薔薇語

TheNewYorker ran an article about Gov. Gary Johnson (LP). http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/07/25/gary-johnson-the-third-party-candidate The first quote is taken out of order because.I think it is most useful for the more liberal board members here: "But Johnson isn’t reflexively against all government. He supports the Environmental Protection Agency, arguing that policing polluters is a proper function of the government. As governor of New Mexico, he aggressively used the power of the state to force Molycorp, a large mining corporation, to clean up a contaminated site. He eventually allowed the E.P.A. to declare the area a Superfund site, turning the issue over to the federal government, which had more resources to go after the company. “The government exists to protect us from harm, and that pollution is harm,” Johnson said. “Libertarians would say, ‘You and I have the ability to sue Molycorp. We can bring them to bear from a private standpoint.’ But the reality? You can’t.”" Article order: "When pollsters include Johnson with Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton in their surveys, he has been the choice of roughly ten per cent of respondents, and in a Times/CBS News poll released last week he hit twelve per cent. If his standing in the polls rises to fifteen per cent, he will likely qualify to participate in the Presidential debates. “If you’re not in the debates, there’s no way to win,” Johnson said. “It’s the Super Bowl of politics.” Johnson has many flaws as a candidate, but being unlikable is not one of them." "In 1999, after winning a second term, Johnson became the highest-ranking elected official in America to call for the full legalization of marijuana. His approval rating dropped into the twenties, and he returned to his agenda of lower taxes and less spending. He left office with an approval rating in the high fifties. Today, he is willing to make other concessions to the political mainstream. When we met, Johnson wore Nikes with a suit, his signature style since 2012. But, after a lively debate with his campaign advisers, he showed up for his CNN appearance wearing dress shoes." "This year, the unpopularity of Clinton and Trump has created an opportunity for Johnson to at least match Perot’s impressive showing. Last week, Republican delegates in the Never Trump movement attempted to change the rules for the Republican National Convention, in a failed effort to deny Trump the nomination. For anti-Trump conservatives still searching for an alternative, Johnson may be the only option. On the left, anti-Clinton Democrats, including some determined supporters of Bernie Sanders, would prefer a candidate who is more socially liberal and noninterventionist than Clinton." "Clinton’s troubles with Sanders also emboldened Johnson. He tells Sanders supporters to take an ideological quiz at the Web site ISideWith.com. “You get paired up with a Presidential candidate most in line with your views,” he said. “I side with myself the most, and then, amazingly, I side with Bernie next closest.” Polls so far show that Johnson actually takes more voters from Clinton than from Trump. “It’s about everything but economics,” Johnson said, ticking off the issues on which he and Sanders agree: “on legalizing marijuana, on ‘Let’s stop dropping bombs,’ crony capitalism.”" "Weld won a second term in 1994, with seventy-one per cent of the vote. In 1996, he challenged John Kerry for his Senate seat. Weld lost, but the race became famous for a series of eight tough but high-minded debates that the two men staged across Massachusetts. That summer, during the campaign, Weld made a show of demanding that he be allowed to speak in favor of abortion rights at the Republican National Convention, a stunt that was popular in Massachusetts but which isolated him from the national Party. "Like Johnson, Weld found himself out of step with Republicans on numerous social issues. “I was in favor of needle exchanges, all the gay and lesbian stuff, medicinal marijuana,” Weld told me. “They were not typical positions.” In 1997, Bill Clinton nominated Weld to be the U.S. Ambassador to Mexico, and Weld resigned as governor to take the job. But Jesse Helms, a Republican senator from North Carolina, who chaired the Foreign Relations Committee, blocked the nomination. As Weld recalled it, Helms claimed that Weld was “soft on drugs and we couldn’t afford to have me in Mexico.”" Johnson’s theory of politics is highly rational. He assumes that voters don’t need to know much more than his positions to make up their minds. In his stump speech, he goes through a long list of his stances on issues in the areas of fiscal matters, social concerns, and foreign policy. It’s the live equivalent of the ISideWith.com quiz. Johnson wants to raise the retirement age for Social Security and to limit Social Security benefits for the wealthy. He wants to get rid of the I.R.S. and replace most of the tax code with a single consumption tax. He wants to abolish the death penalty, expand vouchers for private school, and drastically pull back the American military from its commitments around the world. “The unintended consequence of when you put boots on the ground, when you drop bombs, when you fly drones and kill thousands of innocent people—this is resulting in a world less safe, not more safe,” he told the crowd."

