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 6 Season Star Voter. 6,118 posts (6,123 including aliases). 1 review. No lists. No wishlists. 1 alias.


RSS

1 to 50 of 6,118 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

thejeff wrote:
Browman wrote:
Speaking as a guy who has never read a comic book but likes well made super hero movies, Marvel's larger movies are getting to unwieldy with characters. The first Avengers movie was awesome partially because it had a decent but not huge team. As much as I liked civil war there were too many major characters. The nonsense that the infinity war movies could have 60-70 major characters would be completely unworkable.

60-70 major characters?

Who are we expecting to see in it? How many more are going to be introduced before then?

Similarly, I would consider Civil War to have 4-5 major characters heroes (Cap, Tony, WS, BP, and possibly BW). Everyone else is in it as side characters. Just because named characters exist and have their own story doesn't mean they are major in a crossover. Spiderman and Antman, for instance, were basically minor cameos.


Thomas Seitz wrote:

Jeff,

Because I also want the Phoenix Force and it's hard to get without mutants.

Wow, 2 things I absolutely hope don't make it into the MCU.


Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Thomas Seitz wrote:

Delightful,

Nova is in a weird spot since the Nova Corps don't have Nova Force...yet.

And most likely never will since MCU is setting them up to be space cops, not super heroes. Nova isn't exactly a character who can carry a movie these days.

A lot of people think that with the Nova Corps getting the infinity stone it will be the source of their Nova Force.


Turin the Mad wrote:
A title sequence flashback will do the necessary telling, leaving the 90-odd necessary minutes to tell the main story for that film.

Now I'm thinking of an Up styled origin story.


John Benbo wrote:
Alzrius wrote:

A question to everyone: with the new cour about to start, what were some of the best anime of the cour that just concluded?

I like to wait until a series is completely done before I start it, so that I can watch it at my own pace. Given that, what among the recently-concluded shows should I turn my attention to?

(Bearing in mind that I only have Crunchyroll, and already watched Re:Zero and Grimgar of Ash and Fantasy.)

The Anime News Network critics pretty consistently picked both Re:Zero which you've already watched and Mob Pyscho 100 as the top shows of the Summer season. I wasn't a big fan of One Punch Man but I thought Mob was terrific mainly because of the premise of the main character who has tremendous psychic power but just wants to be "normal" like everyone else.

Two others that are very good which conclude today are the Prohibition-era, mafia drama 91 Days and the pseudo-fantasy war drama Aldermin of the Sky. Give the latter a couple of episodes because what seems like at first glance is going to be another run of the mill, haremy teens with powers show, actually gets quite serious and introspective as the show progresses. Definitely a show which consistently got better as it went along.

And all are available on Crunchyroll.

I recently watched Aldermin of the sky. It was amazing and I want more.


Quark Blast wrote:

Thanks Caineach and BigDTBone.

You guys are right that I did not realize the Prius was first out in 1997 (2000 for the USA)! Looks like there were other earlier ones in California of various makes/models but were each only selling in the 100's final total after 2-3 years. Not a good start.

Still, my larger point was this:

Let's say everyone is as diligent as CB is in regards to his carbon footprint. As I said up thread everyone wants to be like us - they want modern convenience, even when that convenience isn't convenient. People! I know! <eyeroll> But until they get what they later realize they don't want, they'll be hankering for it something powerful.

When you multiple CB's diligently "small" CO2 load on the atmosphere by the the 7.5 billion that are out there, what do you get?

While I can't give you an exact number, I'll bet my favorite set of dice that the CO2 load would exceed the current level by an order of magnitude or more.

Assuming AGW causes even half the bad things scientists say it will, there is no good way forward this side of nuclear fusion. We as a species will take what we want, call our greed "Not much, just what I got come'n... it's only fair", and burn our house down while sleeping in it all at the same time.

Other countries have the ability to intelligently plan to get to our standards. The US stumbled through stage 1 with massive development and existing investments that make stage 2 harder to do. Developing countries will skip most of stage 1 and go straight to stage 2. They get to reap the benefits of our being the head of the pack. Kinda like how Boston's roads are an eldritch abomination while new cities make sense. As for China, they have decided the US wasn't making up smog, having discovered it for themselves, and now they want to do something about it.


CBDunkerson wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:
Hybrids are good but if you are on your 3rd may I ask if you really need to drive that much?

I don't drive much... ~325 miles per week.

I got the original Prius when it first came out and drove it until it died. Next car got totaled (while parked). Have had the third for a few years now... considered going EV instead, but they were new and either poor range or super expensive.

I don't think people realize that Hybrids have been out long enough for them to die of old age at the same time as every other car their age. Hell, by this point it wouldn't be hard to kill 2 to mileage.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Plausible Pseudonym wrote:
Caineach wrote:
Plausible Pseudonym wrote:
This article by a sort of liberal-ish libertarian, extremely pro-LGBT, decidedly anti-Trump psychiatrist who has patients expressing Trump-related suicidal ideations, is a very long but very, very good antidote to a lot of Trump fear, for those of you who might benefit from it.
The man chose white supremacists for top positions in his government. No, people are not crying wolf.
They aren't white supremacists, any more than 90% of Japanese are Japanese supremacists or most Israelis are Jewish supremacists. (Or maybe they all are!) If anything, Bannon, like most of these guys, is an Asian supremacist. (I'm referring here to his CEO comments.)

