I, for one, am stoked!
John Hurt is the man!
I would have preferred a Dark Angels movie, if it had to be a Space Marines centered one, but yeah the Ultramarines are probably the most recognized chapter (it's also the default chapter in the rulebook).
I wonder if it'll be a Chaos or Tyranid threat that the movie deals with, most likely Chaos (to prevent criticism of it being an Alien rip-off).
A different option could have been an Imperial Guard feature, with the marines appearing at the end of the movie to give it a tie-in to a sequel.
I hope it's enough of a success to warrant a second movie and maybe a fantasy movie too. When talking Warhammer Fantasy flicks, I'm always reminded of this awesome video sequence.
My mom found out she had lung cancer 18 months ago. She didn't want to get it treated, because she didn't think treatment did anything to help both her parents. Today she found out the cancer has moved into her brain. She's paralyzed on one side, and she's got anywhere from 2 weeks to 6 weeks to live.
Truly sorry to hear that taig. I hope you and the family can work together to make the last time as comforting and enjoyable as possible for her (as much as can be done in her situation).
I believe medical care for the general public does fall into something that private industry must not control, in our current circumstances through insurance companies. It is as basic to protecting us collectively as the military is.
I was unaware of insurance companies standing in the doorways of emergency rooms across the country, yelling, "YOU SHALL NOT PASS!!!!" like Gandalf at Kharzad Dun.
They don't and that's one of the problems. No, not that they should turn people away from emergency rooms, but that it might be the only access some people have to "health care" - as has been agreed upon before, it's one of the things that drive the cost of health care in general up, when people use the ER for non-emergency treatment.
That's also one of the reasons why health care is cheaper to run outside the US, people go to their own doctors with anything that's not an emergency. They might get referred to the hospital, but the first point of contact is usually your own doctor, not the whole ER staff.
Now, if the NHS started mandating that people should eat less fatty foods, smoke less and the like, I'd protest that, as I do have the right to stick whatever I want in my body. The NHS doesn't do that though. It certainly advertises and encourages people to exercise, to quit smoking and reduce alcohol intake, all of which are good things to encourage. I think that'd be the same over in the US. Heck, you don't have Seatbelt Laws in all your states yet, right?
The only state that doesn't have seat belt laws is New Hampshire.
Maybe helmet laws would be more appropriate to compare.
It is not currently a nightmare land where the government takes all of a business or persons money.
As I've said in another post, you sprinkle a little salt on the table, no-one notices...
You keep on sprikling, and it eventually becomes a large mess someone is stuck cleaning up!
Couldn't the inverse be said too? That if you keep taking away it'll end up in a large mess someone is stuck cleaning up (which they can't because people won't pay enough to do it)? Isn't it already a mess when people are dying everyday because of lack of health care?
Aren't those who oppose health care reform also trying to impose THEIR ideological ways on others? Aren't the Christian right also trying to impose their ideological and moral ways on others?
Everyone is trying to do that, shouldn't it be the governments job to make sure everyone is getting the best deal at the lowest cost? It is, after all, the government for ALL the people, not just those who can afford e.g. health care insurance.
Some politicians said it, so it has to be true. Staggering intellectual achievement there. Give me a damn break.
IF a bullfrog had wings it wouldn't bump its hind end every time it hit the ground.
You are working under the assumption that IF this is implemented what we end up paying WILL actually be the same. You are working under the assumption that if this is passed the extra spending won't be covered by more taxes. You are working under the asumption that if it isn't covered by more taxes it won't hurt the economy. You are working under the assumption that my insurance coverage will not change. And on and on.
If you end up paying more then you are being lowered closer to their level. You spoke in hyperbole and so I returned the hyperbole in the other direction. It really is a pretty easy concept to understand. I don't see the problem in figuring the hyperbole comparison out.
You're absolutely right, why should anyone trust anyone else? Let Anarchy rule!
Or is it only those on the left that can't be trusted? I'm sure all the conservative or libertarian politicians can be trusted to a much higher degree, right?
Staggering intellectual achievement there indeed.
Did you even watch the clip (there are more clips about this particular House Resolution on there)? The resolution seems to cover how it's paid for. It says that it'll cover even more than most, if not all, current insurances cover now.
But you're right, it's the damn guvernmend! and it can't be trusted.
Well, we Brits have quite a large welfare system, with all kinds of things, ranging from Job Seekers Allowance[JSA] for the unemployed, to disabled benefits, widows pension, income support for low earners and the like. There's also the state pension.
Same here in Denmark.
I'm unemployed and I receive JSA/Welfare. I got paid $1,607 this month (+ $88.75 in housing benefits + $108 in extra housing benefits because I receive welfare and have a moderately high rent)... after taxes, state pension pay-in and my deductible (interests on loans, e.g. my student loan - the housing benefits aren't taxed, though).
