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

Sissyl's page

10,792 posts (12,106 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 11 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 10,792 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

The truly terrifying monster, however, was the beholder. Man, those saves...


How are global temperatures measured? I mean, the very basics. Boxes everywhere measure, data gets collected somehow. I would suppose by national meteorology authorities? Is there quality requirements for this? Does the data get published in original form or are there possibilities of tweaking it? Are the boxes properly calibrated? Has the spread of cities been properly corrected for in the placement of the boxes? Who decides where the boxes should be placed? Do we trust Albania not to tweak their data? Could interests in one direction or another warp this process? Who puts the data together? Is this process open and can anyone do it?


If there is a new field of doctors that all get their education, research money, publications and so on from political sources coordinated by the same bunch of people, and these doctors (let us call them green doctors) all tell you that it is a good thing to starve five days a week for everyone, and other doctors outside the field say that is probably not a good idea, but get stamped as "starvation deniers" and never get to publish in the "green doctor" magazines... someone needs to think a bit before they force their children to starve.


Yes. Despite Pulg trying to cheat and help that tramp bypass me. Don't think I have forgotten. :E


Yes, yes. Cherry picking is all the rage, isn't it? When warming doesn't happen for years, every year is cherry picked and it's weather not climate and besides it is about less solar radiation due to the solar cycle. When it does happen, it is real, steel hard evidence of warming and climate not weather. The solar cycle is curiously absent. No?


Which just makes it puzzling why they publish this data without the cloud effects added in. I mean, if I want to model the flow of water in a lake, and choose to ignore the river going out from it, it will be extremely easy to get a rising water level. If you then publish data to warn of the rising water surface of the lake and how people will have to move from the nearby village, you haven't been doing your job properly.


rashly5 is the sole survivor of the ancient empire of Uthuttabul, which once covered the entirety of Gondwanaland.


52. Ogres are a fine, upstanding group. They work to improve their bodies, fight monsters and protect their families. #notallogres


Revolutionaries have a hard time in this world, that much is true. India got independence from Britain because they exploited the fact that Britain was still in shambles after WWII. Ireland got independence from Britain because they exploited the fact that Britain was still in shambled after WWI. As far as I can see, it requires some shown weakness in the oppressor before it can work. Then again, I am no expert.


Extremely interesting, Nihilakh. As your article states: Clouds have been the greatest source of uncertainty in climate science for 20 years. Because, not joking, their effect has been excluded right from the start. Only when looking at their effect became politically necessary did anything happen. Now, why does the entire field of climate science ignore a factor that in all likelihood forms a negative feedback loop for anthropogenic global warming for years?


CBDunkerson wrote:
Sissyl wrote:
Third, the article you posted tells us basically that we can't have runaway greenhouse effect with what carbon deposits we have accessible, but the sun will eventually give Earth as much solar energy as Venus gets, which could lead to a runaway greenhouse effect... in about half a billion to a billion years. Wow. You certainly showed me wrong there, didn't you?

So... I take it you stopped reading after the first few paragraphs?

No. You did:

National Geographic article quoted by CBD wrote:

What does your work say about Hansen's warning?

What my results show is that if you put about ten times as much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as you would get from burning all the coal, oil, and gas—about 30,000 parts per million—then you could cause a runaway greenhouse today. So burning all the fossil fuels won't give us a runaway greenhouse. However, the consequences will still be dire. It won't sterilize the planet, but it might topple Western civilization. There are no theoretical obstacles to that.

What does Venus teach us?

Because Venus is nearer the sun, it gets more energy from the sun than we do—it's like standing nearer the campfire. We think Venus experienced this runaway greenhouse early in its history. Venus's past is Earth's future.

The sun increases its luminosity slowly with time. At the beginning of the solar system, the sun was only 70 percent as bright as it is now. It's going to keep getting brighter. Given that the runaway greenhouse happens when there's more solar radiation absorbed than we can emit thermal radiation, it's just going to happen.

When?

In somewhere between half a billion and a billion years.

Here he says that a) burning all the fuels available will not get us runaway greenhouse effect, b) Earth will end up in Venus' situation... in half a billion to a billion years.

Also note he did not include clouds in his calculations. Clouds seem to be impopular among climate scientists. Could be because a negative feedback loop due to increased albedo doesn't get them their beloved climate apocalypse, hmm?


CBD: Our friend James Hansen is truly a ubiquitous presence, isn't he? Well, if he seriously claims that the oceans are going to boil away, he's just either delusional or uninformed. The energy required to do that is about the same as the energy needed to stop the Earth's rotation, according to the source I showed above.

