats, we call body armor".


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Alzrius wrote:

So I finished watching Magi: The Labyrinth of Magic - or at least the first season of it, as it turns out that there's a second season that's not on Netflix (yet) - and while I didn't have very high expectations going into it, I was surprised by how much it surpassed them.

The show is loosely inspired by various Arabian Nights tales, as the two main characters are Aladdin and Alibaba (and Sinbad is a major supporting character). That said, these function largely as stylistic inspiration and nothing more - don't expect this to be any sort of retelling of the classic fairy tales. Rather, this is an action-adventure series set in a fantasy world.

The plot is that, years ago, mysterious dungeons appeared out of nowhere all over the world. Those who enter and manage to get to the heart of these deathtrap-filled mazes can claim the powers of a djinn that lives at the heart of each dungeon. Since then, various power-players are trying to acquire these treasures to advance their various agendas.

Aladdin is a young boy who has no memory of his past, and is searching for answers about himself and the djinn that he somehow already has. Along the way, he befriends Alibaba, a teenager with no money but a lot of determination to conquer a dungeon and make himself into a king. Together with Morgianna, a slave-girl with powerful combat abilities that Aladdin and Alibaba end up setting free, the three of them become involved in a quest to determine the fate of the world.

To be fair, there's little here that isn't standard action-adventure fare, which made me wonder why I found myself liking the show more than I thought I would. The answer I eventually came to is that while the show does make use of typical tropes for its genre, it never takes them too far, knowing when less makes for more.

Aladdin, for example, was initially off-putting to me; his character is one of those "naive in such a way that he unconsciously casts a stark moral spotlight on problems" characters, guilelessly saying what decorum and...

I thought I watched season 2 on netflix, but I may have gone somewhere else for it. It was easily as good as season 1, and you get to see the Kingdom of Magic. There they do a good job of showing how awesome a society of mages would be to live in... if you are a wizard.

I found the first season really picked up with episode 4. The first 3 are a little cliche and simple on first introduction.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I personally found the requirement to have courses out of major very important. Cognitive Psychology taught me more about engineering than any other course I took. I think one of the biggest problems with college right now is overspecialization. They teach the same things in multiple classes with slightly different specifics that are just enough to disguise the fact that the same solution can be applied in different fields. For instance, how much water a pipe can carry, the current through a wire, and how quickly cars move through traffic are taught in 3 different classes in 3 different majors but fundamentally all use the same equation for flow rate. We specialize too early in education and it makes it harder to learn to apply solutions to other fields.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Aranna wrote:

Ok clearly Alzrius is a troll. Putting him on ignore.

I cannot fathom how politely presenting a logical disagreement with you makes him a troll.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Gaberlunzie wrote:
Brox RedGloves wrote:
Gaberlunzie wrote:

That doesn't match what I've learnt, nor does it match Wikipedia's description:

Well if it doesn't match then let me go over there and change it. Wikipedia shouldn't be used to cite facts since it can be changed on a whim.

Rather, it should be used as a jumping point to verify facts from other, more reputable sources.

EDIT: I gotta werk on my peepl skillz

Large wikipedia articles about stuff that isn't currently a big controversy tend to be very reliable. As far as I remembered, when it was compared to other large encyclopedias (including encyclopedia britannica) it has about the same average number of errors per article, and fewer errors per sentence (since wiki articles are usually longer).

On stuff that is currently a big controversy (say, the murder of Mike Brown) it's not as reliable, nor it's most fringe articles, but other than that it is generally about as reliable as any encyclopedia.

I know PHD chemistry students use it as their primary chemical lookup because it is more likely to be up to date and accurate about new chemicals and is easier to search.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Hama wrote:

What? They were getting slaughtered by orcs. Till eagles came and turned the tide.

Smaug died the way he was supposed to.

What gives you the impression that dwarves were level 15 fighters?

13 dwarves join the battle, and then the dwarf army of hundreds goes from being on the retreat to slaughtering everything in their wake.

3 dwarves take out 100 goblin scouts.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Hama wrote:
Question being, how in the hell are the Avengers, paired with The Guardians of the Galaxy gonna beat Thanos with the infinity gauntlet?