Because I'm undergoing psychological treatment (at the local hospital, doesn't cost me extra either) I don't have to do active job searches (the program I'm in counts as "job activation"), but you're required to do so otherwise (and they do check you).
Most people are members of an unemployment insurance fund (private entities), though, which they pay into every month and are then reimbursed between 80-90% of their former pay if they lose their job. There are time restrictions on these, though, and if you go unemployed longer than they cover you are "bumped down" to welfare.
Been down with the flu over the weekend (and not in the clear yet), so I'll get back to some of the earlier posts in a day or two, but I just wanted to throw a little something something out there.
Some people are complaining about how they don't want to help pay for other people's medical treatment. Does that cut the other way too?
In that case I'd hope that you'l refrain from benefitting from any kind of treatment, drug or procedure which has received any kind of government funding and especially those treatments, drugs or procedures which have originated from outside the US.
Only go with those medical treatments, drugs and procedures that are 110% US privately/corporately invented... I wish you good luck in that endeavour. Anything else would be slightly hypocritical.
Once again, hyperbole rears its ugly head.
Just because someone does not want to add another piece to the puzzle does not mean that said person is hypocritical for not throwing away the whole puzzle.
So, why should you feel bad about paying any amount when there are people who have less than you with respect to both health to be specific and standard of living in general? You should go ahead and donate everything you have now and live in a homeless shelter so that you can be on hand to work the food bar for them.
But, I don't see that happening do I?
Hyperbole cuts both ways.
What is this "other piece to the puzzle" you're talking about? If universal health care were to be implemented in the US and you had to pay the same in extra tax as you're paying in health care insurance premiums now, what's the difference to you?
Proposals (H.R. 676) have been suggested that would actually cost most everyone less than what they're paying now and everyone would be covered.
And because someone is faring worse than I am, why should I "go down" to that level if I can help raise everyone up to my level instead?
Been down with the flu over the weekend (and not in the clear yet), so I'll get back to some of the earlier posts in a day or two, but I just wanted to throw a little something something out there.
Some people are complaining about how they don't want to help pay for other people's medical treatment. Does that cut the other way too?
In that case I'd hope that you'l refrain from benefitting from any kind of treatment, drug or procedure which has received any kind of government funding and especially those treatments, drugs or procedures which have originated from outside the US.
Only go with those medical treatments, drugs and procedures that are 110% US privately/corporately invented... I wish you good luck in that endeavour. Anything else would be slightly hypocritical.
If the pictures aren't showing because of Bandwidth Exceeded you can go to his Photobucket album and view them.
When you click on the pictures there and they still exceed the bandwidth, try hovering your mouse over the picture and click the "zoom in" button that appears, that should show you the (bigger) picture.
Congrats to Mexico City, they finally legalized same-sex marriage.
Also Congrats to Washington DC for there legalization of same sex marriage.
I read a short article about this the other day. Well it was about how the Supreme Court didn't want to oppose the legislation and DC was then able to go ahead.
However, the article was a bit ambigious about whether something could still pop up to stop it or turn the legislation around.
Anyone have more info on that?
Sorry This is all I could find for you GG. So I gues they start next week. However the backlog is very real my buddy Luis is nearly out of his mind with license requests right now lol.
I think he meant the DC law. I know the US Congress had the ability to stop the law from going into effect and did not exercise it. I don't know if they still have that ability now that it is in effect.
Ok there a number of stories on appeals but this was the most comprehensive.
So it could still be struck down it seems. Is this because it's DC or could the same thing happen in other states?
Both of these claims are simple distortions of accounting.
On cost, much of the costs go to voluntary procedures that don't have an equivalence in Canada. And a great deal of the real costs of Canadian health care is hidden in bureaucratic shell games. But I will admit, delaying and rationing health care does certainly result in some savings.
Seems like you're using simple distortions too, just of the truth this time.
It's long been a talking point of the right in the US to say that universal health care requires intentional delays and "rationing" the health care. Yet where is the evidence?
Besides, what does "delaying" and "rationing" health care even mean? Are they talking about simple triage? That happens in US hospitals too.
Maybe I didn't phrase my question properly, but when has any right-leaning government ever proposed and worked to implement an all volunteer program to cover all the present social programs?
Doug's Workshop wrote:
I voluntarily entered an agreement with a money management company to fund my retirement. I send them money, they do the legwork to grow it. They needed to convince me of their competence before I gave them money. Unlike our Social Security system, which forces each employee to pay 12.4% of his paycheck towards our government [b]without any real hope of seeing that money again[b], the money I invest is mine, to do with as I please, and to give to my heirs. And it's all voluntary. The managers even sent me cookies as a thank-you gift! Arrived in a pretty tin. Darn tasty, too. Government never sent me a thank-you gift.
