archer

I wish we had a major political party in this country which agreed with me on the issues. I spent almost 40 years inside one of them trying to change it then gave up after having to campaign for Hillary in the 2016 general election.

From what I understand of the nature of the investigation, it is still part of the "doing a background check on a nominee" which is routinely done rather than being a criminal investigation. In a background check, the person being interviewed aren't required to even speak to the people who are wanting to conduct an interview, much less be compelled to take a polygraph. edit: Heh, digging in to try to find out more details of the investigation, I came across descriptions such as these. https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/10/1/17916254/kavanaugh-fbi-investigation-ford-trump " the bureau is not looking into the accusations as a criminal matter... Instead, the FBI is conducting the investigation as part of its broader background check into Kavanaugh" https://www.npr.org/2018/09/28/652558787/what-difference-would-it-make-if-the-fbi-were-to-investigate-kavanaugh "eleventh-hour agreement among the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee after a contentious session of offstage horse-trading. The panel voted to recommend the embattled Kavanaugh to the full Senate on the condition that the final floor vote not take place until after the FBI conducted a background investigation into allegations of sexual misconduct... For a criminal investigation, the FBI would typically give a conclusion, based on its interpretation of the facts. But for these kinds of background checks, the FBI does not; instead, the law enforcement agency only provides the information it gathers — names, dates, answers to questions, that kind of thing — and lets the White House and Senate interpret the facts as provided. Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., told NPR. "I'm not sure what the answers will be. It's possible some of the witnesses won't even agree to talk with FBI."

For once I'd like for one of these villains to have Invisibility coming from a "vanishing cream" focus that takes a while to apply. And maybe the background of being employed as a test dummy for a less-than-wholesome cosmetics company.

As odd as it might sound, stuff like that would matter to some people. When I was a kid, back in the dimness of pre-history, my dad invited a client who was visiting from abroad to attend a church service. One of my brother's friends pulled me aside after the service and, upset, asked me why my dad had brought a black man to church. I explained to him that the man wasn't black, that he was from India and was an Indian. That explanation completely satisfied him, even though it didn't change the complexion of the visitor in the slightest. And to this day, I'm not sure why "black" would be less desirable to him on some level than "Indian". Now as to why a Hindu Indian would voluntarily choose to attend a Baptist church service in the south back in that era, I attribute to either complete ignorance or outstanding bravery.

You are, deliberately, missing the point, The identities of the people who the FBI are allowed to interview was determined before the investigation started. Whether anyone who isn't on the list "knows anything" or not is immaterial. The point is that there's no way whoever came up with the list of names for the FBI could have known (in advance of a real investigation) the identities of everyone who might need to be interviewed. By deliberately coming up with a list in advance then prohibiting the FBI from interviewing anyone who isn't on the list, the investigation became fraudulent: investigators can't ask for leads then follow up on whatever leads which they get. It might be that the fraudulent investigation will accidentally come up the the right conclusion. But you can't prove whether the conclusion is correct or not because there will have been no investigation which follows the standard investigative technique of letting investigators interview whoever they think they need to. < emitting sigh of disgust >

The point of conducting an investigation is to talk to someone, listen to what they say, then they point you to another person who might (or might not) have relevant information. The person who actually has the information you need to break an investigation open can be the third or fourth person in the chain of people the investigator speaks to. In this case, however, the FBI has been given a certain list of people who they can speak to and are not allowed to interview anyone else. If one of those people they interview says, "Hey, you really need to speak to Joe because he knows all about it", the investigators aren't allowed to speak to Joe because he isn't on the list. You can't do a real investigation if the investigators aren't allowed to use common investigative techniques like talking to whoever they think they need to.

Yeah, you have to have an actual statement or statements and proof that the statements were perjury. We aren't at that point of having enough evidence yet. Democrats have promised that if they get the majority in the mid-term elections that they'll conduct a real investigation and nail Kavanaugh for perjury if they can. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/05/us/politics/kavanaugh-house-investigation.html

https://shareblue.com/former-fbi-special-agent-kavanaugh-probe-not-authentic/ A former FBI special agent in an interview with MSNBC’s Hallie Jackson: “Dr. Ford’s attorney says because she’s not on this list … this can’t be called an investigation; [that] the FBI was not actually seeking the truth,” Jackson said. “So John, do you agree? Is this a comprehensive investigation or not?” “I actually agree that really this does not fall under the definition of a real, authentic FBI investigation,” Mindermann replied, noting that the restrictions imposed by Republicans eliminated “a vast majority of people who could have provided corroborating evidence.” He added, “I’ve done these and I’ve supervised these — in these investigations, you encourage your agents to go out, cover all bases, run out all leads, develop that comprehensive look so that whoever is looking at this is well versed and can make that judgment call.” https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/9/30/1800226/-NBC-Despite-Trump-s-tweet-limits-on-FBI-s-Kavanaugh-investigation-remain The FBI has received no new instructions from the White House about how to proceed with its weeklong investigation of sexual misconduct allegations against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, a senior U.S. official and another source familiar with the matter tell NBC News. According to the sources, the president’s Saturday night tweet saying he wants the FBI to interview whoever agents deem appropriate has not changed the limits imposed by the White House counsel’s office on the FBI investigation — including a specific witness list that does not include Julie Swetnick, who has accused Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct in high school. Also not on the list, the sources say, are former classmates who have contradicted Kavanaugh’s account of his college alcohol consumption, instead describing him as a frequent, heavy drinker. The FBI is also not authorized to interview high school classmates who could shed light on what some people have called untruths in Kavanaugh’s Senate Judiciary Committee testimony about alleged sexual references in his high school yearbook.