Squirrel Girl


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Yuugasa wrote:

Actually, for you guys that want to find someone special online dating might really work, all you need to do is leave off talking about sex for, oh, lets see, maybe five or six messages?

Speaking from personal experience there are quite a few women and gay men who would be very interested in an actually interesting person who has more to say than telling you about the porn they want to make with you.

Online dating is worse than job searching. Using a more personal resume makes rejection worse, and the response rate is only fraction. And I get maybe 1 in 10 job applications even getting a thank you for applying.

When you get 1 response a year, and it doesn't result in a date, online dating becomes more of an emotional drain than the empty void of just accepting the fact that you're single.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
yellowdingo wrote:
Yellowdingo rates Guardians of the Galaxy: (8/10) finally saw it on DVD. If it lacked that one thing to get it to nine out of ten, it lacked that moment where green ninja girl gamora is listening to peter's music tape while fighting and her in-combat prowess doubles.

Personally, I thought it was missing the scene where Gamora watched Dirty Dancing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Rynjin wrote:
Who wants to put money in the pot that the mid-season takes place 1-2 years later and we find out all about how he came back to life next season in a bunch of flashbacks? =)

Not taking that bet.

edit: but now that I think about it, it is probably a good one because they probably want to keep Flash and Arrow at roughly the same time, and they wont do a 2 year gap in Flash right now.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I can't imagine that they will go more than 1 episode without their star. In a comic, maybe, but not in a CW show.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Fergurg wrote:
Gaberlunzie wrote:
Also, look at what Fergurg is actually writing. They're clearly and over the top victim blaming, and both claiming that if you resist you should be shot and then accusing a black guy that teaches their kids basically the same thing of "hating everyone not of their own race".

Wrong again. Yes, if a person is resisting arrest, the police need to stop it from happening. If a person tries to grab the cop's gun, that is grounds for stopping him. The cop does not have an obligation to not protect his life.

And as for accusing the black guy, I quoted what he said, He said he HATED this country and its countrymen. I asked him why he chooses to stay, given his HATRED (caps were also his).

And as for victim-blaming, is it your opinion that a person making an assertion of being a victim should be believed at all times? Because asking questions about these things is often how the truth comes out (e.g. Duke University, Rolling Stone). And if a person making an accusation should be automatically believed, would it not make sense to extend that expectation to white cops or Hispanic neighborhood watchmen who say, "He attacked me."?

Because they killed the people who can protest their story.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Lemmy wrote:

I do not deny that there are awful cops in the force. It'd be really freaking blind and stupid of me to say that.

Sadly, awful people are present in every field of work in the world. Sadly, awful cops are capable of doing far greater harm than awful members of other professions. To the point where if even only 1% of the cops were corrupt and/or poorly trained, it can have devastating consequences (And it's obviously more than 1%). I just don't think they are the majority.

I'm sure every police force in the word has at least one awful policy or practice. Same can be said about pretty much every organization in the world. Like it or not every organization has its policies dictated by humans, and humans are flawed.

BTW, by community, I meant "city" or "state", not neighborhood. In literally every big city where I've ever been cops usually work away from their neighborhood, both to prevent them going easy on people they know and to avoid retaliation by criminals they arrested.

Still, living on the other side of the city, or even in a different city, while certainly providing completely different backgrounds and life experiences, is still being part of the same community. And the time the cop spends on the area where he works is time spent being part of that community, for better or worse...

If you live in city/country/state/nation/whatever that has, say, a serious problem with racism/xenophobia/homophobia/whatever, expect those to be common among police officers as well. Like every other human on Earth, cops are influenced by the people surrounding them.

I'm not absolving the police of all guilt. Believe me, I know what harm dirty cops can do. What I'm saying is that honest cops are more common than dirty ones. Maybe I'm mistaken, but that's my honest impression of the situation....

In my experience, inner city cops live in suburbia as far away from city life as they can get. You can't deal with a community by treating every part of a large area the same. Communities can be as small as a block, and you can have vastly different ones across the street from each other.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Lemmy wrote:

IME with the police from 3 different nations, (including Brazil, which is not exactly known for it's amazing police force and safe streets), most police officers are actually honest people doing their work, usually legitimately trying to protect and serve the community.

