Fair enough, but it seems that my performance with these is laggy unless I'm looking at them on a full-on computer. My netbook, tablet, phone, and kindle all give me problems. I can't seem to tell much of a difference between the full version and the lite when viewing on these devices either.
Thanks for the response.
I know it's not right now, but is this something that might be in the future? Pretty please? Most of my reading is done on one digital device or another (primarily my Kindle or my phone) and even the lite versions of the PDFs cause me grief. Don't get me wrong, I love the art & whatnot, but lugging around all of my books isn't always an option, and it's frustrating when it takes forever to load every time I switch pages.
I've said it before and I'll say it again...the patch was a lifesaver for me. I tried dipping and chewing instead of smoking for awhile (it worked, technically), then the gum (which was just replacing one addiction and oral fixation with another, and finally the patches. I think they helped the most because there wasn't really a period of serious cravings...with the gum, I felt that need just like I did when I smoked. With the patch, there was still the mental addiction, but the physical part wasn't there so it made it easier to cope.
IMO, YMMV, etc.
I recently took a couple of PDFs I had purchased (GMG and APG) to be printed and bound at Kinkos, and it ended up taking way longer than it should have (IMO) because they had to call and speak to somebody in your office to get permission to print it (they would have bound it NP, but printing that many pages at home is a PITA).
My question is this: Is there a specific page on here or a disclaimer in the books themselves that gives permission for printing/reproduction of PDFs for personal use? I'm not printing these to resell them or any crazy stuff like that...
I like to have PDFs so I can browse on my computer, but I also like to have a hard copy. I know I could get this by getting the RPG subscription, but I don't necessarily want to own every book.
Running a low magic (almost no magic) game and someone will be playing a "summoner" their eidolon will be a construct and their SLA summons will be constructs as well. The only thing I'm left to adjust is the spell list...my first thought was to give them the alchemist mechanic & spell list but I'd like to keep the alchy a unique class. A thought I had was to give the summoner the "discovery" mechanic and let them come up with gadgets and whatnot. My only concern is that this would be too weak. Thoughts?
Detect Magic wrote:
Thanks for the info! I didn't even know there was such a thing as clockwork template...
So what would making the creature a construct do to its CR? I see that the clockwork template is CR+0, but that's assuming it's being applied to something that's already a construct.
Actually, now that I reminisce a little, mine really isn't all that self-explanatory...
When I first started playing WoW, I made it a point to make characters with the most borderline inappropriate names I could think of. I went from Urmomzmymnt to Prisonsex to a few others before I decided Xpltvdeleted (the only way I could get it to fit) was probably the most appropriate. :D
12 was an arbitrary age, but it's a good example. The risk of death in childbirth is MUCH higher the younger the pregnant person is. Combine this with a circumstance of rape and there is NO WAY you can ethically or morally tell this CHILD they are to be victimized again by risking death to deliver their rapist's baby.
Its a philosophical or religious decision, not medical. Medicine can enter into it depending on whether you care about fertilization, implantation, heart beat, brain function, consciousness, or viability outside of the womb, but there's no medical justification for any particular position.
It's very much a medical decision. If history shows that a fetus at a certain gestational age can reasonably be expected to live if delivered (between 22-24 weeks), then it is a person. There reaches a certain point where a vast majority of doctors (something like 95%) will not even attempt to resuscitate. The 5% who would would do so no matter what. Considering that doctors have an obligation to save people's lives and a vast majority of them won't even try at a certain point, I believe we have a point at which we can reasonably say that a fetus is not yet a person.
So if a 12 year old girl is raped and impregnated by her father she has to bear and raise that child? Umm...that's pretty f$#&ed up...certainly not a position the president of a secular nation needs to be taking.
The lack of support for embryonic stem cell research is equally disturbing. We are already losing some of the best and brightest scientists in the field to other countries (Singapore being the most common). We are essentially experiencing the "brain drain" commonly seen in socialist countries...except with scientists. Americans (as a general rule) suck enough at the sciences...do we really need to be forcing the few scientists we do have out?
It seems to me that it would be intellectually dishonest for him (a trained doctor) to consider a fetus a person. And it was a full-on no abortion (including rape, incest, mother's life, etc.) pledge. Again, not very libertarian.
I think the biggest issue with IP law ATM is the fact that you don't actually have to invent anything in order to patent it. On top of that, you don't even have to produce anything, even if you "invented" something.
A good example is a local company here in Oklahoma...they've somehow managed to patent the process of electronically producing a survey, administering it, and reporting the results? Sound familiar? I'd imagine it does considering it's used by almost everything. Will it hold up? Maybe, maybe not, but it will cause the 30 or so companies that have been sued a financial and legal nightmare in the meantime.