Emphasis mine.
Isn't that just your opinion shining through? Are you saying that the government isn't paying out retirement funds?
Doug's Workshop wrote:
My health care insurance has some simple rules, which I follow, and in return they protect me from a significant financial event. No one made me choose this particular company. I have chosen, based on their history, their competence, and their financial status, and the cost to me, to use them as my insurance company. And they have worked wonderfully for me through the years.
So how is this different than having a public option too, you'd still get to choose? Also, where is your guarantee that they'll still cover you in every instance that might prop up? If there are no opt-out clauses in your contract I'm sure a lot of other people would like to know which insurance company it is, because it's apparently the only one if its kind out there.
Doug's Workshop wrote:
And if you don't believe that your taxes are being taken from you at gunpoint, try not paying them. You will find out relatively quickly that government can do things that normal people cannot. A bank cannot put you in jail for being a deadbeat and not paying a loan. I couldn't imprison you if you owe me $20. But your beloved government can and does.
And I'm sure you can provide copious evidence of people being thrown in jail for owing the government $20, right?
Not 100% sure how it works in the US, but over here a bank certainly could force you to pay back a loan by taking you to enforcement court. If you lie about your assets in enforcement court you can also be sentenced to up to 40 days in jail (note: Danish law).
quoted Paul Krugman. The same Paul Krugman who helped Enron. You remember that company, don't you? The one that lied to regulators, demanded its employees buy up its stock, and then suck like a lead balloon because they never actually made a profit. Yeah, that Paul Krugman.
Senator Bunning did what more people should have done: pointed out that the current "pay as you go rules" are constantly circumvented. The political parties apparently have no interest in truly stopping the massive debt mounting upon the taxpayers. Every time there is a "crisis" or a "problem" the politicians will claim "it's an emergency" and violate whatever promises they have made to stop spending money like drunken sailors on shore leave.
The funny thing is, at least the drunken sailors are spending their own money. Politicians have no option but to take it, by force, from their constituents.
I have always found it amusing and quite sad that those who support stronger government control must always impose such control at the point of a gun. Never do they say "please donate money to our cause." Always, it is "you will pay us, you will be forced into national health care, you will use an outdated pyramid scheme for your retirement, or you will be sent to prison."
You are free to try moving to parts of the world where there is no real government and thus no "taxing you at gun point" (which is hyperbole if I ever saw any). See how you like it there. You'd be free to do as you please and could forge your own destiny!
If the government is oppressing you so much, why haven't you left a long time ago?
Edit: For a humorous take on this, watch this clip, especially the last part. :-)
Doug's Workshop wrote:
Never has someone on the left offered to create a voluntary system, where people have the freedom to choose what is best for themselves.
If you were ill you'd never be turned away from your doctor or the hospital over here.
We have that too; it's called an emergency room...
No one can be turned away...
Problem is, many of those that have no health coverage (and in some cases, enough to cause several emergency rooms in California to shut down, no legal status to be here), tend to abuse this and go in when they have a simple case of the sniffles...
And if they had health coverage they'd probably go to their doctor instead. I know that the use of ERs for trivial matters are a problem, but the question is whether that's the fault of the government? Education is another important government issue and people should be taught to go to their primary care taker instead of the ER for anything not immediately dangerous (i.e. open wounds, fractured bones etc.).
So yes, in theory you could be turned away at a hospital over here, if you just came in with a cold. You'd be told to go see your doctor instead (and 99,9% of people here would go see their doctor first anyway).
So in that regard it's a "cultural" thing that needs to be changed.
Except when company A won't cover your medical expenses and suddenly you're in deep, deep debt and you can't pay the premium that company B or C charges. Not that it matters anyway, because they won't take you on as a customer because of a pre-existing condition (and neither will company D to Z), the condition company A didn't want to cover.
Then you're up s%~# creek, but hey, you made your choice and you didn't want universal health care, so it's really your own fault.
But again, that would NEVER happen to you, right?
Right, and when the government runs things, they would never NOT accept anyone based upon existing preconditions either would they?
Not to my knowledge, but that's speaking from an European point of view. If you were ill you'd never be turned away from your doctor or the hospital over here. If it isn't life threatening, you might have to wait a little while instead of getting immediate treatment, but that's called triage and is basic common sense.
I can also inform you that here in Denmark we have a treatment guarantee, meaning that if the state hospitals can't fit you into their schedule and treat you within 1 month, then you can be referred to a private hospital, with the government paying for the treatment (at the actual cost of the same treatment done by a state hospital).