When Glenn Beck calls someone racist I'm pretty confident in calling them one.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Crusinos wrote:
Wei Ji the Learner wrote:

To get back to the Republic:

The most important question is 'HOW do we fix this admittedly broken system?' not 'WHO is at fault for the broken system?'

Bring back jobs, first and foremost.

Seriously, that right there will probably fix most of it. Get incomes growing and people employed. I don't care about race, sexual preference, gender, or anything like that. Just get them working.

As long as people have no hope, as long as they have no reason to feel represented or that things can improve, they're not going to vote or they're going to protest vote. At least some of the people who voted for Trump did so purely on a "take everyone with me" basis.

Once the people are working again, then focus on other things. You can even focus on it entirely from the focus of improving productivity, as I will now demonstrate.

Do they need healthcare? Great! National healthcare system would work wonders and solve all of the problems with the ACA. And have it run by the feds, not the states. If people want to opt out, let them. If they have the money to afford it, no reason to stop them.

People want to marry the same sex? Shouldn't that create jobs in the marriage industries? Let them! Letting them be happy is less stress on the mental health side of the healthcare system. Lower costs.

People are trans? Well, solving problems they have will mean lower medical costs in the long term. So, solve away!

Women having trouble? There's at least half our workforce with a problem. Solve it! Easy access to abortions and birth control also means they will have less stress about potential pregnancies, which in turn helps them be happy. Easy access to abortions and birth control also means they will have less stress about potential pregnancies, which in turn helps them be happy. Happier workers are more productive workers.

Men having trouble? That's at least half our workforce with a problem. Solve it! Curing the insanely high rate of depression among men alone would be...

So your proposal for solutions is to put in power the party that did everything they could to fight all the things you want?


8 people marked this as a favorite.
Talonhawke wrote:
It's as much hyperbole as the doomsday cries about Obama the last 2 cycles and Bush the 2 before that.

No. There is a difference.

Republicans were complaining about things Obama never said.
Democrats are complaining about things Trump has promised.


Talonhawke wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:

Democrats: lets fund this healthcare thing out of the general fund.

Republicans: no, lets fund people that don't have health insurance by making people who do have it pay more

Democrats: well if thats the best deal we can get then it's the bes

Republicans: YOUR RATES ARE GOING UP! YOU"RE GOING TO HAVE TO PAY MORE! GET THEM! STOP THEM!

And either way I'm screwed since I couldn't afford it at old prices and now get taxed for not being able to afford it.

because Republicans pushed the Supreme Court to say they don't have to give it to you for free, most likely.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
markofbane wrote:
CBDunkerson wrote:
CrusaderWolf wrote:


Just a Clinton win = Four more years of gridlock.

Two years. A third of the Senate and all of the House are up for election in 2018.

Republicans will likely retake the Senate in 2018. House wont change until districts are redrawn.


Fergie wrote:
CrusaderWolf wrote:
Even going to wake up at 3am so I don't miss anything :)

Honestly, don't bother. This election is close enough that we probably won't know who won for at least a few days, if not weeks.

Florida is not capable of competently holding an election, and they are basically going to decided this thing. Everyone knows what happened in 2000, but FL has been a total mess in other elections as well.

We are in for a long, crappy slog.

EDIT: Based on past and current trends, I'm going to make a prediction that Trump wins Florida.
wipes vomit from corners of mouth
May god have mercy on our souls.

Using 538's numbers, if Clinton takes every state they give her +3%, plus NH (2.9%) she wins. Florida and North Carolina wont mater.

edit: If either of those states can be called for Clinton at a reasonable time, the election will be set and you wont have to stay up for the west coast.


Norman Osborne wrote:
At best, that was Obama making a very nebulous statement. Combined with CNN leaking debate questions to Hilary, the "mirror dimension" is the one where liberals don't have to bend over backwards trying to ignore the corruption running through their midst.

How was he saying anything nebulous?


Orfamay Quest wrote:
Fergie wrote:
I think that Clinton can be viewed and critiqued based on what she (and Bill, due to Hillary's past support of his policies) have done, while it seems that others require a comparison to Trump or Sanders.

Please put me down as one of those others; in fact, i think that to treat this in any other way is the mark of an irrevocable fool, to put it bluntly.

Barring an act literally unprecedented in the history of the United States, the next president will be either Ms. Clinton or Mr. Trump. I don't expect, for example, a military coup and for General Dunford to announce that he's taking over the country to preserve the smooth-running order of the United States. But neither do I expect a revolution by the Sanders Liberation Front or a sudden restoration of the Hanovrian dynasty. Even less do I expect a meteor strike to eliminate the city of DC,... and the possibility of a third party victory comes in even behind the meteor strike.

So I don't know what good it does to complain about how Clinton is a lousy candidate, since, unless your preferred candidate is Mr. Trump, your preferred candidate is not even in the race.

Given the very real possibility that the real candidate you find even worse might win, voting for an imaginary candidate like Frodo Baggins, Jill Stein, or Bernie Sanders is at best foolish and at worst grossly negligent. Even staying home is irresponsible.

You don't complain to influence this election. You complain to influence future elections.


