Sarachim

It's been 3,151 days since October 21, 2002, giving a posting rate of one every 3.151 days. This is equivalent to 0.317 posts per day. If we round Rowen's time here off to nine years, remembering that two leap years have passed during it, that gives us .304 posts/day, which is the closest I've been able to get to either of the numbers Slarty suggested. Further bulletins as events warrant.

Me too

Originally Posted By: Lilith Originally Posted By: Student of Trinity But this seems perverse to me, since it hardly seems to be the case that exact continuity of my physical body is necessary for me to remain me. My atoms are indistinguishable from other atoms. If I stub my toe I lose some of them. Supposing I had surgery to remove a brain tumor, I would lose some presumably more important ones. I'd still be me. In other words, I am not exactly a pattern, but a class of patterns. But this is redundant, because that's what all patterns are. on the other hand, if you hold that having a certain degree of resemblance to you is enough for an entity to be you, then you have to hold that if there are two sufficiently similar copies of a particular object, both of them are actually the same object. that's a bullet i am unprepared to bite, especially since we don't use that standard for determining identity in anything other than people. if you and i both own a black 2007 Honda Civic, we'd say that your car and my car are both the same model of car, but we wouldn't say that your car is my car -- even though your Civic is more similar to my Civic than me-at-age-24 is to me-at-age-12. I don't mind the implications of this. Sarachim 2011 is more reliable, has more features, and looks nicer than previous versions. A definite upgrade, even if the warranty is a bit shorter.

Originally Posted By: Dintiradan There's a dearth of good looking hats in the Star Wars universe. That's because hats don't conceal your face. It would fit the setting better if they had a hood-and-helmet shop.

Originally Posted By: Lilith Originally Posted By: Dantius Speaking as both a player and a DM, few things are more frustrating than separate hit and damage dies. Rolling a 19 and then minimum damage really sucks. If you could implement one suggestion, I'd say it would be integrating the two dies and working the damage out from how much the TH DC was exceeded by- for instance, getting a 15 on a DC of 14 might do 1 damage, while getting a 9 on a 5 DC could mean 4 damage. fwiw i already do something like this for attack rolls made by the players: hitting by a margin of 0-4 is 1 point of damage. hitting by 5 or more is 2 points. a nat 20 is 3 points. every stamina point spent bumps the damage up one point. i don't do it for enemies' attacks b/c the players don't know what i rolled anyway so it's not like there's anything for them to be disappointed by Furthermore, fewer die rolls make combat go faster, which I like a lot. A simulated fight to the death ought to have some urgency to it.

I'm available to talk anytime you see me online. I think I'm better at characters than I am at either plot or mechanics, but I'll do my best with whatever questions you've got.

Originally Posted By: FnordCola Also, who here reads Fred Clark's LB commentaries on Slacktivist/Patheos? They're pretty excellent. *raises hand* Extremely excellent, even, but my family wonders how I know so much about the subject. Quote: I question your assumption that Left Behind had editors. IIRC, according to those commentaries, Jerry Jenkins writes each book in about a month, so even if they had editors there would be no time for any major revision.

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but the Rapture is scheduled for 6:00 PM. We East Coast sinners have at least six hours to go before we inherit the Earth, though any SWers in Eastern Europe, Asia, or Australia are already living in the kingdom of the Antichrist. Can any of them weigh in on how things are going so far? (I seriously did not make that part of the prediction up.)

Originally Posted By: Student of Trinity Hollow point bullets are more lethal if they hit, but they don't even go through wood or brush very well. Soldiers want to be able to shoot through all kinds of little obstacles, since their enemies are frequently hiding behind visual cover. Military bullets these days are normally steel tipped, in fact, for better penetration ('semi-armor-piercing'), even though that makes them expand less than copper-jacketed lead on impact. They're still quite lethal enough that way, so hollow point brings nothing and loses a lot. That's why armies don't use them. Not because they're too nasty. They're not banned, just ineffective. Animals don't hide, and they don't shoot back, so you can just wait for a clear shot. From the Hague Convention of 1899: Quote: The Contracting Parties agree to abstain from the use of bullets which expand or flatten easily in the human body, such as bullets with a hard envelope which does not entirely cover the core, or is pierced with incisions. The United States is a signatory to the Hague Conventions, as are most other states. I don't know offhand whether the Conventions have yet achieved the status of customary international law (binding on all states, not just signatories), or even if their status as customary law has been established or not. Given their age, their widespread acceptance, and their humanitarian nature, I would guess that they have. You may be right that hollow point bullets are ineffective in a military context, but they are also most definitely illegal.

Originally Posted By: Nioca On one hand, sending forces to a foreign country to perform ops without giving the country a heads-up is, while not illegal, at least somewhat unethical. . . Sending armed forces into another country without that country's consent is, in fact, illegal. The fact that Pakistan consented to other military actions in its territory in the past doesn't change its right to decide whether or not to permit new ones. The question is whether the good of killing bin Laden is great enough to justify a medium-sized violation of international law. Most people seem to say "yes," and since Pakistan is unlikely to pursue any kind of legal action, the fact that this was illegal doesn't mean very much.

