megaplayboy

Generally, historically speaking, the progressive tax code was built with various deductions for societally beneficial undertakings, whether that was business investment, charitable donations or what have you.

She's going to make her mark on the world some day.

The Great Era of Bipartisan Compromise ended in 1993. There were occasional deals made but by and large it's been obstruction and open partisan warfare since then. Newt Gingrich bears a lot of responsibility imho.

That would be covered under the Motivational test, and to a lesser extent under the Autonomy test.

The general idea is to have a consistent way to determine the "personhood" of "exotic" beings without having to spitball it every time. Can they communicate like a person, feel and process emotions like a person, act independently and solve problems like a person and self-motivate like a person? If so they're presumptively a person. If not they might not be a person but still be entitled to some legal protections(the same way that minors and legally incompetent persons(those with dementia, e.g.) still have some rights and protections). Now, that horde of zerglings/xenomorphs may still be problematic even if you determine them to be legal persons...

Considering all the limitations required for an accurate simulation, it's practically free anyway.

Humans are grandfathered in, and one of the elements of the test is that generally you don't have to get a perfect score to be considered a "person", legally speaking. And if most members of a species qualify as persons, then those with "special needs" would likely be classified as persons.

I ran a campaign that had aliens, androids, drone replicants, and so forth, so I came up with a system for determining legal personhood. The T.E.A.M. Assessment score: The first is the Turing test, which here means a conversation between the subject and the assessor; A score of 0 indicates that the subject's responses can be distinguished from a person after only a minute of conversation A score of 1 indicates that the subject's responses can be distinguished from a person after only 5 minutes of conversation A score of 2, 20 minutes A score of 3, 1 hour A score of 4, 6 hours A score of 5, the subject's responses cannot be distinguished from a person after 24 hours or longer The second is the Emotive test, which measures proper emotional responses to stimuli, the ability to read emotions of others, show empathy and so forth A score of 0 indicates no ability to respond emotionally, no ability to read emotions and no empathetic capacity A score of 1 indicates an ability to model basic emotions, a very limited ability to read emotions of others and no real empathetic capacity A score of 2 indicates an intermediate ability to model emotions, a limited ability to read emotions of others and no empathy A score of 3 indicates an advanced ability to model emotions and/or alternatively to feel actual basic emotions, a moderate ability to read emotions and very limited empathy A score of 4, an intermediate emotional range, a good ability to read emotions and limited empathy A score of 5, advanced emotional range, excellent ability to read emotions and strong empathy The third is the Autonomy test, which measures the ability to act independently, solve problems and be proactive/anticipate further issues A score of 0 indicates no ability to operate outside command parameters and a requirement for constant guidance 1--limited problem solving, can operate with frequent but not constant guidance 2--intermediate problem solving, need for regular but not frequent guidance 3--advanced problem solving, can operate with only infrequent guidance, limited ability to anticipate future problems/act proactively 4--intermediate ability to anticipate future problems and act proactively 5--full autonomy The fourth is the Motivation test, which measures the ability of the subject to form their own motives and set their own goals and purposes 0--motivated only to follow commands/serve X 1--motivated to find out more about X 2--has minor interests unrelated to X 3--has substantial interests and goals unrelated to X, can refuse X when orders conflict with substantial interests 4--can refuse X for any reason 5--has own goals and purposes and is not subject to orders at all The TEAM score is an aggregate of the 4 tests, so the score range is from 0-20. In most countries, a score of 12+ is sufficient to convey a status of at least limited personhood on the subject. 15-16+ is sufficient for full personhood status in most jurisdictions. It might be a bit more elaborate than most campaigns require, but at least there's a reasonable basis for it.

Is "not pregnant" to "pregnant" a cosmetic, minor or major transform?

I think he's going to pull out of the second debate at the last minute. If he goes back into the hospital, he may never come back out.

Hope you feel better soon, Steve. Hey, what happened to the Mythic Hero thread? It was pinned to one of the forums for quite a while but I don't see it anymore.

Schrodinger's President.

David Bowie had an incredible voice and is clearly in the genre. Robert Plant stands out as well. You could probably pick 5-10 singers from each decade and get a top 50 list pretty easily. And "greatest voice" doesn't necessarily mean most technically skilled singer. Bob Dylan's voice is a pretty dominant presence, given his body of work and unparalleled songwriting ability. Nobody would consider him a technically great singer, but his voice is one of the most recognizable out there.

The worst case scenario is that roughly 70% of the country gets infected, and then 1-5% of the infected die. Given that average global mortality per annum is about 0.77%, the worst case scenario is 5 years' worth of deaths happen in a single year or two.

She beat out John Bonham for Drummer of the Year one year. Bonzo once confronted her and said she couldn't even last through one Zep song. So she sat down and knocked out three in a row.

Karen Carpenter. Also one of the best drummers in rock history, for what it's worth.

Galatians 6: 7-9 7 Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. 8 For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting. 9 And let us not be weary in well doing: for in due season we shall reap, if we faint not.

He's a 74 year old man who is morbidly obese, has likely other comorbidities including circulatory issues and a possible adderall addiction. If he becomes symptomatic, he is at very high risk for what is euphemistically called a bad outcome.

I'd probably just clutter it up with stuff eventually. Mostly old receipts.

25, but about 10 of them only partially. I'd put "Man of Steel" under "dishonorable mentions", even though reviews weren't terrible. Just a terrible reimagining of Superman, barely watchable due to Cavill's charisma.

I think that's where "build to concept" and "gaming the system" blur a bit.

I think the system can handle much more powerful characters, but there are mechanics particular to Hero that create conundrums(the Speed chart, e.g.--once you are throwing around enough points, why isn't everyone SPD 12?) and "building to concept" can hit a figurative wall when your PC is defined as human, not superhuman(legendary stats are impressive compared to normal and competent stats, but not to cosmic or godlike stats). I do think sometimes campaigns get into a kind of "rut" of simulating the equivalent of low and mid-range comic book heroes and shy away from the high end ones, except perhaps towards the end of a very long campaign or as a one-off or short campaign.

As a relevant historical observation, the road to the first American Civil War was about 40 years long, starting with the Missouri Compromise in 1820. I don't know what the first step on our current road was, but it's safe to say we've been on it at least half that long. Arguably it started during the first Bush administration.