Captain Battletoad wrote:
CBDunkerson wrote:
Should we allow casinos in two more counties

Why not?

I can't comment on CBD's specific circumstances but there are a few things I can think of.

I can see a case for it either way. On the one hand, it is a blue law where a lot of the motivation for creating it has gone away.

On the other hand, removing it opens up the existing monopolies to competition and may very well sink them, as is happening in to Atlantic City. Since they tend to support the local economies, there is a vested interest in making sure not only that existing casinos remain healthy but that the tourism industry around those casinos stays strong. Expanding casinos really hurts that tourism industry as there is no longer a need to travel to do it.

Back to the case for expansion, neighboring states are likely looking at expansion and you don't want to be the one left out. You want to be importing tourists, not exporting them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
atheral wrote:
Started the new season of RWBY and, wow, they really stepped up their game with the quality this time around.

I haven't decided if I like it more yet. I find it drifts closer to uncanny valley for me, where the things that are off seem more pronounced. I heard it takes them something like 40 minutes per frame to render.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
GreyWolfLord wrote:
CrystalSeas wrote:
Jaçinto wrote:
The thing with Hillary is setting precedent I guess so hopefully they are both punished for their actions.
No, Colin Powell set the precedent when he was Secretary of State. She did not do anything that her predecessors hadn't already done.

Last I checked, Colin Powell NEVER PUT CLASSIFIED information on his private server.

Clinton did.

That was NOT a precedence Powell set...EVER, as far as I know.

That is solely on Clinton's ignorance.

Just to clarify, if putting classified information on a private server was a precedence that Powell set, Clinton could NOT CLAIM IGNORANCE nor INNOCENCE of intent...as she would have had the intent to do as he had done with precedence.

However...that was obviously NOT what came up. Therefore, as per the idea of intent, she never intentionally put classified on her emails (as per what she claims) in that light, which is where the issue of her innocence lies (if one believes that intent is required or even matters...this is the first time I've ever heard of someone getting off based on whether they intended to disclose classified or not in all honesty). I don't think Powell ever instructed her about classified information and this is how she utilized it on the private server. If she had done that with the intent that she was copying that idea...that would have been included in regards to her Intent.

Last I checked, the REASON it was stated that Clinton was not charged was because she did not have INTENT...which was what was necessary if they were going to charge her with infractions of placing classified on an uncleared server. It is her IGNORANCE of the fact or her claim of such that meant that she would not be charged.

We have no idea if Powell had classified emails because they were never combed in excruciating detail by a 3rd party. It took experts ridiculous man hours to search through Hillary's emails, and in the end all they found a handful of things inappropriately classified before getting to her and some things that were later classified after the fact. In fact, in the FBI director's testimony, he admits that, because of the way things sent to her were labeled, an expert on the classification system would have no reason to believe any of the emails were classified without additional knowledge of the specific programs being discussed. Combine that with a formal disagreement between the State Department and FBI about what level of detail constitutes classified information (Drone program FBI says all emails are classified and State Department says general plan emails are not, IIRC), which accounts for many of the after the fact reclassifications, and there would be no case.

Not only can you not make the case that she knowingly intended to remove classified information, you can't even make the case that she knew she had removed classified information in the first place. That's not even including the perfectly valid arguments she can make about not understanding the technology well enough.


BigDTBone wrote:
Caineach wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Donna Brazile used her position as a CNN correspondent to leak primary debate questions to Clinton camp.
I wonder how many people will click through to realize it was during the primary and no one will care.
Or how many people will blow over the fact that I put "primary" in my link description and not care...

Honestly, in the context, I interpreted "primary" to be main when reading your post and forgot about it by the time I responded.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigDTBone wrote:
Donna Brazile used her position as a CNN correspondent to leak primary debate questions to Clinton camp.

I wonder how many people will click through to realize it was during the primary and no one will care.


Ah, I figured out how they came to 3.3. The calculated the average monthly mortgage and monthly rent, and compared that, rather than using average years broken down by county. That gives a very different result.

In addition, they seem to only be including mortgage and not including taxes, which in many areas could be as much as the mortgage and drastically change this calculation.


Orfamay Quest wrote:
Caineach wrote:
I don't know anyone looking to buy a house that is spending less than 5 years in it.

Limited sample size. Especially since most people aren't planning on buying a house and retrofitting it with solar immediately. The question isn't whether it would have made sense four years ago to retrofit my current house with solar, unless you've a TARDIS in your garage you're willing to lend me.

Quote:
If you are, generally the economics say you should rent instead because on resale you wont recoup the closing costs. That is unless you plan on flipping the house, which only works in very limited housing markets.
Or if you're in one of the markets where renting is a lot more expensive than owning, which right now is most of them. Right now, the average breakeven point is 3.3 years for renting vs owning.

Ok, sure. My friends are admittedly abnormalities because they look at solar potential as a selling point of the house (google now has a convenient calculator).

A quick google search tells me that average time for owning a home is 13 years, and has been growing since the housing collapse. I'm guessing that data has some distinct breakdowns though, and is in no way a bell curve, with a large group of people owning homes for 30+ years and a huge cluster at <3. Age and regional demographics probably play a huge role.