BBC article discussing the issue of police deaths and deaths by police in the US. Part of it was even surprising to me. http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-36826297 Soar.

Being a Missouri man myself, I feel the need to add a couple Missouri themed folks into the mix. Missouri was, prior to having our governor chased out of office by federal forces under Lincoln's order, not part of the war. We tried to pull a Switzerland and stay neutral on the whole affair. But there were and are sympathizers. Teh Bomb! : Taking his name from Missouri's only US president and his infamous decision to drop Nuclear bombs on Japan. He was a moderately 'good-ol-boy' nuclear physicist working at the University of Missouri - Columbia until an experiment went wrong. He was left changed, given nuclear radiation based powers and a split personality pulling him between Good and Evil - Union or Confederacy - Restraint or Indulgence. A nice Jekyll and Hyde, Banner and Hulk dynamic. The Express: A speedster type character who drew inspiration from The Pony Express that started in St. Joseph, Missouri (North of KC). Gateway: Missouri is partially famous for our Gateway Arch in St. Louis which was built to commemorate the journey westward. Gateway could be a Missouri born man who has Southern leanings but is generally not involved with the Session Squad. His biggest contribution is in helping some of the baddies get away with his teleportation powers. Showtime - A Branson, Missouri, born fellow who is actually a second tier stage magician. He mostly does shows in the south. His actual power set would be some illusionist power sets. He often works out of Branson, New Orleans, Atlanta, Miami, Orlando, etc. Tornado: This one is fairly obvious. ^^ Soar.

Reading Tasha's post, I think I may have made a rules mistake in mine. Perhaps the rule I was thinking about for destroying a limb was simply disabling it. I would have to double check to make sure but I am far too lazy at this exact moment. When in doubt, trust Tasha. ^^ Soar.

Armitage made some great points. There are some writeups of Mind-flayer-oid critters in the HERO system literature. Part of the issue here is simply with knowing exactly what you want. Mind-Flayers have a variety of abilities and characteristics. Most of which are simple to capture (flight, Telepathy, Mind Link, Blast, Mental Blast, Extra Limbs, Striking appearance, etc). In terms of the Mind-sucking abilities, though, we kind of need to know which ones you are talking about. Mind Control is a great and straight forward way to effect temporary behavior changes. Major / Sever Transform are great ways to effect permanent changes like "Slavishly loyal". EGO drains are a great way to make people halt all actions (assuming you do a full ego drain) but can be expensive. If you just simply want to kill off a target with a "eats the brain of target" attack, then a Range-Killing-Attack of sufficient power would work. As I recall, DnD gives saves and such but such attacks are more "all or nothing" style attacks. HERO doesn't do that well. One way to avoid some of the hassle of building a really big RKA, is to use the Call-shot rules. If I recall correctly, if you can deal 1/3 or 1/2 of the target's total body to an individual limb, that limb is destroyed. Thus, if you target 20body MR. MUSCLE who has 5 rPD with a 3.5D6 of RKA (55pt base), you will on average kill the target in one shot. Thus the special effect of "kill target by sucking out brain" goes off. The down side to this (other than it can also be used against you!) is that the head is a small target and comes with a variety of DcV bonuses to avoid such maneuvers. Another work around that can be independent of the above or used with it, is to tack on a kind of "all or nothing" / "cumulative" style lim. If the attack doesn't completely work at first, define the results as a wash but wherein the damage still must be tracked for X time (a few segments, a turn, maybe a minute?). If nothing occurs before the time limit, ignore all damage. Even if something does occur to the target (struck by a completely different RKA), the body lost as a result of that attack has no relation to the body done. BUT if the Mind-Flayer strikes again inside the time limit, the Mind-Flayer may add the new round of damage to the previous damage to determine if he achieve sufficient damage to kill the target. I am not the biggest fan of this idea, I don't really see the point. But it is a possible option. Soar.

