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. 4,828 posts (4,833 including aliases). 1 review. No lists. No wishlists. 1 alias.


RSS

1 to 50 of 4,828 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Star Voter 2013

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.

Star Voter 2013

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.

Star Voter 2013

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.

Star Voter 2013

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Freehold DM wrote:
Fergurg wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Fergurg wrote:
I do agree that there is a high number motivated by racism. I just don't believe that racism is the default answer to shootings, and many people do, even after proof is shown otherwise.
OK, next question: granted that it is less than 100%, what percentage of police shootings motivated by racism is acceptable to you? I think that's what the source of strife is here -- most people would answer "zero" rather than merely "any is okay because we know it's not 100%."

This isn't about whether or police shootings motivated by racism is acceptable. It is about whether or not it is acceptable to automatically assume that police killings are motivated by racism.

Take the case in New York with Eric Garner. Looked like a combination of incompetence and tempers flaring up due to the fact that the cop and the suspect had a history, and not a pleasant one. But unless somehow the black supervisor on the scene was somehow a race traitor, the death was not because he was black.

BTW: You want a conspiracy theory? I got one, and I don't think it's too far-fetched: Garner's legal issues, and the reason he knew that particular cop, were related to not paying cigarette taxes. The mayor of NYC loves himself some taxes. The people who elected him, the same people who would be part of the grand jury pool, elected a man who campaigned on raising taxes.

Is it just me, or does this sound like a "Business man didn't pay the money we wanted him to pay. Sure was a tragic 'accident' what happened to him. If only he had paid, that could have been avoided."

I hate to pull this particular card, but as a mostly life long new yorker, you're in the wrong here. Staten Island has had issues with heavy handed enforcement with respect to minor crime from police FOR YEARS, and while I do think race plays a role here, it pales in comparison to how that particular neighborhood is patroled. Note that they got the guy selling loosies in front of a store in...

What I will never understand about this case is why they decided they had to arrest him for a ticketable offense. 4 guys are there to take in someone that the first cop could have just written a $100 ticket to and walked away from.

Star Voter 2013

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

High School of the Dead is a series that lost me because it couldn't figure out what type of show it wanted to be, and a lot of that was the fanservice. It needed to tone down the ridiculousness, including the fanservice, to be a good zombie flick, but the serious parts felt too disjointed from the humor for it to fit solely as a comedy.

Meanwhile, Kill la Kill managed to merge the fanservice into a ridiculous but serious plot and combined the comedy. It worked smoothly together. It may not be your thing, but it was well done.

Star Voter 2013

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Fergurg wrote:
thejeff wrote:


Remember as well, just because the Constitution says you don't have to show the cop ID, doesn't mean you won't get shot for not doing so. The place to insist on your rights is not on the spot, but later on after you've voluntarily ceded them.
Just a minor correction here: the Supreme Court has ruled that yes, you are required to show ID when asked by a cop. That is because the right to remain silent only applies to questions that, by answering them, you may incriminate yourself (like "Why are you here?"), and your identity is considered to never be incriminating.

Except you are not required by law to carry ID, so not giving it to a cop is not illegal.

Star Voter 2013

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Fergurg wrote:

No business pays taxes. They collect taxes - from their customers.

This is why when business taxes go up, prices go up.

It depends entirely on the market and the company's margin. Companies operating on low margins this is true. Companies operating on higher margins are likely to eat the costs to prevent people from going to a competitor or stop buying their product.

Star Voter 2013

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Personally, I was hoping they would continue to build the team with recognizable people who are just around. Net everyone needs to be in every episode, but if you keep killing off everyone the organization will never seem like it has recovered, even if it becomes as huge as it once was. It would be more interesting to me if they kept introducing agents for one or two episodes as people who work with the rest of the team, and then maybe have them in the background of other episodes and getting a speaking roll every few after.

Star Voter 2013

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.

Star Voter 2013

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Farael the Fallen wrote:

Are scientists who deny the manmade global warming exists being paid to say that by oil companies, or are some of them actually that removed from reality?

** spoiler omitted **

linkified

Star Voter 2013

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
MagusJanus wrote:
thejeff wrote:

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.

I would say the ones caused by solar activity would have happened no matter what humanity did. After all, humanity cannot affect the temperature variance of the Sun yet. This potentially includes the warming experienced in the first three decades of the 20th Century for the Northern Hemisphere, as the Little Ice Age has at least one theory stating it was caused by solar activity. Depends a lot on which timeline of the Little Ice Age you accept as well.