But you have no problem forking over your hard earned money to a for-profit organization which can decide your medical fate (and indeed maybe your whole financial fate) at their whim?
I don't get this, to me, irrational distrust against anything that's labeled as "the government" - but you apparently blindly trust businesses implicit, businesses whose sole purpose is to make money for their owners.
If anything in a review of 2500+ years of human history has taught us that an immediate distrust of anything labeled as "the government" is anything BUT irrational.
Ahh but of course. While those nice altruistic for-profit companies have done absolutely nothing to make anyone distrust them... at all.
So, government can't be trusted, they always screw up and have, throughout the history of man, never done anything good or useful. Gotcha.
But you have no problem forking over your hard earned money to a for-profit organization which can decide your medical fate (and indeed maybe your whole financial fate) at their whim?
It's called capitalism...
I have a choice. If company A does not perform to my satisfaction, then I choose B or C...
Except when company A won't cover your medical expenses and suddenly you're in deep, deep debt and you can't pay the premium that company B or C charges. Not that it matters anyway, because they won't take you on as a customer because of a pre-existing condition (and neither will company D to Z), the condition company A didn't want to cover.
Then you're up s$&$ creek, but hey, you made your choice and you didn't want universal health care, so it's really your own fault.
But again, that would NEVER happen to you, right?
Do you have the same problem with them "telling you" to spend your money on yada yadda yadda
Ah yes, he's a heatless Republican response...
LOL...
See, the things you listed, well, they're not even the same thing. The only thing that remotely even comes close would be veteran’s medical care. But I support our troops (shocking huh), and they earned it serving our country (Joe Blow down the street's broken arm, not my problem)...
Most of the things you list are poorly run, and severely mismanaged. And I do not like seeing my tax dollars spent so recklessly...
Government run healthcare will be no different...
But you have no problem forking over your hard earned money to a for-profit organization which can decide your medical fate (and indeed maybe your whole financial fate) at their whim?
I don't get this, to me, irrational distrust against anything that's labeled as "the government" - but you apparently blindly trust businesses implicit, businesses whose sole purpose is to make money for their owners, not to help you (which is just the current bi-product of their business, if something else would be more profitable, they'd run that kind of business instead).
But the government has NO business dipping into MY pocket, telling me how I MUST spend the money I earned!
Do you have the same problem with them "telling you" to spend your money on roads, to pay for injured veterans' medical care, for the guys who will try to put out a fire if it's burning your house down, the establishment of libraries, museums, and schools, judges' and district attorneys' salaries, pensions for teachers who instruct your children? This line of reasoning seems incredibly selfish to me, and always has. I make enough money to put food on my table and pay my rent. I'm more than happy for anything else to go to those who need it more, and I don't have the time to allot and manage it across various institutions; I leave it to the government to administer my tax dollars. A certain level of bureaucracy is unavoidable, but it's better than everyone thinking only of themselves and others needlessly going without.
Hooray for the moral obligation speech!
So if you slipped and fell on some ice in the street, leaving you on the ground with two broken legs and a broken cell phone (because you happened to land directly on it), you'd be perfectly OK with people just passing you by without helping you out? I mean, you can take care of yourself and there is apparently no moral obligation to help your fellow man, right?
The only job government has is taking care of its people.
This statement really surprised me. I typically don't get into political debates (religion is much safer). But seriously?
I take care of myself. I see the government as an entity that allows me to do that. I can't even conceive of a time when I felt like the government took care of me.
Is that really what people believe?
Isn't providing the framework for the country and providing the means for you to take care of yourself (infrastructure, laws protecting you etc.) a way to take care of you?
Shouldn't you pay more for that convenience of having the book available for all eternity?
This begs the question - if I die, does my heir get the right to have my e-books - and the right to download them again if the hard drive fails?
If I die, they sure as heck can get my paperback book.
That's actually a very interesting question. I don't know if there is any precedent on passing on electronic information in inheritance cases. Surely the physical computer would get inherited, but what about the information on said computer. I don't know.
It's yet another one of the interesting things we have to figure out when technology moves forward faster than the law.
It is interesting, isn't it?
All of my pdfs are watermarked with my name (and other ways I'm sure), but if I decide to sell them or give them to my kids, how would that be handled?
Well, if they are your legitimate heirs, then it might be legally okay, covered by present inheritance laws. Selling them, however, is a tricky subject. Another one of those instances where the law hasn't caught up to technology (to my knowledge anyway).
It's Friday! Let's start the weekend by doing something nice for autistic children! A few years ago the numbers were 1 in 150ish kids were autistic, today those numbers are closer to 1 in 66! There's a lot of children, teens and adults out there with autism and helping spread knowledge of this affliction is very important. Let's make a difference!