I'm really curious that site's methodology for calculating an average of 3.3 years, since almost no county buying is better in at 3 years and only a handful are better at 3.5. I would buy it if they told me 3.8. Renting is still better on the west coast at 5 years.

And this is ignoring the fact that solar is a capital investment that increases the value of the home. That is of course if you are buying the panels yourself instead of renting them.


Quark Blast wrote:
Wrath wrote:

Don't know. My panels have a 30 year warranty on them. They'll have paid for themselves by 2020 at this rate. That gives me 20 years of energy profit before warranty runs out.

I really think you need to look at things more deeply Quark.

Battery systems are already here. They are expensive now. 5 years from now that won't be true. Look at every piece of technology for households,that's ever gone to market. TVs, computers gaming console etc.

They all,start super expensive and then get very cheap very fast as the technology advances and people begin to consume.

My prediction, 5 years till self sufficiency for many homes.

Assuming we don't have a fricken nuclear war in that time.

Agree whole heatedly with the bold part.

Problem for most people is they don't plan on living in the same home for 5 years, let alone 30.

We'll see where the tech is at in 5 years.

I think another limited nuclear war is inevitable and that should be the last one (assuming it doesn't escalate and we as a species survive).

Word from Amnesty International around Mosul is that there are already revenge killings by Shia on Suni locals (excluding members of ISIS). So we push ISIS out of Iraq and the Russians/Assad push them out of Syria, what happens when they take over Pakistan?

I don't know anyone looking to buy a house that is spending less than 5 years in it. If you are, generally the economics say you should rent instead because on resale you wont recoup the closing costs. That is unless you plan on flipping the house, which only works in very limitted housing markets.

I will also point out in a previous post you were looking for solar to be installed in Texas. Last I heard, Texas actually penalizes people for installing solar by requiring them to be connected to the grid but refusing to pay them back for energy produced.

I'm in NY, and one of the biggest things holding solar installation back is lack of trained installers. The companies that do it are booked months in advance.


Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:

From the Trump Gets the Skynet Vote Dept:

The AI System MogIA which takes in 20 million data points from Google, Facebook, Twitter, and Youtube posits Trump as the winner of the Presidential election, and more popular than Barrack Obama was in 2008.

I think a lot of people retweating Trump's insanity is throwing off their algorithm.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
CrusaderWolf wrote:

4%? In a presidential? Assuming 200 million registered voters (a benchmark I believe we just reached a week ago) that would be a mere 8 million votes cast. 2012 saw almost 127 million votes cast for President.

I assume you mistyped, but I'm not sure what you meant to say.

EDIT: Unless you meant that 4% of voters are swing votes, in which case my bad for misunderstanding.

I think he was referring to people in swing states, but he wasn't particularly clear


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Huh. While I wasn't looking the New Hampshire Green Party went and changed tomorrow's protest outside the Dem's Clinton/Kennedy dinner (changed earlier this autumn from the "Jefferson/Jackson dinner") from a Jill Stein demo into a Solidarity with Standing Rock demo.

Got to go with what is more important.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
GreyWolfLord wrote:

I think you lost me here on your logic.

I discussed how I like Tim Kaine and his overall reasonability. You then talk about pre-emptive surrender.

The closest I came to was talking about how I think Kaine may be able to build the bridges that have been burned in the past few years and make it so we have something that resembles a working congress rather than the shambles we have now where they won't even get a Justice selected to the SC.

I'm not sure how that is interpreted as automatic preemptive surrender.

Working together and cooperating is FAR different than surrender. It's that type of mindset that one is surrendering if they work with others is exactly the type of vitriol that has caused the caustic situation in the US government in the first place.

Because all the bridges were burned by Republicans, so any overture by Democrats to build new bridges is giving in to the Republican tantrum.


article on renewables surpassing coal worldwide
Interesting to note is almost half of China's new energy production is renewables, and the US and Europe are adding renewables faster than increasing energy demand.


Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Caineach wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Pillbug Toenibbler wrote:
CrusaderWolf wrote:
NPC Dave wrote:
I was then informed that gays are under threat from “gay conservative therapy”. Again, I said that was nonsense. I pointed out it was nonsense because if that were really true, all gays would be against it (or at least all gays who want to be gay).
Um...so your argument is "I can find a handful who agree with me, therefore the vast majority that doesn't is invalidated?" It might be better for you to use an argument that doesn't rely on pointing to an extreme minority of gay men for your support, because I bet that I can find a whole lot more than you who loathe gay conversion therapy. Again, the term for what you're doing is "tokenism". Also would be interested in your source for "20% of gays support Trump".

So, other than the cherry-picked trio, does the rest of the actual LGBTQ Republicans' say count? The Log Cabin Republicans took out an ad rightfully complaining that the 2016 RNC Platform was "the most anti-LGBT platform in the party’s 162-year history."

And if you're curious, the LCR later refused to endorse Trump/Pence 2016.

About bloody time they stood up for themselves.. Only took about a quarter century.
Of course right after voting to not endorse Trump they praised him as being the most LBGTQ friendly candidate in history. No idea how they manage to parse that cognitive dissonance.
Actually, compared to the other Republicans in the Primary Clown Car, with the exception of Munchies Kaisch, he is. The party itself, remains downright hostile

They were including Democrats.


Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Pillbug Toenibbler wrote:
CrusaderWolf wrote:
NPC Dave wrote:
I was then informed that gays are under threat from “gay conservative therapy”. Again, I said that was nonsense. I pointed out it was nonsense because if that were really true, all gays would be against it (or at least all gays who want to be gay).
Um...so your argument is "I can find a handful who agree with me, therefore the vast majority that doesn't is invalidated?" It might be better for you to use an argument that doesn't rely on pointing to an extreme minority of gay men for your support, because I bet that I can find a whole lot more than you who loathe gay conversion therapy. Again, the term for what you're doing is "tokenism". Also would be interested in your source for "20% of gays support Trump".

So, other than the cherry-picked trio, does the rest of the actual LGBTQ Republicans' say count? The Log Cabin Republicans took out an ad rightfully complaining that the 2016 RNC Platform was "the most anti-LGBT platform in the party’s 162-year history."

And if you're curious, the LCR later refused to endorse Trump/Pence 2016.

About bloody time they stood up for themselves.. Only took about a quarter century.

Of course right after voting to not endorse Trump they praised him as being the most LBGTQ friendly candidate in history. No idea how they manage to parse that cognitive dissonance.


538 has Clinton ahead in Ohio, giving her a 60% chance of victory. That being said, she can lose every state closer than Pennsylvania, where they give her an 87% chance and polls show her up a minimum of 5 points, and she would still win electoral college victory. Pennsylvania is stronger for Clinton than Texas is for Trump.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Fukishima survived the earthquake and had its failsafes activating properly. It did not survive the Tsunami, which took out backup power. Most of the world doesn't have to deal with those.


Bjørn Røyrvik wrote:
Cottonmouth wasn't cartoonish enough, while Diamondback was enjoyably so. Shades was kind of dull.

We must agree to disagree. Diamondback was a huge letdown for me, and a huge part of that was his cartoonish insanity.


Irontruth wrote:

Sat down and watch the series this week.

Overall I liked it. I think JJ was much better constructed, but this was better than either season of DD.

It did suffer from the same problem as DD though, the main character was the weakest one in the series. The "strong, silent type" is very cliched and kind of stale. It's hard to pull of well or interestingly these days, it can be done, but there are big hurdles to overcome. When Luke was passionate and vocal, the character was interesting. His brooding silence though was boring and dull.

Also, the show engaged in a rhetorical argument against it's own existence several times and that annoys the crap out of me. The main character wants to just leave and doesn't see why he should be involved. If he doesn't care about the story, it starts to make me wonder why I should care.

I did appreciate that they didn't do a lot of drawn out action sequences. Especially in the first half of the season when there's little to no tension in the scenes. Short and sweet scenes to the point.

Missick and Rossi were both very fun to watch as Det. Knight and Shades respectively. Knight was predictable within the genre, but had enough twists and depths to keep her interesting and engaging. Shades was the most interesting villain to watch IMO, seemed like he actually wanted to survive and thrive. The actor did a good job of adding layers to his emotions that really indicated that the wheels were turning inside his head.

I thought the references to current events in the real world were a nice touch.

I really loved the way Shades didn't just want to survive and thrive, but he wanted those around him to as well. He actually cared about the other villains.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
GreyWolfLord wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
It seems to me the Tea Party and the Sanders/OWS people actually have a lot in common on some issues; the party would be looking to capitalize on that. Republicans - 1/3 of the voters + the independents/superleft Democrats = possible win, if you sold it well.

I'd say the Tea Party and OWS do, not so certain about Sanders supporters.

I see the same thing in many ways. The both see that there is a lack of well paying jobs for those who are not upper middle class to upper class.

They both want to have meaningful wages and jobs BACK in the US rather than in other nations.

They both want the Wall Street Types to keep their companies (and hence jobs) in the US rather than exporting them to other nations and manufacturing things there.

They both think the upper echelons are corrupt.

I was surprised that we didn't see a strange alliance between the two when the OWS movement was particularly large and the cops were trying to disband them.

Ironically, instead, we saw a lot of the Tea Party encouraging the cops...rather than seeing that there was a LOT in common between the two.

I'm not surprised at all. As I said above, that anger at corporate elites is the only thing the Tea Party and OWS have in common. And in the Tea Party, it's largely been co-opted by anger at government.

The solutions they want are vastly different. OWS was for government support in many cases, safety net, WS regulation and breakup, housing market, etc. TP is against all that - wants the government out, let the banks fail etc.

And of course the Tea Party is largely rural and white, while OWS is urban and colored. Two different worlds. Anger driven by many of the same sources, but completely different responses.

I think if early Tea Party met OWS they would have gotten along decently well. There was definitely a point before the crazy dominated the tea party that they could have at least realized they could be friends. A lot of people I know who supported the Tea Party early and fled also supported OWS.