I was trying to find something more about the following video but couldn't find any hits other than some conspiracy sites (infowars) or some of the more rightwing sites (brietbart). Does anyone know more about this? The video is of a group marching down a NY street. It would seem to have been taken just a bit before the Dallas shooting. It is supposedly of a BLM march. In the video, the group chants "What do we want? Dead Cops! When do we want it? Now!" Assuming this actually was a BLM march, it just makes my trust and support for people in the BLM movement drop even lower (not that it was high to begin with). Soar.

Other than the communication function, I generally hold to the idea that a generic plus 1, 2, or 3 INT skill will suffice for most functions a smartphone will provide. Going through the list provided above, we can see how such a skill bonus could be applied: Knowledge Skills - A generic bonus will let you boost any values you have. And since no information you can gleam from the internet is going to be perfect, it makes sense for it to essentially just bump up your own abilities. Absolute Time Sense - This Talent is actually built as "detect: time". That is little more than a perception check that is essentially guaranteed to succeed. But since it is typically a trivial issue, the sheer cost of "overall skill levels" should be enough to grant the power anyway. Absolute Range Sense - this one I am not sure about. What phones are telling you range? Do you mean GPS? No GPS system is absolutely perfect. So just using the Skill levels to bump up your own "Area Knowledge: X" should be good enough. Bump of Direction - This is just the same as Absolute Time sense but with "Detect: North". Memory - I think E.M. is actually a bit awkward since it is perfect without any roll. But realistically, the quality of the camera, the skill of the phographer, and the weather / lighting conditions will greatly effect the picture qualities. I think these various conditions could be summed up with a single INT roll with the Overall Skill bonus from a Phone. Telepathy - This is the one section where a generic skill bonus doesn't work. I wouldn't build it has Telepathy (nor is it typically built that way). Rather it is just a fancy Receive & Transmit Radio build. Soar.

Well, kind of, yeah. The fact that this version has the same yellow as the show's reverse flash is just in keeping with the comics. It isn't the case that one had a different shade of yellow than the other. Soar.

I agree and think that yellow in general is bad. But, is Kid Flash just the combo of Flash and Reverse Flash's outfits? including the exact color pallet? Soar

What do you mean by reamed? Costs to make calls, data plans, text / email, something else, or all of the above? My only experience is with the US and Japan and both have their strong and weak points. In terms of costs to call, the US is by FAR the cheapest of the two. By an order of magnitude cheaper. But on quality of data streaming, it seems like the US suffers. Both countries have cheaper and more expensive ways of getting phones (in contract vs out of) and the US model tends to give you the phone upfront at an extremely reduce priced while the Japanese one makes you pay in installments in order to get it at an even lower price but if you break contract you are on the hook for a much more expensive phone. I got the impression that Canada was fairly well on par with the US from some Canadian friends but that might have been an issue of the particulars than the actual overall comparison. What of Europe? Soar.

Docomo or AU. One of them is for sure. Docomo is a funny name come to think of it. I just realized it can be understood in Japanese as "everywhere". Peraonally I use YMobile (Y, as in Yahoo!). Softbank tends to be the most popular with foreigners, or so it would seem. Soar.

Where are you from ComradeDa? And what do you call them where you are from? In the US I called them Cell Phones and Smart Phones (which are also still called cell phones now). In Japan we call them 携帯 which translates kind of as "portables" or スマーホン which is the abbreviated Japanese version of "Smart Phone". Soar.