I have an AAS in Biomedical Equipment Repair, a BA in Technical Management, and I am currently completing my MBA.
I have also completed my degrees in about every way possible. The AAS I got via a combination of credits granted for my military tech school and CLEP and DANTES tests, my BA I got via all online courses with DeVry, and I am completing my MBA at a traditional brick and mortar college.
Scott Betts wrote:
I was speaking from my personal experience, not as a critique of the game as a whole.
Also, maybe I didn't explain my line of thinking correctly...what I meant was more along the lines of this:
If every class can be just as effective as another, then what is the point having different classes? So while it may not have been "balance" I was referring to, but I don't know what else I'd call it...
I don't want balanced classes to be honest. Look at WoW...Blizzard went out of their way to try and balance the classes and not only failed miserably, but took all the fun out of the game in the process.
Casters are going to be more powerful ranged, but if facing an appropriately "feated" fighter in melee range, they're probably SOL (or at least hurting pretty bad).
Besides, unless any one of the classes is broken to the point that it ceases to be playable due to lack of contribution, lack of fun, etc. then whether one will beat the other seems a moot point to me.
Mark Moreland wrote:
As much as I like hearing that justice has been served, all this celebrating doesn't sit well with me. No matter who it is or what they've done, it just feels wrong to celebrate someone's death to this degree.
Sorry, but some people's deaths deserve to be celebrated, and people like Osama bin Laden, Hitler, etc. definitely fit that bill. Hell, I woulda put two in the back of his head myself given the chance.
Everyone seems to be turning this into a matter of what WBC can or cannot say, when in reality, it is more of a case of where WBC can or cannot say something.
They were sued for invasion of privacy (it was a private funeral and they had no business being anywhere near there)...I don't see a problem with the verdict there. Itentional infliction of emotional stress (no brainer)...
I seriously doubt that the father would have cared (as much) had WBC just spewed their hate-speech from their pulpit...I'm certain they wouldn't have been sued.
I am not advocating for limitations on the "what" of speech, but rather sensible limitations on the "where" of speech.
The WBC broke no laws, and did not seek this father out to specifically harass him. They simply put on a protest and stated their views within view of the burial ceremony.
And they had NO IDEA that what they were saying would cause severe emotional distress to the family of the person for whom the funeral was being held? If you believe that I have some ocean front property in Arizona to sell you...
I don't care how distasteful their message is, they have every right to express it in any location allowed by law. If you don't like their choice of location and you're afraid this sort of scene might play itself out in a public location near you, then get off of your butt and apply pressure to your local politicians to make it illegal to demonstrate near a cemetery.
I come back to the whole "fire in a theater" bit. If what you're saying will cause harm to another person, then it's not protected.
How is this emotional assault any different than a physical assault (aside from the obvious)? It will have effects that will probably outlast any that might have been inflicted from a physical beating.
BLUF: They weren't just speaking their minds, they were saying something they knew to be inflammatory and would hurt people. That is their intent. They know that the reaction they get (emotional distress) will cause their message to receive coverage. They're emotionally abusing people to further their ends and the SCOTUS now says that's ok.
No, you're missing the point. This wasn't really a free speech issue, but the involved parties and the SCOTUS turned it into such. The man was being harrassed by a group of crazy @ssholes, he sued for emotional damages and won. He shouldn't have started out with the intent of turning this into a free speech issue, nor should the SCOTUS have viewed it as such. He should have simply tried to get a judgment and financially cripple the church.
So you can call it free speech all you want, but even free speech is limited. You can't yell "fire" in a theater because people can get hurt. Nor should you be able to belittle and humiliate the family of a fallen servicemember. Not all hurt is physical. Would you be defending these @ssholes if they decided to beat the guy instead of ruining his child's funeral? I didn't think so.
pres man wrote:
I believe they should, yes. While their larger goal may be to further their agenda, the more immediate result of their action is the traumatization of children. If a parent decided to show those type of images to their children, they would probably be accused of child abuse in some form or fashion.
Worst decision the SCOTUS has handed down since they said that corporations are really individuals. If anybody has a right to grieve in peace, it is the families of fallen servicemembers. This case is about a group of fundies acting in an abusive manner...period. They can believe however they want...I really don't give a f!+# what they believe, it's not my place or desire to dictate how others believe. What they shouldn't be able to do (but now can apparently) is inflict their beliefs upon others at the most inapropriate of times with the sole intent being mental abuse.