Originally Posted By: The Mystic Yes, but to have it drilled into you for several months of the school year, for five consecutive years? That, my fellow Spiderwebbers, is what's known as overkill. By the third time around, I felt like I was literally being bored to death. If you didn't learn what the word "literally" means, they must not have kept at it long enough.

Originally Posted By: Thin Gypsy Thief Am I the only person that likes paying taxes? Not that I pay very much, but still, I just think that that's money going to something a hell of a lot better than any stupid [censored] I'd spend it on. "I like to pay taxes. With them I buy civilization." - Oliver Wendell Holmes I feel the same way, but the way the tax burden is distributed in the US is pretty unjust. The idea that taxes are low here is really only true for people who make $250,000 per year or more.

Originally Posted By: TheBadAgent And last of all, you did NOT understand the last part. Jefferson was saying how the people should not let the government create these socialistic laws that "benefit" people using taxpayer money! I understood it, and then I disagreed with it. If Jefferson was always right, we'd be raping our slaves.

I didn't say you were literally a fascist. I said that the argument you're making was accepted once, and that fascism was the eventual result. Having one popular guy "say what must be said" presumes that everybody agrees just what needs saying. When somebody challenges him by saying something different, either you permit that and you're back to square one, or you forbid it and you get fascism. Also, on a personal note, I am doing my best to disagree with you strongly but respectfully. Please extend me the same courtesy, without questioning my ability to read.

Originally Posted By: TheBadAgent Sara...I know that the reasons I provided aren't the only ones. There are too many agencies, departments and laws to even name that leech money and are completely unneeded. the comment that the rich should pay all these deficits is completely ignorant. The rich cannot possibly pay off the debt or really make a sizable dent in it! Raising taxes just encourages them to take their entire industry outside of the US. If you don't think that will happen, look at China! Pretty much every developed country taxes the rich more heavily than we do. Those countries still exist, and enjoy standards of living comparable to our own. Or, to look at the other extreme, to actually compete with China for low-end manufacturing jobs, we would have to reduce wages to well below their current level, which is a cure worse than the disease. Quote: Do you know the taxes that are imposed on a business? Obviously you don't and are inclined to believe that big businesses OWE you a job. Here's an example. Intel was making one of its plants in another country, I believe in Ireland. The people there at the press meeting for this said that they'owed the US people jobs. The CEO casually explained that it would cost them ONE BILLION dollars more to build a plant in the US than in Ireland. Ah, yes, Ireland, that bastion of free-market miracles. How are they doing these days? Oh, right, the financial crisis hit them even harder than it did us. I wouldn't mind abolishing the corporate tax entirely and making up the difference by raising the highest marginal rate on income taxes. As for that stuff about Intel owing me a job, that's straw man territory. I never suggested any such thing. I would say, more generally, that anyone who is willing and able to work is entitled to a job and a living wage, and if the free market will not provide it, that is what we have government for. Any economic model that allows poverty to persist above the absolute minimum level possible is both useless and immoral. Quote: Also, the govenment's TRUE intended role was to be a "necessary evil" by the Founding Fathers and was only intended to have power over ninternational trade and foreign defense. For those healthcare fanatics: “I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.” – Thomas Jefferson The Founding Fathers were mostly intelligent men. They were not gods, nor could they see the future. Treating their intent as an argument is denying our own ability to learn from the past 200 years of history.

Originally Posted By: TheBadAgent Simple solution- allow the private healthcare companies to expand their business outside the state. This would allow them to skirt state law by incorporating in whichever state's laws are the most generous to them. Quote: Here's another thing, healthcare insurance is NOT there to provide for you, it is there to make MONEY!! They do not give a damn about you! THAT is a misconception many seem to have! No, it's not a misconception any of us have. I agree that this is how healthcare companies work, which is why I favor having the government run them out of business.

Originally Posted By: Unbound Draykon The ultimate Debt Clock. The debt "per citizen" is less than half that "per taxpayer." Did whoever made this forget that the federal income tax is not the only tax?

Woo, we survived! And leveled up! Click to reveal.. (Level 4!) Porifio Male Elf Occupation: Aristocrat Alignment: Conceited 4 Str/2 Dex/7 Int, 17 HP Magic (Enchantment): 6 Magic (Abjuration): 5 Streetwise: 3+1 Martial (Epee): 3 Composure: 1+1 Crafting (Magic items): 1 Spells: Mind Duel: Blasts a target's mind with psychic energy. Tanali's Clear Eye: Shields the recipient from illusions, enchantments, and other magical deceptions, allowing them to see reality clearly. Nuxile's Thought Read: Gives the caster a brief look into the target's mind. A minor success will only reveal the target's emotions or most superficial thoughts. A major success may give deep insight into memories, plans, or beliefs. Costs 1 stamina. Rollo's Moderate Hypnosis: Hypnotizes one target. While hypnotized, the target will believe whatever the caster tells him and follow commands, unless he makes a saving roll to break the hypnosis. Each new suggestion/command gives the target another chance to save. More ambitious suggestions/commands are easier to resist. Elemental Ward: Bestow tolerance of an element on your allies. Stamina is required for multiple elements. Resiliency: Lays a ward on the recipient that makes him/her physically more resilient for a short time. They take slightly less damage from any source except mental, and stamina damage from blood loss or drowning/asphyxiating is reduced. Stamina can be spent to greatly increase the duration of the effect. Defensive Enhancement (A5): Permanently imbues an object with protective magic, which will shield whoever carries or wields it. Requires a long time (several uninterrupted hours) and a lot of stamina (at least 3 for small objects. More for weapons/armor). The protective enchantment can be general, or it can be specific to one kind of attack (physical, fire, mental, whatever). Limitation: Requires points in a relevant Crafting skill to use effectively.