The topic of cell phones and smart phones comes up a LOT on these boards. I am sure that QM or another will be able to give you links to the countless discussions regarding them. There are various solutions: Access (to the web, etc). Generic Skill bonus (as above - which is my preferred manner). Various Enhanced senses and / or talents A Send and Receive Radio So on and so forth. Soar.

I already lost a great deal of respect for them and their advocates. And this is coming from someone with rather explicit views regarding police in our nation. Soar.

I appreciate the attempt at humor but I think it fell flat. Maybe it is a joke better told in person than over the web. ^^ Soar.

I think there are few things that need to be understood outside of human's marathoning skill to really capture why this is a valuable skill. I believed it was mentioned up thread how many calories are burned from running. I think it is of note that sustained running for two hours burns between 1600 and 1800 calories depending on the exact size of the male hunter. Most assuredly that is a lot of calories but it is not an unbelievable number. A single animal will have quite a bit of available meat. A single pound of beef has something like 1000 calories. Two pounds of flesh per person in a hunting pack is hardly a big expense. Even doubling the amount of time one was at a sustained run, a hunting party of half a dozen or so would hardly be at a total loss. There will be days when hunts don't go well. But what this actually means may vary wildly. It is unlikely that a zero catch day requires the same energy expenditure as a day with a catch. Hunting parties that expended the same amount of energy successfully taking down an animal as they did simply looking for or chasing one would likely be evolutionary dead ends. Not all calories are the same. This is actually a point that needs to be understood in general and not just in the context of this thread. High protein foods, especially those found in meat are very useful for human development. Our push for more complex brains also required that we have large amounts of meat proteins in our diet. So, even if hunting only broke even on the caloric intake as compared to gathering up vegetables, it makes up for it in the TYPE of calorie it brings to the table. Humans, unlike any other animal, has the ability to cook. We needn't eat food raw. This frees up calories in a lot of otherwise undigestible sources. Of course this easily means various plants are now edible. But it also means near spoiled meat, too. A single hunt can be cooked and re-cooked to extend its viability even in a pre-chemical (salt) or refrigerant community. Humans are Omnivores. This opens up a lot of issues for us. There are obviously lots of omnivores in the world, too. But unlike most other omnivores, we are not niche consumers. Koala's are perhaps the ultimate popular niche consumer in the animal kingdom. Even wolves, for the ability to have variety, are not well suited to move onto other sources outside of their basic set (small prey like mice and chickens, or medium sized prey like sheep). Hunting down snakes, alligators, bears, panthers, etc., poses a real problem for even them. But there is realistically no animal beyond human consumption - even primitive human consumption. We know this by analyzing large fauna extinction events. Where humans go, large animals of all sorts die off. But humans remain. We remain because we can easily switch niches and go after medium sized or small fauna as needed. A single hunt can have varied levels of success. The big goal of getting a gazelle may be elusive but snatching up a few rabbits, a turtle, maybe a boar, are far from unreasonable in the course of a hunt. Humans are of course pack hunters who coordinate - which actually separates us from our ape cousins who are individualistic pack hunters (the pack is by coincidence, not design). As was just mentioned by another, we can arrange strategies and communicate over mediocre distance to execute those strategies. Lastly, not all prized prey are gazelles who can jump over houses and sprint faster than cars. So, they aren't the most representitive example. Perhaps it is the case that most human groups could not survive trying to make them a principle prey. But they also weren't options for most humans and not the best option even for those that could. A marathoning ability mixed with intelligence used against more reasonable prey like boars, bulls, goats, Bison, deer, chickens, rabbits, dogs, etc is very useful. Soar.

Yes... Let the hate flow through you! Join the dark side. We have brownies... Or we would if the cops didn't do a shady civil forfeiture on them... Soar.

Is there a meaningful difference? To me they always meant the same thing. They comprised of the same Chinese characters, too. I just did a quick google search about the difference and the couple native Japanese speakers who came up seemed to echo my original thoughts. So, is there a meaningful difference I missed? Soar.