[/end Sally Strother's-like pitch]
The ads for Autismspeaks.org (with Toni Braxton and Ernie Els) I hear rather often on my favourite online radio say 1 in 110... I wonder where the different groups get their statistics from.
Congrats to Mexico City, they finally legalized same-sex marriage.
Also Congrats to Washington DC for there legalization of same sex marriage.
I read a short article about this the other day. Well it was about how the Supreme Court didn't want to oppose the legislation and DC was then able to go ahead.
However, the article was a bit ambigious about whether something could still pop up to stop it or turn the legislation around.
Anyone have more info on that?
The other reason is that I believe that there must be opposition in all things in life. If we never get sick we can never appreciate our health. If we are never poor we can never appreciate being rich. If we never experience darkness we can never appreciate light, and if we never are confronted with evil, we can never appreciate goodness. Whether that is benevolant or not is another matter.
I don't really see how this requires any kind of diety to be true. I can easily agree with you that the above is true, although I'd probably not say "never" appreciate. But having faced adversity certainly leads to greater appreciation of some things in most people.
Which is also why I think it's hypocritical when Christians (or any other religion) say that they're being persecuted or that someone is "waging a war" against them, while at the same time spending an awful lot of time condemning and attacking others.
Those 'Christians' prove Ghandi's comments and are a minority. Most Christians are reasonable tolerant people who don't spend much of their time telling us heretics we'll burn in Hell. It's just the ones that do make better television. Extrapolating from the lunatic fringe to the majority is poor sportsmanship.
Oh I wasn't making a generalization about all Christians. I know that the majority are decent people (even some of those wacky Mormons, like David ;-) ). Although a very large percentage do still harbour resentments (or worse) against e.g. homosexuals and the act of abortion. "Love the sinner, hate the sin" rings a bit hollow when they then turn around and work against equal rights for everyone or against the choice of a woman to decide what she does with her body.
Again, not trying to sway anyone either way, just providing some more information.
Hexcaliber wrote:
As I pointed out earlier the DM already believes the act to be evil. He just looking for validation and advice on how to handle the situation. Everyone agrees that one act doesn't make you evil, but no act should exist without consequence.
I just spoke to Gworeth, the DM, a little while ago and he repeated what he has said in private before. He's not convinced the act was evil, which is why he posted it here in the first place. Certainly not good, but evil or fitting a cleric of Gorum, that's what he's unsure about (and thus if he should implement any kind of retribution).
Hexcaliber wrote:
Yes the sorc was almost dropped, but by nonlethal damage so it's just insulting not life threatening.
The cleric had no way of knowing whether the damage was lethal or non-lethal. They could have had daggers concealed in their clothing (they were rogues after all) and even bare-handed attacks can deal lethal damage. Lethal or non-lethal, I think both kind of attacks hurt a lot, which is why the sorcerer cried out in pain. ;-)
meabolex wrote:
Hmm, there wasn't any mention of the tieflings attacking the cleric of Gorum's ally -- if they're foolish enough to attack his allies, then death is what they've asked for.
Not in the first post, no, but Gworeth does mention it a bit further down the page, in the 6th post of the thread (and I put it in my description of the scene, of course).
meabolex wrote:
Chaotic Neutral actions for the most part, but the situation with the lone tiefling is a bit confusing. Did she offer to give up? Did she actually make the sneak attack? If she was killed as she was begging for mercy, that's a bit different.
I am not 100% certain, but I actually do think the female Tiefling was closest to the sorcerer. The Tieflings used their darkness ability to disguise their retreat (and attack) so us players didn't know who made the sneak attack (and I'm also unsure whether the sorcerer was actually hit by two attacks or just one - it's been a couple of weeks since the session).
You are forgetting another possibility, that God is waiting for us to find the answers ourselves, so that we can learn from our mistakes.
Yet while we try to learn that, he's okay with millions of innocent children and adults dying in the process... somehow that doesn't seem like something a benevolent diety would do. But then again, I don't really think there is one, benevolent or not. :-)
Well I can't presume to speak for God, nor would I ever try and do so. All I know is that the scriptures teach that it is given to man to choose for himself what he does in this life. I personally believe that God doesn't interfere with the actions of men for two reasons. We were all granted free will and to interfere, even to protect innocents would take away the freewill that we must all possess in order to learn and grow both as individuals and as a species.
Isn't that awfully close to "the great all-time cop-out": God works in mysterious ways? ;-)
To my mind, it's also a way to try and rationalize the lack of evidence of any diety. Furthermore, God apparently had no problem interfering in earlier times, again if the holy book is to be taken for a somewhat accurate account.