Originally Posted By: Erasmus nope, never broken, Jackson got it to ~33.5k and ever since it has spiraled to millions and billions and trillions, so there seem to be no cure for the national deficit (federal debt) blues clicky However it does appear that for a government to be indebted to who knows how many organizations is common practice in today's world. Oh, okay, you were referring to the national debt, not the budget deficit. While interesting historically, the national debt is not really relevant to the current policy discussion. The question at hand is how important it is for the government not to expand the debt, and how we weigh that against other priorities. The fact that that national debt existed at, say, both the beginning and the end of Hoover's term in office has nothing to do with an analysis of the consequences of his balanced budget policy.

Originally Posted By: Erasmus About US national deficit: IIRC Historically there has been only one president who actually eliminated the national deficit and he was blamed by historians for the following financial crisis after his term. This might have created a superstitious curse among politicians (like the 9th symphony curse for composers) which ... (you know the rest). Are you referring to Hoover? Andrew Jackson? The US has had no budget deficit several times in its history, most recently during the last few years of the Clinton administration. Clinton tends to get a lot of credit for how he managed the economy, so whatever that superstitious curse was, he broke it.

I never thought I'd say this, but Dantius is making a lot of sense. The only thing I'd add is this: BadAgent, you seem to have a skewed idea of exactly what the federal government spends its money on. Imagine everything the government spends its money on that isn't defense, Medicare, or Social Security. Hundreds of things, most of them pretty important, right? All those things combined are less than any of those first three things I listed. You could slash federal education spending, the IRS, and the Department of Energy to the bone, or even abolish them entirely, and it wouldn't even make a dent in the deficit. The bugets of stuff like PBS and Planned Parenthood are so small, they might as well be rounding errors. I don't blame you for this mistake, since many Congressmen make even bigger ones. Ultimately, the way to fix the deficit is to reform our healthcare system in the ways Dantius and Lilith just talked about, get rid of the obsolete Cold War-era stuff that's bloating our defense budget, wait for the baby boomers to die off, and raise taxes on the wealthy enough to pay for what's left. Cutting taxes for the rich and shifting the burden onto the poor, like you're proposing, would only make the problem worse, and that's before the poor start throwing bricks. Finally, one last question: why is a deficit a bad thing? I'm serious. The US has been running one almost continuously for nearly 100 years, and the collapse that deficit hawks warn about still isn't here. If the US has kept it up this long, what makes you say it can't do so indefinitely?

Originally Posted By: TheBadAgent When will people learn that each party is as corrupt, moronic and deceiving as the other. It's time for an honest american to form a third party to confront this BS. We need a "cowboy" sort of person who is balsy, like able, able to get angry but not overly so, and be intelligent and to be able to think on their feet. Someone who can, during the political debate, walk up and put a fist through each frackin teleprompter's screen and say "excuse me Mr. Obama (or other politician), I want to hear what YOUR ideas about the war, not that moron's behind the TV. He needs to be well known enough that the audience would support him, and so he won't be dragged off the stage. Without a joke, Chuck Norris filled most of those requirements...we need another like him however that wants to put the government in its place. This is pretty much the sales pitch that the Italian fascists used. It sounds appealing, right up until you realize that putting Chuck Norris above the petty restraints of politics has the downside of making him a dictator.

Originally Posted By: Dantius I support increased rights for [adult straight white (Christian) males], and so does everyone else on the planet, if you replace the stuff in brackets with a descriptor of your personal ethnic group. What I'm saying is that everyone supports more rights and power for themselves and the groups they are a memer of, and if the only way to do it is at the expense of the groups that do not include them, they will do so. Hey Dantius, quit rationalizing your shortcomings by projecting them onto me. It's insulting. Anyway, like Lilith said, we don't all divide ourselves into groups. Some people get put in groups whether they like it or not.

Originally Posted By: Lt. Sullust To be fair, when you know something is fake you're likely to react differently. For example, You may or may not find that funny. I do. However, if I were to see that happen in real-life I would not find it humorous. The Mentos theme song makes that deliberately absurd. It's different from the examples above, which were supposed to be shocking.

Originally Posted By: Enraged Slith I doubt most pro-lifers base their arguments on morality. I'm sure it has much more to do with money and the refusal to support the refuse of society. So we'll stop paying for their birth control. This is an excellent, well thought-out plan.