Simon: I think I understand you better but perhaps not to the extent desired. I think the Director over stated the rules for prosecution in security cases. That was the bigger point surrounding my linked article. I believe it was also the case in the Young Turks' video (assuming it is the one I think it is). In general, security breaches don't require intent to do harm. Nor is the "I didn't know any better" (ignorance of the law) defense generally acceptable. Lastly, clear and provable harm has rarely been a standard. Thus, when two folks talk opening about classified data at Starbucks, we are not concerned if they intended to give classified data to spies, didn't realize that discussing classified data in public was not okay, nor whether or not any spies or such were actually present at that particular starbucks at that particular time. It is rather that there is a reckless breach of security. Harm, knowledge, and intent are largely non-issues in ascertaining guilt. However, it would seem that in this case the Director is applying those standards here. The Secretary did not provably harm national security nor seem to have had intent to harm national security. Although the ignorance of the law bit she seems to have clearly have been a slip up even by the FBI directors statements about how anyone in her or a similar position should have known better. And while these are certainly good standards to have in a lot of cases (robbery, fraud, violent crime, etc), they are not the standard nor reasonably should be the standard in the realm of national security. I think the folks crying foul on this one (myself included) are upset most by a perceived double standard in government. Soar.

Perhaps there is a bit lacking in clarity here. It wasn't my intent to suggest that simplying knowing my e-mail address would give you access. But more that knowing my email address lets you know where information is being stored and thus where to go. To use an analogy - Joe is a Big-Game-Hunter. He really wants to hunt a particular large beast. He does not know where that beast lives at the moment but he soon hears the unmistakable cry of that critter. Heading of in that direction, he find his target. He of course must still track down its exact location and follow through with the killing blow and retrieval but had he not heard that initial cry from the animal, he would have had no chance. Now, moving to your initial point: I think this is best dealt with in two parts. First is the stricter rules and the second is with the general implication of your statements. On the initial side, it isn't up to any particular employee in the government or contracted by the government to decide security procedures; this includes 'making improvements'. While I am sure you could point to some weaknesses in the national security system, we recognize that you don't have the unilateral authority to change security procedures. This is even true of the Secretary of State. On the second side, your argument I think runs a rather slippery slope. It would imply that all federal data would more secure by being distributed on several servers that lacked 24/7 security professionals (like the Secretary's), and were poorly coordinated among each other. Perhaps there is something to be said for a layer of anonymity, but I would doubt such a system would be truly better off than the centralized one we have (even with its red tape). And of course the Secretary wasn't pleading to reduce red-tape nor doing something as a means of bolstering security. So I think the whole issue on this line is moot twice over: It wasn't her goal and it wasn't / shouldn't have been her prerogative to make such a choice. Soar.

Perhaps you and I are not quite on the same page. This could easily be the result of my lesser knowledge than yours in this field. So I am going to run through a bit of a scenario and you can correct me where I am wrong and hopefully why I am wrong. --- Assume I run a private server. On this server I keep sensitive information - let's say my bank account details (my name, acct numbers, user names, passwords, etc). This is also the server I use to host my private e-mail. While conducting myself, I send a person an e-mail from my private server. This person is not a nice person and is quite tech savy. Tracing back my e-mail address he finds the private server I use for things. Would a tech savy person have tools at his disposal to try and access other information on my server (assume I have either no or only mediocre security). Assume for the moment that instead of me, it was you. You, being the tech-wiz that you are, obviously show more care to update and protect your server(s). Would that not-nice-person be able to access information from your server as well as me (Techy-Dumb-Dumb McSimpleton)? -- As to the security level of the State Department (or any department at the federal level), I think this ignores the point - it will be more secure there than on her private server. Likewise, if there is a breach of some sort, the authorities have a greater chance of being aware of it and the details surrounding it (greater as compared to their ability to monitor a largely non-monitored private server). Lastly, this still doesn't get around the fact that her actions lead to the loss of e-mails that were deemed relevant to the government and subject to FOI Requests. This paints a bad light on the actions she took at Secretary of State. Soar.