I'll also include the Sahara Desert on the list, since it formed before humanity discovered writing. The El Nino event, to which a Pineapple Express appears to be tied, is also on the list (evidence suggests a 10,000 year history for it and it's got 300 years of evidence of it happening).

There's probably a few others, but overall I'm willing to bet they form a minority of the climatic events that would have happened. And that most of those events are either tied into the natural climatic patterns of a region or connected to solar activity.

Sahara Desert was tiny until the Romans destroyed the landscape. They killed off a lot of the apex predators, which changed how many other animals were around, which changed erosion patterns. The desert saw a massive spike in size during Ancient Rome.

How Wolves Change Rivers - about the reintroduction of wolves into Yellowstone.

Star Voter 2013

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.

Star Voter 2013

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

TRUE :)

Star Voter 2013

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 :)

Star Voter 2013

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."

Star Voter 2013

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Mythic Evil Lincoln wrote:
thejeff wrote:
I'm all for skepticism among scientific experts on a particular topic. Skepticism of those opinions by people without such expertise, often driven as you suggest by "systemic manipulation of information in certain demographics", is an entirely different matter.

I'm not normally one to resort to this kind of statement, but that smacks of elitism.

Communicating scientific truth to the public at large is almost as important as the discoveries themselves.

Scientists don't occupy some elite position of judgement where their opinion counts for more than the lay person. Instead, they have discovered something reproducible, which means all opinions are equal on the matter.

The climate change anthropogenesis denier can be someone who simply hasn't seen convincing evidence, due to a different perspective from those who have. It's not a personal failing on the same level as those who might know better, but propagate the lie because it suits them politically or financially.

Intellectually lazy, perhaps, but liar and fool are names that should be reserved for the willful misleading of the people. If individuals without expertise are meant to take everything on faith, that's bad for science, too. It pretty much has to go the way it's going -- let people argue about it, and let the facts speak for themselves. (I think we're agreed on the villainy inherent in manipulating the argument)

8 times out of 10 the climate change deniers in my experience are someone who doesn't bother to educate themselves on the subject and instead parrots opinions by people with an economic interest in preventing carbon sources. The other 2 out of 10, they are themselves someone with a large economic interest in preventing changes.

The problem is people don't listen to facts. They listen to pocket books.

Star Voter 2013

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

judging by the number of spoiler messages I guess I need to go watch the last episode.

Star Voter 2013

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Cranky Bastard wrote:

I find myself amazed that pointing out discrepancy of police action, in response to the racial component of the use of excessive and/or lethal force, is deemed unsuitable - yet flagging victim-blaming meets with remarkable amounts of laissez faire.

I suppose we have to settle for illustrating the culture that pervades.

A lot of times it has to do with the way things are said, and if it comes across as a directed insult at another person on the forum.

Star Voter 2013

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Coriat wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Don't forget, if they bleed on you after you've beaten them, you can charge them with destruction of government property.
I think that despite the amount of material that has come out, that still remains the single most messed up incident that I've heard of over there. Everything about it from beginning to end.

I think the most disturbing thing about that case is that they were not charged with assault or perjury after admitting to both.

Star Voter 2013

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
thejeff wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
MagusJanus wrote:

Doesn't civil court, in this case, often require some kind of clear-cut evidence that a wrongdoing happened in order to get a conviction when suing police/cities/governments?

Or am I all wet on this one?

Criminal case: beyond a reasonable doubt

Civil case: a preponderance of evidence

The difference being that with a criminal case, the goal is for verdicts to be 100% certain. With a civil case, it need only be more likely that one thing happened instead of another.

A great example is OJ Simpson. He survived criminal court, because it couldn't be proved with absolute certainty that he committed the crime. On the other hand he lost when the families brought a civil suit against him, because it was found that he was most likely responsible for the deaths.

There are a couple of reasons why civil courts are more lax in their burden of proof.

1) The consequences tend to be monetary, which is generally regarded as less. You can't be sent to jail for a civil suit, nor can you be sentenced to death. Because the stakes are higher in a criminal court, you have more protections.
2) The judgement against you can vary by both the severity of your actions and the likelihood that you did it or were responsible for the outcome. If you are only partially responsible, you might need only pay a portion of the damages.

There are a lot of protections for government officials. For example you can't sue the President because he signed a law that cost you money. You can sue the government to fight the law, but you can't sue the individuals themselves.

I would envision these lawsuits being brought against the government agency responsible, not the individual. It would be up to the agency to determine internally how to handle disciplinary measures to prevent actions that cause them to be sued.