Second, NG is many things, but it is not generally seen to be anything close to a serious scientific publication.

Third, the article you posted tells us basically that we can't have runaway greenhouse effect with what carbon deposits we have accessible, but the sun will eventually give Earth as much solar energy as Venus gets, which could lead to a runaway greenhouse effect... in about half a billion to a billion years. Wow. You certainly showed me wrong there, didn't you?


As it is, the witch needs to go. I have GMed witches enough, and I have no desire to play one, ever. Guns don't fit the basic assumptions of the game mechanically. The freak show wannabes are annoying enough, and THERE IS ALWAYS AT LEAST ONE in every group. These things force me to be the EVUL GM and TAKE AWAY the stuff that ALL PLAYERS HAVE A RIGHT TO PLAY in whatever campaign there is.

If it gets remade, that is something I will have to decide on then.


All the health related speculations about Clinton matter is that she'd better have a good vice.


A more honest try:

Witches.
Guns.
A bajillion examples of oddball races specifically for player use.


Fairly? Why expect the market to be fair when the states can't even make the courts and the police fair? Justice and fairness are very, very difficult things to obtain. The market isn't fair. It is a reflection of humanity with all its pettiness, foibles and stupidity. Not everyone has the option of participating properly, like the mentally handicapped just to mention one such group, and for them there should absolutely be support outside the market.


Seriously, people. We have NO idea what Venus used to be like if it wasn't always sulphuric acid storms, massive pressure and hundreds of degrees warm. Claiming that Earth could become like Venus is less than pointless. Venus is a lot closer to the sun than we are, and gets more than its share of solar energy. It's why people talk about the habitable zone around a star - too close and it's too hot, too distant and it's too cold. I sincerely don't get it. Why try to claim we could change Earth's climate into that of Venus at all? It's just silly.

Boiling the oceans? I'm glad you asked. Here is some information on how much energy would be needed to actually do that. Keep fantasizing, in other words.


thunderspirit wrote:
Sissyl wrote:
I agree that regulation is necessary, none of us would like a society with a completely free market - but it is vital that the regulations (like any laws) actually reflect what the people making up the market think is important, and that the rest is left unregulated.

I could not disagree with this sentiment more. Free markets with regulations that reflect those making up the market are going to gravitate toward protectionism and monopoly to protect the interests of those already in the market.

In general, free markets are terrific — for those with the ability to participate in said free markets. For those who don't, well, FYGM is the standard refrain.

How lucky for all of us then that everyone in a society participates in the market. Seriously, you think the market is just something the bankers do?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

1) Classes and levels
2) Races (except human) and monsters
3) Treasure and magic

...welcome to a REALISTIC game!


I REALLY need to prove that there are a multitude of regulatory b*#*%##* around, thejeff? Really?


The thing is, a free market is not something we have any experience with. Regulations distort the market, making it less free, adding in various other types of incentives, and so on. The bad credit bundles of the 2008 bank crash would be a good example. I agree that regulation is necessary, none of us would like a society with a completely free market - but it is vital that the regulations (like any laws) actually reflect what the people making up the market think is important, and that the rest is left unregulated.

In contrast, the EU regulations of import of duck eggs is at some thousand pages of text. It is difficult to claim that the markets of today are ANYWHERE near free markets.

As for minimum wages, there is a simple and brutal logic to them. A company forced to pay more than they would have to if they outsourced their production would outsource their production. In that situation, you have to either force the company to stay in the country (sound familiar?) or you have to make domestic workers more useful to the company somehow. It is not an easy question how to solve this.


Yes. They got rid of the forced labour situation, and things got much better, eventually. That shouldn't come as a surprise.


Lots of complaining about free markets here. If you get a chance, talk to people who lived in the Soviet bloc about work, money and so on. It is often enlightening.

Generally, everyone had to work, and the state could often decide what you were supposed to do for a living. Every place they could stuff people into was full to bursting, like twenty-five people working in a small museum. Now, this would mean you didn't get much in the way of actual work... but you were forced to actually spend all the time there anyway. Also, the job didn't pay much, as in, literally not enough to survive on for your family.

What people did is pretty obvious. They used the time at work to sleep, so they were rested for the nights, when they participated in the cutthroat (and pretty much free) BLACK market, where they could both get money and the goods they needed to feed their families.

The choice is not between a free market and a regulated market, it's between a legal free market or a black free market.


thejeff wrote:
Sissyl wrote:
Then... the key is that someone gets the right to define the other's "offended card" as "given in bad faith". The one with the most popular support gets to determine that, as in all purely subjective situations. And the one with that support gets to decide in every instance whether to allow a discussion to continue. Right?