Simon, I did not misquote nor change the content in the particular or abstract of what the FBI director nor of the following article stated. It is already public knowledge what the Director has expressed, I kept his full address in my post, replied to a person already acknowledging the FBI's stance, and even lead my post with a full acknowledgment of the stance and why I disagree with it. The website I linked to was also very accurately quoted in the particular (since I did no summery of it) and in the abstract (the two quoted areas from it are quite characteristic of the article on whole). Nothing I quoted was incorrect or false. So, I do recognize the desire to have information not be mischaracterized and conceded to that. But I feel that your lead-in note would seem to be implying I mischaracterized something. Moving onto your second point: It was my understanding that the concern about the hostile actors was less that a single email could be intercepted but that the end points could be discovered and that part could be compromised. The State Department has a wealth of individuals, devices, and procedures on hand to combat this possible threat from outside threats. However, The Secretary's private email server was not covered by the reasonable protections the State department otherwise employs. Thus, I think the issue regarding the Secretary using a private and uncovered server raises issue of security. Soar.

Being cleared and being innocent are not always the same thing. Director Comey's own press conference read like "here is all the reasons that we should arrest the Secretary but somehow we won't." It is of note that this standard of "intent" is not the standard used with issues of national security (and for good reason). Rather, mistakes are treated harshly, too. Especially intentional mistakes (as opposed to malevolent or treasonous mistakes). There is a litany of folks who have gone to prison for mishandling top secret information. The Secretary's own department has gone after people for such things that are far less than 110 emails in 52 email chains were determined to have been classified at the time they were sent. 8 of those chains contained information that was classified as top secret at the time they were sent and received on Secretary Clinton's unclassified private email server. 36 contained info that was Secret at the time. 8 contained confidential information. 2000 were later up listed as confidential post their initial transition and receipt (another reason you don't use unclassified servers!) There were several THOUSANDS of emails Secretary Clinton failed to turn over when she left office. Some of which had been deleted. Of those THOUSANDS, three (3) were classified at the time of transmission. Because she was not using a government account or exterior commercial account, there was no archiving of deleted emails (so the FBI has to just hope they recovered everything). The folks that cleaned out the Secretary's email server then cleaned their own devices that they used and did so in a way that make it impossible for the FBI to verify any content. "There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton's position or in the position of those with whom she was corresponding with in those matters should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation" "None of these emails should have been on any unclassified system." - these systems weren't even on systems that had around the clock protection as would a government or even commercial sector account. "[E]ven if information is not marked classified in an email participants who know or should know that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it." Hostel actors gained access to the private commercial email accounts of people with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact with. She used her personal email extensively outside of the US in potentially hostile environments. http://reason.com/blog/2016/07/05/if-you-want-the-government-to-forgive-yo Quoting the linked article: "Obviously, this suggests the possibility that perhaps the FBI made the right call in Clinton's case, which probably does not sit well with many people. It also ignores the possibility that the Justice Department simply didn't want a fight against a powerful politician with unlimited resources to fight back during an election year and who may have control over their budget come January. Certainly many will believe that there are other considerations explaining why there will likely be no prosecution." Soar.

I got a whiff that a season 4 might come. Let's see where this goes.

Insult? Someone is a bit too touchy now. Considering your very first comment since coming back had an actual insult in it and my only reply to you was a joke about your dismissive comment about a whole franchise, excuse me for not taking you more seriously on this. Your comment was premature because your whole opinion about the tanking of the DC franchise is based solely on one (1) movie. It also lacks strength because ot fails to define what qualifies for success or failure. If you don't want to have your opinions read, judged and responded to, I think you are in the wrong medium. And this is especially true when you come in being negative about a product. And as a follow up, GA, I don't recall you and I ever having a beef, so where is all of this springing from in the first place? Soar.