The other benefit is that it would fall outside the purview of the prosecutor's office, which would probably not play a major role in defending the

This does happen. The NYPD has paid out millions in recent years for civil rights violations and excessive force cases. It doesn't seem to have any real long term effect. Generally the payouts come years later. The costs are passed on to the tax payers, which is particularly problematic in smaller, poorer areas, like Ferguson - especially ones that derive a good deal of their revenue from harassment, fines and penalties on the local population.

There may be a way to tighten the link so that departments actually respond to such suits but changing policies, but it doesn't seem to have happened so far.

In many cases there isn't even a demerit on the officer's record.

Star Voter 2013

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?

Star Voter 2013

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Honestly, it seems like a typical frat prank against a geek club at college. I know we dealt with at least 1 similar thing a year in the sci-fi club when I was in school. This is taken up a notch though, and I really hope it actually gets investigated.

At least one amusing thing has come of it though.
The Morning Joe learns what furries are.

Star Voter 2013

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.

Star Voter 2013

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

Star Voter 2013

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Doesn't Protection from evil prevent the wearer from being touched by evil creatures? Not so much a stretch to assume it is because of physical aversion, and it would cause greater evils pain.

Star Voter 2013

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Marik Whiterose wrote:
** spoiler omitted **

Spoiler:
likely, but lets face it. Anyone know knows Ms. Snow is involved and is remotely intelligent can look into her personal life a little bit and figure it out.
Star Voter 2013

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
Solar bike path

Neat. The Netherlands can get away with a lot less engineering than a generic one built to work anywhere though. Much less in the way of extreme weather and it is all flat. That being said, it makes it a good test bed for early prototypes.

Star Voter 2013

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
bugleyman wrote:

Some people seem to believe that actual, true color blindness is a thing (it isn't), and that white privilege is therefore an illusion (again, it isn't), or even that so much as acknowledging white privilege is itself inherently racist simply because it involves acknowledging that different races exist (no, seriously).

The bottom line: White people such as myself have very little credibility when it comes to truly understanding the black experience in America, but it doesn't take a genius to see that that experience differs from my own...and generally not in a good way. I think we white people should mostly just let black people tell us about their experience, and take them at their word. Right now, they seem to be saying that they're tired of getting shot by the police. Maybe, just maybe, that's because they're tired of getting shot by the police, as opposed to the "they're all criminals" narrative being offered?

I read an interesting article yesterday link. Apparently, 91% of an average white american's social network is white and 75% of white americans have entirely white social networks.

Star Voter 2013

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.

Star Voter 2013

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Driver of car that plows through Michael Brown rally not yet charged

Star Voter 2013

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.

Star Voter 2013

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Atrocious wrote:
Berselius wrote:

This is probably old news by now but in case nobody knows, Darren Wilson was acquitted. No charges, no trial, nothing. Last time I checked there was rioting in Ferguson and protests in every major american city.

I just...I just don't know what to say. I'm Caucasian but I have three black relatives who share my blood and I love all three of them deeply. Yet I'm scared one day one of them will be shot by a cop just because they black.

Does anyone else have thoughts on this?

You need a reality check. Statistically it's far more likely your relatives will be killed by another black person than a police officer.

Leading cause of violent deaths in Utah in the past 5 years is by police officer. It recently surpassed prison deaths, gang violence, and domestic abuse. Granted it is Utah.

Star Voter 2013

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."

Star Voter 2013

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Sissyl wrote:

I saw it and loved it... it does something I haven't seen in a LONG, LONG time. It shows us hope and asks us to broaden our horizons.

The early-movie society on Earth seems to be a pretty direct analogy to what large parts of the establishment are telling us today: We need to be cautious, save, lower our demands, and cut down on frivolous things to focus on what society NEEDS. And yet, the movie tries to tell us that given the right circumstances, it doesn't seem to be impossible to aim higher and actually get somewhere. Even if we're all at heart selfish bastards.

The science is sort of problematic, with obvious things like if they land on a higher-gravity planet, how can the shuttle take off when it can't do that without a rocket from Earth? I mean, it is rocket science, but it's pretty obvious. It didn't bother me too much, though, given what else the movie does. Something that did bother me about the ending, however, is that no matter the circumstances for it, you can't have something causing itself to happen. That paradox is not so easy to swallow, I think, even if the black hole stuff is pretty much handwave territory.

Who is to say the shuttle can't take off from earth? Just because they use a booster for earth, that just means they get to carry and conserve fuel for later.