David Fryer wrote:
The other reason is that I believe that there must be opposition in all things in life. If we never get sick we can never appreciate our health. If we are never poor we can never appreciate being rich. If we never experience darkness we can never appreciate light, and if we never are confronted with evil, we can never appreciate goodness. Whether that is benevolant or not is another matter.
I don't really see how this requires any kind of diety to be true. I can easily agree with you that the above is true, although I'd probably not say "never" appreciate. But having faced adversity certainly leads to greater appreciation of some things in most people.
Which is also why I think it's hypocritical when Christians (or any other religion) say that they're being persecuted or that someone is "waging a war" against them, while at the same time spending an awful lot of time condemning and attacking others.
You are forgetting another possibility, that God is waiting for us to find the answers ourselves, so that we can learn from our mistakes.
Yet while we try to learn that, he's okay with millions of innocent children and adults dying in the process... somehow that doesn't seem like something a benevolent diety would do. But then again, I don't really think there is one, benevolent or not. :-)
Also, if handicapped children are the punishment for abortions (going back to the original statement by the Virginia fellow), how come there is not mention of it in the deity's holy book? In fact, as is also pointed out by the professor interviewed in my link, the opposite seems to be true with regards to killing one's firstborn.
Corey - Count me in. And, assuming it is OK with Paizo, I'll be glad to shoot, edit and make freely available the entire session on our Youtube partner site. I can put a body mic on you which will get great audio without getting in your way. If you are game, we can screen capture the entire session to be edited together with the live footage.
DD
Speaking as someone who can't make it, I'd love it if someone did record and post this. I have some technical skill with Photoshop but not sure where to even start with map creation. Even if I didn't learn how to do this I'd love to just learn more about the process from someone skilled in it.
I can only echo this sentiment. For those of us who can't attend (damn Atlantic ocean and no money), this would be absolutely awesome. And with Doug Daulton's set-up it sounds like it would be very well done.
In addition to products and messageboard forums and threads, the Facebook and Twitter links are on blog posts and user profiles (so you can say "here's who I am on paizo.com"). Oh and product category pages.
Maybe I'm doing it wrong, but clicking on the Facebook link on my user profile brings up another page where I have to provide the link I want to share...
Shouldn't you pay more for that convenience of having the book available for all eternity?
This begs the question - if I die, does my heir get the right to have my e-books - and the right to download them again if the hard drive fails?
If I die, they sure as heck can get my paperback book.
That's actually a very interesting question. I don't know if there is any precedent on passing on electronic information in inheritance cases. Surely the physical computer would get inherited, but what about the information on said computer. I don't know.
It's yet another one of the interesting things we have to figure out when technology moves forward faster than the law.
Edit:
Downloading doesn't necessarily have to be from the original publisher (or online store). You could store your e-books on online harddrives, on your website/webhotel, on your e-mail etc.
I'd like to try and shed some more light on this situation, seeing how a lot of people seem to have missed Gworeth's second post. I'll also put some more information on the table, seeing how I'm one of the players in the campaign (not the cleric in question, though).
I'll try not to defend or accuse anyone (of the PCs) of anything, except at the end explain my own character's actions and motivations. I'll highlight a couple of things that might have been missed previously or that is new information.
As Kuma suspected, we are indeed playing in the Council of Thieves campaign, so be aware that there might be some slight spoilers for the first part of that campaign in the following.
The premise:
Spoiler:
The campaign takes place in what is basically a LN/LE city in a LE nation (Westcrown in Cheliax). Part of the city, the old city district, is apparently difficult for the local law to police properly, so it's an unlawful place where the rabble and criminals hang out. A gang of Tieflings (the Bastards of Erebus) have robbed all over the city and has recently even started killing their victims too. The city watch seems unable/unwilling to do anything about it, so the PCs take it upon themselves to clear out this murderous gang as part of their quest to improve things in the city.
The encounter:
After erradicating the majority of the gang, the PCs are now rounding up any stragglers. The underground hideout has several exits and it is through one of these that they encounter the Tieflings in the encounter. Earlier they had listened at the exit and heard the "amorous" noises from beyond the door. A little while later they go through the exit and come up in a small house, similar to the others they have just explored at the other exits (and have been attacked in the other houses by various guardians).
The cleric goes up the stairs in the first room, to the second floor. Here he finds the two Tieflings, naked in the bed. He challenges them to rise, arm and defend themselves. They refuse, so he calls them cowards and challenges them again. They reluctantly rise and ask if they can at least put on some clothes*. He allows them to do so. The party sorcerer joins the cleric upstairs. Words are exchanged, the Tieflings admit that they are indeed part of the gang and then the room suddenly goes dark as the Tieflings drop darkness on the room. The sorcerer is sneak attacked by the Tieflings (nearly dropping him) and then they flee out the window.