Orfamay Quest wrote:
Caineach wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:

It surprises me there isn't a "Hard Work Party." They could tap into the bootstrap myth but appeal to a broader base. They'd have a platform that looked something like this:

  • Job creation
  • Reduce "entitlement" programs
  • Eliminate large corporate subsidies & loopholes; tax breaks for small businesses only
  • Less overseas adventurism to focus on internal infrastructure
  • Non-career politicians claiming to present "common-sense" bills that "make sense" as opposed to making back-room political deals with other "insiders."
  • Renewable energy recast as job creation for American know-how, sidestepping the whole anthropogenic climate change vs. denialist issue.
  • Hot-button religious topics like abortion and evolution/creationism left to lower courts as a means of conspicuously avoiding having a stance.
  • Claims of being in favor of "small government"

    You could tap into the disaffected jobless base that Trump is relying on, but without the overt racism. You'd also appeal to the Sanders people/OWS contingent.

  • Isn't this pretty much the Libertarian party minus the crazy?

    Not really, no. The whole point of the Libertarian party is that the government should have no role in anything. For example, the government should not be in the business of "job creation" generally, and specifically shouldn't be in the business of selecting sectors (such as renewable energy or "small businesses"). The government should not be leaving hot-button issues like abortion alone; it should instead make it clear that the government at any level has no business whatsoever restricting abortion, or use of heroin, or personal possession and use of antitank artillery, et cetera.

    Even bills that "make sense" are usually overstepping their bounds.

    Like I said, minus the crazy. Most self-identified Libertarians I know take it no where near the extreme you are describing.


    Kirth Gersen wrote:

    It surprises me there isn't a "Hard Work Party." They could tap into the bootstrap myth but appeal to a broader base. They'd have a platform that looked something like this:

  • Job creation
  • Reduce "entitlement" programs
  • Eliminate large corporate subsidies & loopholes; tax breaks for small businesses only
  • Less overseas adventurism to focus on internal infrastructure
  • Non-career politicians claiming to present "common-sense" bills that "make sense" as opposed to making back-room political deals with other "insiders."
  • Renewable energy recast as job creation for American know-how, sidestepping the whole anthropogenic climate change vs. denialist issue.
  • Hot-button religious topics like abortion and evolution/creationism left to lower courts as a means of conspicuously avoiding having a stance.
  • Claims of being in favor of "small government"

    You could tap into the disaffected jobless base that Trump is relying on, but without the overt racism. You'd also appeal to the Sanders people/OWS contingent.

  • Isn't this pretty much the Libertarian party minus the crazy?


    Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
    Guy Humual wrote:
    You shouldn't assume that if Nader hadn't been in the race that those votes would have gone to Gore, it seems intuitive, but when people were polled on just Bore Gore and Bush, Bush won. Nader might have stolen more votes from Bush.

    Here's the problem with that assumption. Republicans to a man HATED Nader. They still do. They even did when they were funneling campaign money to him. If you took a position survey on the bulk of Nader's supporters, you'd find that their positions on Nader's key issue all sided with Democratic candidates, on matter such as environment, election reform, consumer protection, and corporate accountability. They used Nader as a tool to hurt the Democrats just as they used all the other tools in their arsenal, being smart enough to take all the advantages they could muster.

    It'd be absurd to claim that Nader's votes had a neutral effect on the total Bush vs. Gore tally.

    I voted for Nader on both elections that he ran in, the safe blue state of New Jersey which went for Gore in 2000. I probably would not have done so if I was voting in Florida. And Nader should have pulled back from that state, and concentrated on getting his 15 percent from elsewhere. (in the end he only got 3 percent of the total vote.)

    Pretty much everything I have seen showed Nader pulling roughly evenly from Bush than from Gore.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Purple Dragon Knight wrote:
    Callous Jack wrote:
    Plus the obvious power source on the back made me wonder why Cage didn't crush it.
    A lot of what I find wrong with this show seems to stem from the way they wrote Luke Cage as a very low INT character. Either low INT or clinically depressed or pathologically mellow (did I miss a show where they show him suck back five joints in a row? because that's how he seems to act the entire season...)

    I think you were watching a different show than me


    Jessex wrote:
    Caineach wrote:
    Jessex wrote:
    Caineach wrote:

    There are solar panels that can produce energy off moonlight. Assuming you only get 8 hours of energy and nothing the rest of the day is a false assumption. 8 hours at full efficiency means these would produce only 2.1kWH/day.

    A normal system of static south facing solar panels angled for your latitude will produce at least 4kWH/day...

    4 kwh/day is not 455 kWh/day which was the claim I was debunking. 6 of those is 24 kWh/day not 455.

    I used the most efficient panels in existence because those are the only ones with a remote chance of hitting that kind of goal. The sorts of commercial units you are referencing simply cannot. You already provided the math to prove that.

    I'm unsure why you thought you were disagreeing with me when you actually stated that I was correct.

    I misread your initial assessment and that changes my numbers, but it is still close to doable on my house. 455kWh/day / 4kWh/day/m^2 = 114 m^2, so only slightly larger than my 100m^2 of south facing exposure. I can probably do it since I am using footprint instead of linear feet for the roof, since I'm not sure of the pitch. Each of the 6 systems I was referring to was 54, no 4 kWh/day (I had misread your kWh target as a kwh/day target).
    You're claiming to get 4kWh/day per m^2 of panel? You previously said you got 4kWh/day from a system that was 15m^2. One is in line with reasonable efficiency panels, the other is a massive increase of efficiency over any panels presently known to exist.