Star Voter 2013

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Lord Snow wrote:

Saw it tonight, I thought it was incredible. Sure, the science in it wasn't exact, there were some places that I think were glossed over -

** spoiler omitted **

But really, what's important in a hard SF story is not that it will be perfectly accurate with it's science (especially when it comes to black holes and stuff like that, where you can really just guess anything and nobody could really refute you), it's more important that the story will feel plausible, and I think Interstellar does so remarkably.

Aside from the good SF elements the movie had a very likable main character, some solid other characters, excellent acting, and a good story that was well paced. I didn't even mind that I saw the twist coming from the very early parts of the movie - it was a well placed plot element that was set up elegantly. The movie did veer a bit much into sentimental stuff at the end, but honestly I'm willing to forgive this.

PUN TIME, READ AT YOUR OWN PERIL (also, some serious spoilers in there):
** spoiler omitted **...

Reply to spoiler 1.

She is taking off from a different location than where he returns to. They left from the location that he returns to, and they mention before leaving that she took the ship to a different place to set stuff up.

Star Voter 2013

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I can only imagine how much win is on their gag reel

Star Voter 2013

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.

Star Voter 2013

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
thejeff wrote:
|dvh| wrote:
So we're in agreement then that the US' majority far-right and right-center parties are both garbage then?

No. I think there's a strong minority opinion that the US' majority far-right and far-left parties are both garbage.

More seriously, I think that the Democratic party is salvageable. It's kind of a wreck, but more of a fixer-upper than a tearer-downer. At least I think that fixing it is far more possible than replacing it.

Along those lines, Bernie Sanders has been making serious moves towards a Presidential campaign. Which will be interesting, even if he doesn't win the nomination.

Modern Dems aren't far left. They aren't even left of center when you compare them to political parties in Europe. There are a handful of exceptions, but they aren't getting new legislation past any time soon.

Star Voter 2013

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

Okay...I saw this movie on Sat. I have to say I think Nolan is getting too caught up in his own cleverness.

The Sound was awful...there was scenes where I could not make out the dialogue due to the 'background' music being really too loud.

The plot was both overly 'complex' and predictable. There was really no need half the nonsense in this movie. Somebody should sit Nolan down and explain to him the benefits of KISS. I mean it was could have been a really great movie about Relativity and exploration...instead a little of that and a bunch of silliness. I am referring to...

** spoiler omitted **

I mean I though the acting was great (the bits I could hear), the special effects, even the basic idea of the movie to be great, I loved the design and personalities of the robots, etc. There is a lot of good in this movie but it tried to get clever...and that is when it falls flat for me.

I would save my money and the three hours plus of my life and if I wanted to check a good sci-fi story dealing with Relativity look up a novel called The Forever War.

I think the sound was off in your theater because the music was fine in mine, and I usually have issues with volume.

As for the rest of your complaint, I personally liked the fact that they portrayed the scientists as humans with their own philosophies and loved the way they established the world that they were leaving. I got out of the theater and had no idea that the movie was longer than average until I got in my car.

Star Voter 2013

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I loved TARS and CASE's personality, but felt their design left something to be desired.

Star Voter 2013

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Debating if I want a T-Rex T shirt.

Star Voter 2013

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Its probably the best hard sci-fi I have seen. It was excellent, got its science fairly straight, and was consistent with the assumed future science that it explained to the audience well enough for them to follow. I loved the fact that the ships looked like near future ones.

Star Voter 2013

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
thejeff wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
The All Seeing Eye wrote:
@BigNorseWolf - The one thing about the overlapping interests of Democrats as far as my "yoga pose" comment is that, for instance, the Financial Services industry has been a big donor to both parties but more to the Dems.
Given the amount of dark money floating around I don't know if we can know if this is true.

I don't have a source offhand, but I remember that in 2008 a lot of Wall Street money went to Obama (and other Democrats), but that it dropped off drastically after that.

Actually, using Kryzbyn's link from above and only counting names I recognized as Financial industry out of the top 50, Republicans got more.
Total: $231,117,818
Dems: 45% ($103,894,827.87)
Reps: 53% ($121,363,105.14)

That's from:

  • Goldman Sachs
  • American Bankers Assn
  • JPMorgan Chase & Co
  • Bank of America
  • Morgan Stanley
  • Credit Union National Assn
  • Citigroup Inc

Goldman Sachs was the only one to give more to Democrats. They were admittedly the biggest donor.

*All my caveats from before apply. Dark money not included and 25 years of data may not represent what's going on today.

No data to back it up, but I have heard that this election the financial industry has been putting money into a lot of Dems because they oppose the tea party, so Dems came ahead in this election but it wasn't the norm. It sounds plausible.