No. It's more complicated, because it's purely subjective.

The other absolute approach would be James's approach earlier - anyone who claims to be offended is right and should be apologized to and the offensive comment retracted and not repeated.

On these boards, in the end it comes down to the moderators. Because they actually have the power to delete posts/lock threads/ban users. That's not quite the same as "most popular support".

Obviously, first come people who have the power to enforce things. That should be indisputable. However, what is interesting is what happens outside their direct influence. People are people, and power is certainly not only formal power. Instead, it becomes a pecking order based on very fluid, subjective criteria like political views, how well someone is liked in various groups, how well someone can bully others, age on the forum, previous interactions, number of likes you have in the thread, official stuff done, if you represent someone, and so on. Those above you have the right to shut you down. Those below you, you can shut down. All that is needed is to claim offense, then puncture their claim of offense with "it was made in bad faith". Nobody gets to say different.

EDIT: Rewrote this.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Then... the key is that someone gets the right to define the other's "offended card" as "given in bad faith". The one with the most popular support gets to determine that, as in all purely subjective situations. And the one with that support gets to decide in every instance whether to allow a discussion to continue. Right?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

THC is a substance to which different people react very differently. Some become giggly and enjoy it, some get just slowed down and find it frustrating. Some feel sharper and more focused. These often swear they would drive better on it. When tried, however, while they subjectively feel they did okay, the films taken are often hilarious/terrifying.

And of course, there IS a pretty clear correlation between smoking pot and getting schizophrenia. It is one of the major risk factors we have found so far.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Yes. That was removed in a move to further balance civil rights to improve the efficiency of finding terrorists. It was updated to "You have the right to answer our questions. Not doing so is thoughtcrime."


Okay.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Clearly, otyughs are just misunderstood, they devote their entire lives to keeping the environment clean.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

The only thing you would get by increasing the salary of bad policemen is better paid bad policemen. The principles for how you should do such an important job are so central that if you are willing to ignore them because you aren't paid enough to care, more pay isn't going to make you follow them.


Yes. It is boring as all hell but it at least looks interesting. Plus, from time to time a guest reads a bit of it.

The next poster had to take care of that once.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I have seen the prequel SW movies a few times by now. What strikes me is that there is little that is atrocious about them. Yes, even TPM. The stuff people usually bring up is not truly as horrible as it is said. Jar-jar is annoying, yes, but having read a deeper analysis in the Darth Binks theory, I find that rather convincing. If he were to have been an anti-Yoda, but due to the Jar-jar wars about racial stereotyping dropped in favour of Dooku, who felt pretty much tacked on, that would have been AMAZING. Just think, he would have been killed off as a proper villain. And not one character in the history of movies has ever been so hated. The politicking and so-called boring stuff is really fascinating to me. Anakin is a whiny kid, but really, where did you think Luke got his whine from? Both of them are deeply flawed people. I maintain that Yoda was right from the start: neither should have been trained. Both of them fell. Luke fell when he gave in to his anger and tried to strike down the unarmed emperor. All the talk of "I am a Jedi like my father before me." is just a critical success on a Diplomacy check against Darth Vader. All in all, the movies are visually great, with decent plots, some great actors, I'd say they suffer mainly for comparison to ANH and ESB. Which are given many free passes.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The worst situation I heard of in Sweden was an epileptic who had had a seizure unnoticed by anyone while out on town. He was postictal, which is a difficult situation due to poor inhibition, swaying, aggressiveness. A group of cops found him like that. They assumed he was a junkie and proceeded to beat the living daylights out of him.

Generally, when I have tried to talk to policemen about the importance of showing restraint in using violence even if someone is not instantly complying... they do not even understand the question. They say "oh, that is no problem. If that happens, I just evaluate the risk of the situation and apply the correct amount of force."

We send the police out there because we want to keep people safe. We want a better result than sending out soldiers to kill everyone who does something suspicious. To do their job, the policemen need to be human and have a sense of empathy. It isn't all an equation about the level of risk. And if risk needs to be taken, the policemen are who we pay to take those risks. Safety is NOT job one for a cop. If we do not pay them enough, then that needs to be addressed, but that is another discussion.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Where is R2-FU to weigh in on that suggestion?


Postocles, Thread Necromancer wrote:
One time, I found this big pile of gold coins. A few seconds later, I understood how to cast 2nd-Level Spells.

...but copper pieces were useless, at 100 to the XP anyway.


Ventnor knows, however, how to roll a drunk.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Socks is easy. Throw out all your socks. Get a bunch of new ones, as many as you need, all identical. Profit.