Downstairs is the party fighter and ranger (my character).
The sorcerer cries out in pain and uses his light spell to clear the darkness. The cleric uses his crossbow to fire at the fleeing Tieflings.
Downstairs my ranger hears the cry of pain from the sorcerer, the breaking glass and the cleric roaring to stop them. He goes outside and shoots at one of the Tieflings, taking him down.
The other Tiefling stops her flight and goes back to her companion and tries to stop the bleeding.
The fighter and my ranger run to the two Tieflings and my ranger also tries to stop the bleeding (not necessary as the other Tiefling had already succeeded). The following round the sorcerer and the cleric arrive and the cleric cuts down the Tiefling.
Other info:
The cleric player does not have access to Gods & Magic, only the Campaign Setting.
My character's actions:
He hears one of his fellow compatriots cry out in pain, hears the breaking glass and the cleric shouting for us to stop the fleeing Tieflings. So he does what he does best and drops one of them.
Upon arriving at the scene he tries to stop the bleeding (which the other Tiefling luckily has succeeded in as I botch my healing roll greatly). My thought is to take the two as prisoners, to interrogate them and then turn them over to the authorities (my character is of NG alignment).
EDIT:
* My memory is a bit fuzzy about whether that included them putting on their studded leather armors or just regular clothing.
My wife had her gallbladder out when she was 6 months pregnant with my first son; that was about all the nervwracking I needed for one lifetime.
I hope you do well and lose the weight you need to.
Thanks Heath!
A friend of mine had to have his gallbladder removed too a little while ago, so I used that to tell my friends that I was going to have the gastric surgery, by saying that I probably had to go through a similar procedure (since they're both done laparoscopically). :-)
Set wrote:
I got nothin' on the gastic bypass front, but I wish you well.
I got up to 270 at one point, went diabetic, and spent the next six months losing 80 lbs (and am no longer diabetic). I had no insurance (still don't, being on the 'don't get sick' national health plan), and only got a six month supply of insulin from the doctor who diagnosed me. I just couldn't stay at that weight, and did *ridiculously* unsafe things to lose weight (250 calories a day, for the first week. I was too weak to go upstairs without stopping to rest!) since I couldn't afford to have any sort of professional help, and would definitely encourage you to take advantage of your health system to lose the weight and keep it off. What other people call a 'diet' has to become your life. No more sodas. No more drinking. No more pastries. Doughnut Friday at work becomes 'hide in your cubicle until they are all gone' Friday. Bags of little carrots or popcorn or pistachios for snacks on game night rather than M&Ms or a pint of ice cream.
It's been fifteen years, and just an hour ago I had a 50 calorie cup of boullion for 'dinner.' But I'm not gonna get my feet amputated, and I threw out that last pen full of insulin I'd been saving over a decade ago. I'm not thin, I'm not 'in shape,' but I'm at a weight where I am neither sick, nor depressed, and that's what matters.
Good luck with the surgery (or with losing enough weight non-surgically that you don't need it).
Thanks Set!
I really have to commend you on dropping the weight and keeping it off for that long on your own (even if it's just most of it). It really takes a major dedication to changing your lifestyle to drop and keep off that much weight.
Keep on trucking! :-)
That said looking at prices of ebooks compared to the mass market paperback price, I feel amazon and the publishers are charging too much. Why would I want to pay the same exact price for a ebook that I am paying for the Mass Market paperback version?
GentleGiant wrote:
Because you're getting the same end product?
I would definitely NOT be getting the same end product.
My bad, I should have used the word "content" instead of product.
You are still getting the same content whether it's a paperback novel or an e-book.
gbonehead wrote:
One is a physical item that I can put on my shelf, lend to people, and do other interesting things with (like sell to a used book store, etc.).
The other is an ephemeral electronic thing that is used and controlled very differently.
If a publisher wanted to price them the same way, that's entirely their choice - but it wouldn't be because they're the same thing.
However, an e-book can be safely stored online or on a back-up media and re-downloaded again if your Kindle (or whichever reader one is using) stops working.
If your paperback book falls apart (or in some other way stops "working" - burns, drowns etc.) you're out of luck.
Shouldn't you pay more for that convenience of having the book available for all eternity?
As Vic has said, they'll price the e-books at less than the paperback, so it's not really an issue. Were they, however, to charge "full" price, I think they'd be justified. And I agree that an e-book shouldn't be priced higher than a paperback version.
That said looking at prices of ebooks compared to the mass market paperback price, I feel amazon and the publishers are charging too much. Why would I want to pay the same exact price for a ebook that I am paying for the Mass Market paperback version?