Star Voter 2013

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I don't think they deal with Elain until a few books later. She was his high school girlfriend that he was still recovering from at 30.

Star Voter 2013

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
thejeff wrote:
JurgenV wrote:
I just hate the double standard. Woman too exposed gets how dare you look, man too exposed gets himself arrested.

I hate the double standard too. Men can walk around without a shirt and women get arrested.

Where precisely are men getting arrested for walking around at the same levels of "too exposed" that a woman wouldn't?

Not in New York. Anywhere a man can go without a shirt a woman can, for like 15 years now. You can thank breast feeding advocates.

Star Voter 2013

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
thejeff wrote:
Caineach wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:

"Dressing provocatively" to me is a B.S. excuse for poor behavior. I don't care if a woman walks down the street wearing nothing but a g-string and pasties -- people might stare at her, but there's no justification for any kind of commentary or actual harrassment (except maybe by the police in conservative places, which I also oppose, but that's neither here nor there).

It reminds me of Islamist excuses for imposing the Burqua on women: "Well, men are like feral cats, and if easy meat is put in front of them, what do you expect them to do?" Answer: I expect them to act like men, thank you, rather than like feral cats.

So, yeah, don't care what she's wearing. Stare if you have to, but keep your comments to yourself.

In the video in question the woman asks the question "why can't I dress provocatively and not have people react?" or something stupid to that effect. Dressed provocatively is her words for how she is dressed. And she complains about men glancing at her.
Can we link this video so we all at least know what we're talking about?

The street harrassment video I haven't watched all of it, mostly just the takedown video that Lemmy posted of it on page 2

The quote, at ~1:45 "I know the way I dress is provocative, but that doesn't mean that I should have to deal with it."

watching the first video some more, they make some decent points, but have a whole lot of dumb in there too, like equating the various glances and looks with actual sexual assault.

Star Voter 2013

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

"Dressing provocatively" to me is a B.S. excuse for poor behavior. I don't care if a woman walks down the street wearing nothing but a g-string and pasties -- people might stare at her, but there's no justification for any kind of commentary or actual harrassment (except maybe by the police in conservative places, which I also oppose, but that's neither here nor there).

It reminds me of Islamist excuses for imposing the Burqua on women: "Well, men are like feral cats, and if easy meat is put in front of them, what do you expect them to do?" Answer: I expect them to act like men, thank you, rather than like feral cats.

So, yeah, don't care what she's wearing. Stare if you have to, but keep your comments to yourself.

In the video in question the woman asks the question "why can't I dress provocatively and not have people react?" or something stupid to that effect. Dressed provocatively is her words for how she is dressed. And she complains about men glancing at her.

Star Voter 2013

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

Not MEL's gf.

And the video I saw, the woman was in a skirt and heels. Mustve been a different video. Are there more than one going around?

The one linked to in the opening post is not the one you are thinking of. I did not see the original of the one you saw, but a rebuttal to it, so I know which one you are thinking of. The rebuttal was posted somewhere upthread.
Thank you, Cain, for the clarification. I knew i had seen it somewhere and read about the same girl saying that she dressed provocatively and was complaining about the catcalls.
My first impression of the outfit she was wearing in the one you are thinking of was that she was dressed like a streetwalker.
Regardless, given that we've got other examples, from personal anecdotes to the 100 catcalls video, it seems hard to blame it all on the "girl dressing provocatively".

It's amazing how you put words in people's mouths.

Star Voter 2013

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
lorenlord wrote:
Caineach wrote:
lorenlord wrote:

Not MEL's gf.

And the video I saw, the woman was in a skirt and heels. Mustve been a different video. Are there more than one going around?

The one linked to in the opening post is not the one you are thinking of. I did not see the original of the one you saw, but a rebuttal to it, so I know which one you are thinking of. The rebuttal was posted somewhere upthread.
Thank you, Cain, for the clarification. I knew i had seen it somewhere and read about the same girl saying that she dressed provocatively and was complaining about the catcalls.

My first impression of the outfit she was wearing in the one you are thinking of was that she was dressed like a streetwalker.

Star Voter 2013

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
lorenlord wrote:

Not MEL's gf.

And the video I saw, the woman was in a skirt and heels. Mustve been a different video. Are there more than one going around?

The one linked to in the opening post is not the one you are thinking of. I did not see the original of the one you saw, but a rebuttal to it, so I know which one you are thinking of. The rebuttal was posted somewhere upthread.

1 to 50 of 4,828 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 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.