FREEDOM EAGLE LIBERTY, this is Mom's Mighty Latte. You are clear for liberation. I repeat, you are clear for liberation.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
NobodysHome wrote:
captain yesterday wrote:
Also, if anyone has any team building activities lay them on me, I'd like to crowd source the crowd sourcing, don't worry, I'll give you credit when they give me credit (with maybe an extra bonus the flyer in the break room said).

(1) Wait for a good strong blizzard.

(2) Choose one co-worker (not at random).
(3) Strip said co-worker down to his or her socks and undies.
(4) Hand the co-worker a 1-pound box of Hydrox cookies and lock them outside. They are allowed back inside once they have finished eating the cookies. (No; they may not have milk, cocoa, or anything else that accelerates the cookie consumption.)

Does wonders for bonding for everyone NOT locked outside...

Pffff. A bit of cold always gets people scurrying for shelter. It's ridiculous. A box of cookies is a nice gift, and really, the coworker gets to keep undies. I don't get the complaint.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Don't you mean Freedom fries?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

...you had to play a human male to have 18/00 strength.


The Doomkitten wrote:

*seethes with impotent rage*

WHY THE F**& DID MILO YANNOPOULOS SHOW UP IN MY RECCOMENDED?!?! AND BY ALL THE ENTITIES, WHY DOES HE HAVE 7.5K VIEWERS!

*deep breath*

Sorry. It just makes me feel kinda dirty inside that for whatever illogical reason he showed up in my recommended on YouTube.

Not an expert on youtube, but... Because you may have searched for his clips before? I mean, we don't just look at things we like?

And perspective helps. A certain song from South Korea has billions of viewers.


Orfamay Quest wrote:
Sissyl wrote:
Sooooo... WHY do so many stand ready to vote for Trump? I mean, he wants war, torture, walls, etc etc etc etc etc. He likes Putin (!), he has been caught lying enough times, he seems to have alienated POSITIVELY EVERYONE except white uneducated men... but what will that give him? 15%? I mean, men is 50%, white men is a bit more than half of that, cut even further by education level. I don't get it. That is not enough to even be a failed presidential candidate. So... who is going to vote for him? Why? What do they hope to gain?

Bear in mind is that voting in the US is not compulsory, and voting turnout, even for presidential elections, is generally terrible in most of the US. It typically averages around 50% of the eligible citizens, which of course is much less than the number of people living in the USA. So if you can get 25% of the electorate to come and vote for you, you've basically won. (Which is why get-out-the-vote efforts are so important.)

Add to that the large number of "my party, right or wrong" voters who would vote for a piece of string if it had (R) written next to it, and you can see both that his floor is rather high, and the hurdle he needs to clear is remarkably low.

As to why people want to vote for him -- in my mind, a lot of it is likely to be wishful thinking. I know a number of Tea Party supporters, for example, who have a track record of voting for people who want to cut taxes on the rich because they themselves want to be rich. Not because they are rich -- none of them actually have, as the phrase goes, a pot to piss in -- but because they have grand visions of someday becoming rich through unspecified underwear-gnome plans, and don't want it all to go up in smoke. The idea that they are more likely to stay poor (in part because their ideas for getting rich all seem to be vaporware) or get even poorer if something bad happens like an accident or a house fire, doesn't seem to have occurred to them.

There's also a lot of...

First, that is only relevant if uneducated white men vote to a greater degree than all the groups Trump has alienated. And similarly, that there are more piece-of-string voters for (R) than for (D).

Second, if all the alienated groups have to do to NOT have Trump as president is GO AND VOTE, one would think it could be worth a shot?

Third, why is voter turnout so low? I understand you need to register to do it, but why is that such a hurdle?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Sooooo... WHY do so many stand ready to vote for Trump? I mean, he wants war, torture, walls, etc etc etc etc etc. He likes Putin (!), he has been caught lying enough times, he seems to have alienated POSITIVELY EVERYONE except white uneducated men... but what will that give him? 15%? I mean, men is 50%, white men is a bit more than half of that, cut even further by education level. I don't get it. That is not enough to even be a failed presidential candidate. So... who is going to vote for him? Why? What do they hope to gain?


...the third man!


Ow ow ow ow ow!

Meanie!


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Let me rephrase then: The discussion about whether the fact that people believe something to be true serves as a valuable predictive heuristic for that thing being true, when certain conditions about the observers are met, should probably be dropped.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

We will build a wall against the shoanti! And make them pay for it! Make Korvosa great again!


Me too.


Neat. =)

1 to 50 of 10,792 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2016 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.