Because you're getting the same end product?
Why shouldn't you pay the same price for the same content? Just because you, as the consumer, has chosen to read the book on another medium why should the price then be lower?
If one isn't happy with the price of the e-book, then just buy the paper version instead.
I think consumer knowledge of the machinations of book printing has led to unrealistic demands on the part of the publishers.
If a publisher wants to offer e-books at lower prices than for the paper version, great! Should the price be higher than the paper version? I don't think they should.
If a publisher can sell e-books at the same price as the paper version, they should be free to do so. If they don't sell any books they might lower the price. I'm happy that Paizo's pdf-books are cheaper than the print version.
I do feel, though, that there's a difference between pdf-versions of e.g. rule books and novels in e-book format.
When it comes down to it, paperback novels are actually fairly cheap all things considered (or maybe my view is just skewed because of higher prices on goods in general over here compared to the US).
Why gastric bypass, just get good ole' lipo. If the majority of your weight gain was caused by a combination of pills and a sedentary lifestyle and depression and a slower metabolism, then you have cut out half of it already. Only on one type of pill now? Good. Check. No more depression because the pill is helping? Bingo. Exercise after the surgery? Boom! Headshot! Lipo could shave off 150 lbs or so, making exercise easier.
Did you do roids or creatine when you were weightlifting?
Not sure if this was directed at me or Urizen, but I'll gladly address it.
It seems like a somewhat simplistic approach to an often complicated situation.
First, liposuction is in most cases classified as a "beautification" procedure and something most people have to pay for themselves. Second, you can't do liposuction to remove huge amounts of fat. Thirdly, liposuction only removes subcutaneous fat and not the fat around or in the organs (like in the liver).
The only reason I would have liposuction is if it's required as part of excess skin removal to help get a more even appearance (and they only do it in very small amounts, if at all). Luckily, excess skin removal is also "free" over here after surgery, once a certain time has passed, you've been at a stable weight for a set amount of time and have a sufficient low BMI (I think it's below 27 or 25).
There are also often psychological reasons why weight is gained (and why it comes back even after diets) and those need to be addressed too (which is one of my only beefs with most health systems, the lack of follow-up psychological help to adjust to the new life style and how to tackle those issues that some people used to "eat into silence").
And no, I've never done steroids, it's utterly stupid to use them (in body building settings, not talking about those who need it for medical reasons) and I value my private parts way too much to jeopardize them with steroids. ;-)
I've tried supplementing with creatine, but even though I followed the proscribed amounts (and cycled it) I didn't really feel any difference in my training that justified the cost (note: creatine isn't really harmful, it's naturally occuring in meats, among other things, which is why it isn't on the banned substance/doping list).
Urizen wrote:
Actually, it does a much better job than you're aware of. But the procedures and methods on them have been improving over the past decade in comparison to when it was first being offered. Just like any other type of medical procedures.
Anyway, the OP was intending to have this as a support thread and not necessarily a crticism one. I'm sure he'd like to keep it that way. :)
I don't really mind criticism, as long as it's informed criticism, or doubts and questions.
If it can dispel myths, help anyone who has questions or just want to have something cleared up (even if they aren't considering the surgery themselves) then I see it as a good thing and worth my while. :-)
I'll stay out of the main argument, as my feelings have been stated on here before regarding Christianity (not a big fan). But I have to make an observation on the whole $murfization of this thread (and so many others before it).
Isn't doing the "$murf thing" the messageboard equivalent of looking down on two people fighting and taking a piss on them? It seems absurd at the least, and pretty damn rude and arrogant at the worst. It certainly does nothing to cool the emotions of those that are still fighting in your urine downpour down below. Just an observation....
What I don't get is, if they don't like it, why don't they just not read it? And they call me immature. If the Mods feel like it is getting out of hand they'll lock the thread, or someone posts something offensive, flag it. Don't be a pi$$ant.
I've asked that question before. I didn't get an answer then either.
Add me to those who don't understand why it's acceptable. It's like someone jumping in between two people talking and yelling "LALALALALALALALA" while putting his fingers in his ears. Don't like a thread? Don't post in it. Should be a fairly simple rule to follow. See something offensive? Report it and move on.
[SNIP]
Despite some of the issues that I've experienced, I'd do the surgery again because it's great to be able to get normal clothes off the rack.
Thanks for weighing in Gregg! (bad pun, I know!)
99% of the people I've talked to would do the surgery again without hesitation (I've even met a couple of people who said they'd do it even if it was an annual thing they had to go through).
Feel free to share more stories about what it's like post op, like eating out, going to parties etc. (not so much for my sake, but it might help others).
And I'm glad to hear that your S.O. is doing great after the surgery too!
Posts