As is the case with any other organization, though, it has bad apples. A$#%#%%s will be a@@~@$@s, no matter their job. And if those a*!%%*@s are in a position of power, they'll abuse it. It doesn't matter if it's the power of carrying loaded arms and beating up people or the power to write and approve bad laws.

Additionally, police officers don't grow on police trees. They most likely come from the communities where they work. The police (much like government) reflects the society that it works for. In a place where racism is common, expect lots of racist cops. In a place where corruption runs rampant, expect corrupt cops.

I know the quality of police forces varies wildly from place to place, but I tend to at least show police officers some respect and give them the benefit of doubt. Their job is often dangerous and underpaid, and to make things worse, the communities they protect often see them with bad eyes...

It's certainly not an easy job. Especially in the communities that most desperately need an effective police force.

A. As mentioned above, they often don't live in the communities they work and prefer to have a relatively long commute to avoid running into people they have arrested. This is more true the likely more urban an area is.

B. Aren't recruited from communities which have grown to distrust the police, like minority ones, because people don't grow up to aspire to be their enemy. By actively discriminating against a community, you reduce the number of people from that community interested in being recruited.

At this point, I more or less assume a cop is scum on a power trip and deal with them like any other bully, unless they give me the rare cause to think something else.

Also, cops are not underpaid. They are some of the best paid civil servants. The communities see them in a bad light because they take care of their own by not actually having any accountability for their abuses. They are reaping what they sowed with policies like Broken Windows and Stop and Frisk.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
thejeff wrote:
And we may be causing earthquakes, so who knows.

TRUE :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
thejeff wrote:
MagusJanus wrote:
thejeff wrote:

You did in fact say exactly what you say you did, but you did so in such a fashion as to draw exactly this kind of response, which lets you attack the climate change side of the debate.

He did not alter your words, he misread a poorly phrased post. Intentionally or not, this kind of thing is a habit with your posts.

It might have been poorly worded, but I do not accept that the meaning of it wasn't clear. I know my posts tend to be poorly worded, so I am trying to avoid long-form stating of what I have to say and allowing for even poorer wording to get involved.

I had stated earlier in my post "Humanity also isn't responsible for all of the planet's climatic changes." That does absolve humanity of 100% responsibility in wording... but at the same time, makes it clear that humanity is responsible for climatic change. My last sentence was both to make it clear I wasn't challenging that humanity has an undeniably major effect.

And despite being given an opening to attack climate change, I did not single it out any more than I did the deniers.

I figured it out because I've debated with you before and I know to double read everything and look for the out clauses. I did read it and think "Someone will misread this as denial". And then he did.

You also said in that post "Beyond humanity creating the technology that was affected? Nope. It's one of several climatic events that would have happened no matter what humanity did with the environment." Which is far more emphatic than we have any right to be. There is no such thing as "climatic events that would have happened no matter what humanity did with the environment" since we started messing with the environment. Or at least no way to tell the which ones are which. Climate is too chaotic for that.

That line, and the following bit about changes we weren't responsible for also set up an expectation for the following one to be read as a denialist viewpoint.

To be fair, we can tell a couple. Volcanoes FTW :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

NY Times article on cops not able to produce informants in NYC. I think my favorite line is

Quote:
Afterward, the District Court judge, Dora L. Irizarry, said the officers’ testimony “was just incredible, and I say ‘incredible’ as a matter of law."


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Here is an blog post I like. Many police officers buy into the core idea of broken windows, that low level offenses left prosecuted will lead to more low level offenses until they are normalized and higher level offenses become justifiable because it seems like no one cares. If you apply that to police officers though, how can they justify not looking into accusations against other police officers and yet say that lack of investigation into offenses does not lead to higher incidents of offense?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Cop breaks woman's eye socket while she is handcuffed in the back of his car, not charged. So apparently, even after you have restrained the suspect you can beat them on video and be found not at fault for anything.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
bugleyman wrote:
Charlie D. wrote:
If a criminal is fleeing, shoot to kill.
I should hope not.

Not for the least because the Supreme Court ruled that unconstitutional in the 1980s


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

GreyWolfLord, I can only assume you have no idea what grand juries are for or how they work based off of your statements. Not to mention that many of your statements are not backed up by the actual evidence.