    No, my claim has always been 4kWh/day/m^2 from panels. If you look at the website I linked as the source of my data, you would see that that is what they assume as a baseline for New York and New England using static south-facing solar panels angled optimally for altitude, as an annual average. Most of the country will get 5 or better. Looking at it further, I see that their graph is in fact from 2004, so at this point it is probably measurably higher from better panels. But the fact of the matter is this system is massive overkill, most people will only need systems 6-10m^2 to meet daily needs, which is what tons of people are installing.

    I referenced a 15m^2 system because I mistook your 56kWh as 56kWh/day, and that is how much you would need to hit that target.

    edit addition:
    I would also like to point out that you calculated 90kWh/m^2/day with your ideal solar panels.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    It is important to register all possible domain names
    votefortrumppence.com


    2 people marked this as a favorite.

    Cards Against Humanity creators take billboard add accusing Trump of being a Hanzo Main


    MMCJawa wrote:
    thejeff wrote:

    Tomorrow, right?

    It's going to be moderated by a Fox News host, so it's friendly territory for Trump. Expect softball questions and for the moderator not to challenge him on anything no matter how wild. "Not a proper role for a moderator to fact check", that's what we'll hear.

    He's got nothing to lose, so he has to win big. I'd say you're right. This one's going to be ugly. Remember, the shackles have been taken off him. He's no longer going to be polite and restrained, like he has been so far.

    Hillary though almost certainly is aware of this, and has been practicing and honing a strategy to deal with this. I expect Trump to go fully off the rails, but I think Hillary will easily come out on top. Really at this point Trump seems to only care about his base. At this point I don't think there is any way the debate can improve his odds of winning the election.

    Based off things I had read about Trump before the election started, I think Trump is delusional in a way that makes it so he doesn't realize there are people who think in ways other than those he surrounds himself with, and that has led to him not realizing that there are opinions other than his base.


    Jessex wrote:
    Caineach wrote:

    There are solar panels that can produce energy off moonlight. Assuming you only get 8 hours of energy and nothing the rest of the day is a false assumption. 8 hours at full efficiency means these would produce only 2.1kWH/day.

    A normal system of static south facing solar panels angled for your latitude will produce at least 4kWH/day...

    4 kwh/day is not 455 kWh/day which was the claim I was debunking. 6 of those is 24 kWh/day not 455.

    I used the most efficient panels in existence because those are the only ones with a remote chance of hitting that kind of goal. The sorts of commercial units you are referencing simply cannot. You already provided the math to prove that.

    I'm unsure why you thought you were disagreeing with me when you actually stated that I was correct.

    I misread your initial assessment and that changes my numbers, but it is still close to doable on my house. 455kWh/day / 4kWh/day/m^2 = 114 m^2, so only slightly larger than my 100m^2 of south facing exposure. I can probably do it since I am using footprint instead of linear feet for the roof, since I'm not sure of the pitch. Each of the 6 systems I was referring to was 54, no 4 kWh/day (I had misread your kWh target as a kwh/day target).


    NPC Dave wrote:

    For myself, I have thrown in my lot for Trump. I was waiting to see what bombshell would be thrown in October that would put Trump's back to the wall. I wanted to see if he would quit when it would look hopeless. Meaning actually quit the race or give up and just go through the motions until election day.

    And he didn't quit. He actually fought back. For the first time in a long time, a Republican is actually fighting back harder than his Democrat opponent. He is fighting dirtier too.

    So I respect his courage. Too many people in politics fold when the media turns against them, but Trump is someone who won't and he hits back when someone hits him.

    He keeps hitting my enemies so how can I not cheer him on.

    I still think there is another grenade coming in November designed to hit when there is no adequate time to respond. I also think the election will be close, but I won't call it for Trump. Not when the betting sites have him at 4:1 odds or longer.

    Perhaps because cheering him on is encouraging his sexual assaults.


    thejeff wrote:
    Caineach wrote:
    Snowblind wrote:
    Caineach wrote:

    ...

    Right, but my point isn't based off that, so I have no idea why you are picking that apart and implying my argument is somehow false.

    I can think of two ideas right off the bat.

    1. So people don't walk away from this thread thinking "moonlight solar power" is a magical solution to some of the problems with solar energy.

    2. Because there is a correlation between a person being wrong about one thing on a topic (or at best saying highly misleading things), and being wrong about another thing on the same topic.

    With regards to solar power and moonlight, according to google the sun produces about 1000 watts per square meter. The moon produces about 1.5 milliwatts per square meter during a full moon, or about a million times less. If you want a very rough idea of what that means, if we assume an ideal solar panel that scales for any energy input (i.e. its magical) then the moon light from an entire year would produce about as much energy as a fraction of a second of sunlight.

    Except I'm not wrong on the topic. They produce energy in measurable quantities on clear nights, granted only a fraction of a percent of peak. It is countering the idea put forth in the previous example that only peak energy is relevant.
    When it comes to the kind of rough back of the envelope calculations we're talking about here, "a fraction of a percent of peak" is irrelevant.

    Perhaps that is a reason I didn't base any of my actual argument over it.


    Snowblind wrote:
    Caineach wrote:

    ...

    Right, but my point isn't based off that, so I have no idea why you are picking that apart and implying my argument is somehow false.

    I can think of two ideas right off the bat.