Thanks but I read that immediately before I made each of my posts in this thread.

I think in the future that quotes from the White House daily press briefing should go into the Political Discussion thread.

The player specifically stated he is playing 5e, not 6e.

A Star Wars holdout blaster, as depicted in the Extended Universe novels at least, is smaller than a regular blaster, causes less damage, and has a limited number of charges (as compared to a normal blaster). A bonus to the Concealment roll is a simple way to build it. But if you wanted, you could instead give the blaster a level of persistent Shrinking (halving the size, as little as 1/8th the mass, -2 perception against, +2 DCV for the blaster, and +3 KB for it). It'd certainly be more expensive in points than just the concealment roll bonus. But it would make a holdout blaster play slightly differently than a regular blaster: tougher to knock it from your hand than a regular blaster, it flies further when you're disarmed or when you toss it, and you could conceal it inside all sorts of other items.

Beto O'Rouke, running against Ted Cruz in the TX Senate race, is flagged by the Federal Elections Commission for accepting “excessive” and “impermissible” donations from individuals from outside of the country. https://dailycaller.com/2018/10/01/orourke-ted-cruz-finance-violations-sec/?utm_source=Twitter&amp;utm_medium=Social&amp;utm_campaign=atdailycaller

A quick question to people who are closely following the Kavanaugh controversy: If the FBI investigation turns up nothing, the supposed victims don't follow up with any legal actions, and Kavanaugh gets confirmed to the Court, are you planning to let the matter drop or will you be planning to refer to him as a rapist in every Supreme Court discussion for the next 20 years? (Note: I am not someone who is following the controversy closely.)

Drown it!

I'm holding on to the hopes of virtual reality LARPing for cash and prizes, ala Dream Park. The original LARPers play through the adventure. Then that adventure's recordings are cleaned up and sold as movies and the adventure itself is packaged for home computers so that you can take the role of one of the adventurers and play with the others from the original cast. The GM's, players, and various technicians share the profits. In the Dream Park world, such adventuring is big business with a place like Dream Park outdrawing Disney World. And watching LARPing feeds or VR adventuring at home is ubiquitous.

We make a hell of an assumption in thinking that the laws of physics are the same everywhere in the universe. I'm not arguing that we shouldn't make that assumption, just that we should remain aware that it is an assumption. As for other aspects of the Fermi paradox, I wouldn't be surprised if aliens had visited the planet in the past. Look at our exploration of the moon. Astronauts landed there in a couple of places, explored a tiny area of it, then left for various reasons including that it wasn't convenient for them to stay. If you had no idea where to start looking for the evidence that man had visited the moon, it might take you a very long while before you found one of the landing sites. And that's on a globe that's 1/4th the size of the earth and which has no weather, population, or tectonic activity to obscure the landing sites. And even if the aliens had only two simple rules such as "don't litter and don't upset the natives", any civilization which was advanced enough to make the trip today could avoid the ridiculously minimal efforts our civilization currently makes to detect aliens.

Running around with no costumes seems a little racy for that era.

With wires and studs on the jacket, you could have a damage shield or a force field. Even without that, probably some kind of ultralight armor as faux leather or built into the liner. Absolute Time Sense, Bump of Direction, Eidetic Memory for recording audio/video, computer link, commercially-available encrypted radio communications, and Lightning Calculator built into the sleeve's flexible screen (for those who don't have their tech installed directly into their forearms). Basically any app you could load to an I-pad or cell phone today would be available as an integrated part of the jacket (flashlight, level, Pokemon Go, a fan, etc.) Probably the option for an OnStar kind of service which summons bodyguards, transportation or both in an emergency. The service might be set to activate on multiple triggers as well as on demand. I'd also have an inside-the-sleeve holster for my sonic screwdriver. High-end military grade models would probably have most of the abilities of what we think of as power armor today but with slightly less of a power level.

"Can you imagine a world with no hypothetical situations?"

I think your DVR has been taking lessons from my DVR.

Go west, young iceberg.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-06879-z I really like the idea of encouraging selectors to nominate up to three candidates rather nominating only one. Many times the difference between first choice and third on various Hall of Fame ballots is so narrow that the choice of who takes first place is subjective rather than objective. I doubt that Nobel nominations are much different in that respect (in most years at least). On the other hand, I don't really care for the push to encourage people to nominate a woman because a woman hasn't won in a while or nominate someone from Australia because someone from Australia hasn't won in a while, or nominate someone who contributed in some particular topic because that topic hasn't won in a while, etc. Excerpt from Nobel's will which established the prizes: The criteria are "greatest benefit" and "worthiest person". Whether you are male or female doesn't make you more worthy or less worthy nor change the amount of benefit which your discovery or invention provides to mankind. Which continent, region, or nation you come from doesn't change the level of of your worthiness nor change the amount of benefit to mankind. The topic you worked on doesn't make you more or less worthy nor change the amount of benefit your work provided to mankind I think that reminding the selectors of the criteria for the selection established in the will should be emphasized yearly (and dis-inviting any of those "at-large" selectors who seem to be systematically year-after-year ignoring the criteria is certainly in order if that isn't already being done). But some of the proposals mentioned in the article which would artificially promote diversity would directly violate the terms of the will (such as requiring a selector to nominate an equal number of men and women or to pick out certain years and require that all of the nominees in that year be women). The Nobel Foundation doesn't really (legally) have the option of ignoring the terms of the will which established it. Here's a description of the selection process for the physics prize if anyone wants to see how the process works. https://www.nobelprize.org/nomination/physics/

You try living on milk, cookies, and candy canes for a year. ?