Why would the only witness brought before a grand jury ever be the defendant? That makes literally no sense. Since defendants being brought before a grand jury is an anomaly, and his testimony was more or less unchallenged by anything resembling a reasonably competent prosecutor, one can reasonably assume in this case they wanted to let him walk. You say yourself that there are glaring holes, not to mention his various stories don't line up, but the prosecutor never pressed him on these.

They could have gone with any of the eye witnesses that said Brown had his hands up, had them testify, and with the physical evidence provided gotten an indictment. That is of course if the prosecutor actually wanted to proceed with a case, which he was clearly biased against ever doing in the first place.

The only indication that Brown touched the officer's weapon is from Wilson's testimony, since they didn't take finger prints of the gun. Not to mention that they didn't follow the proper chain of evidence for the gun.

The reason for a grand jury is to see if you have enough evidence to make a case - not to see if that case will hold up. That there may be contradictory evidence is irrelevant - that is up to a trial jury to determine the validity of different conflicting sources.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Love some of the excuses for bad police work in the case. I particularly like no photos of the scene because the camera batteries were dead.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
GreyWolfLord wrote:

He wasn't indicted due to his testimony. If it was just his testimony, he would have been indicted.

The biggest reason were the supposed witnesses themselves. Many of them had to be lying.

Why?

Because their testimonies all conflict and sometimes say the opposite things. One states Brown Ran away, while another says he was walking towards and then collapsing towards. One says Browns hands never got above shoulder level, whilst another said that he had his hands raised above his head.

Even a poor defense attorney could get his client off with witnesses that conflict that terribly with each other. The stories conflict so badly, that none of them are considered truly reliable.

You can't get a conviction off of witnesses that contradict each other so radically!

Point blank.

If they indicted and charged, they'd have lost. The supposed witnesses did the case in themselves. There probably were some good witnesses, but the ones that had something to burn, something to try to push...who thought they were all that by trying to say something that wasn't true...they were the true downfall of the opportunity to indict.

Without reliable witnesses and a story that cohesively comes from them...it then falls to physical evidence.

That showed Brown's blood in the vehicle consistent with a struggle and shooting. It showed Brown's blood on the actual weapon as if Brown had his hands on it. The angle of the shots from the evidence presented corroborated that it was probably done in the manner that was stated by Wilson (and supposedly some other witnesses that refused to come out public due to fear that they would have retaliation done to them).

However, that doesn't mean Wilson was innocent, it simply means because a bunch of false witnesses botched this Grand Jury up so badly with their false testimonies, there was NOTHING to go on EXCEPT the physical evidence.

They more effectively botched the Grand Jury investigation up than anything a prosecutor or anyone else could. The made it...

Funny thing, if the prosecutor wanted to go to trial, he wouldn't need to present more than 1 witness. The fact that he knowingly presented multiple witnesses that had conflicting statements indicates he did not in fact want a trial. And it is the responsibility of a trial jury to determine the veracity of statements, not a grand jury.

Federally, there were over 160,000 cases brought before grand juries last year. 11 of them did not get an indictment. Attorneys have a saying, "You can indict a ham sandwich."


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Limeylongears wrote:

Based on my experiences of online dating, the following appear to be essentials for the modern Britlander woman:

1) Full set of teeth (tick!)
2) Job (tick!)
3) Not living with parents (tick!)
4) Not being 'only after one thing' (Jam? the ability to leap tall buildings at a single bound? A functional national rail transport system? Tick, anyway - I can play the long game...)
5) Following on from point 4, not sending strange women pictures of your dinkle (tick...)
6) Not posting photos of : you with your kids (interesting...), yourself draped over a sports car, yourself cuddling a smacked-up tiger, you with no top on flexing your pecs (tick!)
7) Not being a hopelessly immature mid-30s nerdish man-child (ti... er, er, MOVING ON!)

Of course, American/Serbian/German women may differ completely. IDK.

My experience with online dating has driven me to prefer sending out job resumes. At least there when they don't respond I can pretend it is because I don't have the qualifications they are looking for.

1 to 50 of 361 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>

©2002–2015 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.