    1. So people don't walk away from this thread thinking "moonlight solar power" is a magical solution to some of the problems with solar energy.

    2. Because there is a correlation between a person being wrong about one thing on a topic (or at best saying highly misleading things), and being wrong about another thing on the same topic.

    With regards to solar power and moonlight, according to google the sun produces about 1000 watts per square meter. The moon produces about 1.5 milliwatts per square meter during a full moon, or about a million times less. If you want a very rough idea of what that means, if we assume an ideal solar panel that scales for any energy input (i.e. its magical) then the moon light from an entire year would produce about as much energy as a fraction of a second of sunlight.

    Except I'm not wrong on the topic. They produce energy in measurable quantities on clear nights, granted only a fraction of a percent of peak. It is countering the idea put forth in the previous example that only peak energy is relevant.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
    Caineach wrote:

    There are solar panels that can produce energy off moonlight. Assuming you only get 8 hours of energy and nothing the rest of the day is a false assumption. 8 hours at full efficiency means these would produce only 2.1kWH/day.

    A normal system of static south facing solar panels angled for your latitude will produce at least 4kWH/day (using the s~!*ty values for New England, much of the country can get 6), so a 15m^2 will hit your values in some of the worst area for solar in the country, with significantly cheaper and less efficient solar panels. The roof on my house, south facing, is 100m^2, and could fit 6 of these systems. Admittedly, the house is an unusually long raised ranch with a south facing entryway, but it is only an average size middle class home overall. Trees are the only reason for not having a system on it.

    Moonlight doesn't deliver anywhere near the energy to ground that sunlight does... and that's assuming a full moon which is generally only three nights of the month. And there's the half of the month when there is no moonlight at all at night. So right off the bat, you're not going to get a usable amount of energy from lunar light alone.

    Right, but my point isn't based off that, so I have no idea why you are picking that apart and implying my argument is somehow false.


    Jessex wrote:
    GreyWolfLord wrote:
    Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
    [What company do you work for?

    I don't work for the company, I'm an investor. I am probably one of the six biggest investors of it's stocks (actually, I'm almost positive I'm in the top six, maybe the top 5

    Then you are a sucker. And you wrote about me being wrong on everything?

    You claimed a solar installation so efficient it would power a home for two weeks off one day's sunlight. That is patent nonsense.

    The most efficient panels that exist are from SunPower which hit just over 24% efficiency. In lab testing, which means ideal conditions, one of these panels produced 272.5 watts from a total panel area of just over 1130 cm^2. The average US residential consumer uses 911 kWh per month. So for 2 weeks of power you need 455 kWh. I'll be generous and assume 8 hours of full efficiency sunlight. That means the installation needs to produce 56.875 kW, assuming 100% efficiency batteries and no other losses (because I feel generous), which means it needs 209 panels of the 1130 cm^2 size to achieve that result. That is 236,170 cm^2 of panels, assuming no frames or other lost area). Which is a just less than 5 m^2 of panels.

    Of course the reality is you'll never get that 24% efficiency in a real installation, panels will not operate at full efficiency for the whole day and there will be other losses in any such system. And that completely ignores latitude.

    5 square meters of solar tracking panels on a residential roof is marginally doable but a 10 square meter array?

    Solar is certainly making large strides in efficiency but do not make claims that cannot be supported.

    There are solar panels that can produce energy off moonlight. Assuming you only get 8 hours of energy and nothing the rest of the day is a false assumption. 8 hours at full efficiency means these would produce only 2.1kWH/day.

    A normal system of static south facing solar panels angled for your latitude will produce at least 4kWH/day (using the s&$$ty values for New England, much of the country can get 6), so a 15m^2 will hit your values in some of the worst area for solar in the country, with significantly cheaper and less efficient solar panels. The roof on my house, south facing, is 100m^2, and could fit 6 of these systems. Admittedly, the house is an unusually long raised ranch with a south facing entryway, but it is only an average size middle class home overall. Trees are the only reason for not having a system on it.Source


    GreyWolfLord wrote:
    Snowblind wrote:

    Speaking of the wall...

    Paraphrasing and taking liberties here (a lot of liberties)...

    Trump: Its going to cost 4 billion...they say 10, but I know how to build walls, and if you are smart...4 billion...4 to 6 billion... 6 billion...maybe 8 billion...'bout 10 billion...10 to 12 billion.

    Expert testimony and federal data: If you use the lowest figure, which is a 35 foot high wall, construction will cost *meticulous details*, adding up to 25 billion. Maintenance for 7 years will double that, and this isn't even including getting the property to build this wall on in the first place.

    Far more effective than walls are towers and machine gun nests. Even North Korea doesn't have a specific Wall it's entire border. It has a fence, a mine field, and lots of people with guns.

    Probably be far more effective simply to put towers with machine gun nexts every mile to two miles. Add in a minefield and you'd have illegals going the same way they do on the Korean border. It probably would cut down a LOT more than a wall would.

    Of course, you'd have to live with the thousands of deaths you caused (especially for the first one or two years) as you'd probably kill a lot of people.

    The question would be how many would be Americans simply crossing over the Mexico/US border to other way as well?

    I'm sure all the ranchers in Texas along the boarder would love to be playing Unexploded Cow

    1 to 50 of 6,118 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

    ©2002–2016 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.