ravenshrike

So the legal system actually does encourage people to actually shoot other humans in that situation then? (serious question) Shooting other people is illegal as well. There can be justifications and mitigation for it though, as evidenced in the Zimmerman trial. Harping on this makes it sound like it's okay to shoot another person in self defense, but not to fire a warning shot in the same situation. Or, in other words, that the legal system implicitly encourages one to actually potentially kill another human being rather than the alternative. Because that's the way it looks. Saying "Firing a warning shot is illegal" doesn't do much since firing a fatal shot is also illegal. You can dispute whether self-defense was applicable (a position I actually lean towards now, as I have read more information), but if it was, is firing a warning shot still illegal, while a fatal shot not? But you're right, it's an excellent example of how minimum sentencing is often absurd. If the situation is serious enough to discharge your firearm, it is serious enough to shoot the person. Not to mention warning shots generally ignore rules 2 and 4. Never let the muzzle cover something you are not willing to destroy and Always be sure of your target. When you fire a warning shot, the situation should be more than serious enough that you won't be paying close attention to where you are firing the warning shot because to do so means taking your attention off the threat. That is bad gun handling.

I just replaced my opinion with this one. Except the SYG law had nothing to do with it. All it does is eliminate the duty to retreat if easily possible. As at the time of shooting Zimmerman was being straddled on the grass/concrete, he had no duty to retreat. Not to mention that between the lack of gunpowder burns on Martin's skin but gunpowder burns on the hoodie and Zimmerman's injuries all point to Zimmerman telling the truth even without Good's testimony of Zimmerman being on the bottom. Her husband and the children were on the same side of the kitchen. The bullet ended up in the ceiling of the kitchen on the same side as the husband and the children. She did not fire the warning shot directly in the air but over the head of her husband and thus, given his proximity to the children, in the general direction of the children. Moreover, warning shots are illegal. IMPORTANT EDIT - Regarding the Marissa Alexander case, it appears I was wrong. The bullet did not enter the kitchen ceiling. Rather, it went through the kitchen WALL and into the living room ceiling. Which means the bullet would have been aimed a hell of a lot closer at her husband's head. If you want to get angry at the Alexander case, get angry at the minimum sentencing law as it allows prosecutors to play judge and jury.

Aaaand, no. The only person who said that Zimmerman initiated confrontation changed her story multiple times on the stand and had CLEARLY been heavily coached by the prosecution. Moreover, he waited over 40 seconds before pulling his gun, and according to him that was only after Martin went for it, and then shot at Martin ONCE. While on the ground getting his ass kicked. That's rather remarkable restraint. As for your prior example, the woman in question fired the gun in the general direction of her CHILDREN and did so after having got away the first time. Warning shots, no matter what that stupid ****head who is our current Vice President might say, are almost always illegal. The only possible exception I can think of would be threat of mob violence. Moreover, SYG applies to percieved imminent threat. You are not allowed to go away and then come back and shoot at someone.

I would like prestige classes in a game with a higher level cap. So maybe introduce them in the expansion or in PE2. But with only 10-12 levels in the first game, it doesn't make much sense.

Are there going to be D&D style traps in the game? Because if so a tumble skill analogue could apply to your ability to dodge said traps as well as your ability to move in combat.

I went with the Scandis in general. Of the countries listed Russia probably has the most bribable. The US shoots the most dogs. The French are the most ineffectual. The UK arrest the most civilians defending their property, and the Germans have the most paperwork.

Not really. He was elected. Democracy isn't the same as mob rule. technicalities aside, even if they depose him the next bugger will have exactly the same problems, and pretty much the same toolbox to tackle them. He won't do any better. An election in which you are the only organized political party is nothing more than a sham and about as valid as pretty much every single Chicago election. Which is to say not at all. Pretending otherwise is ludicrous.

Lois Lerner, the IRS, difference between witness version of 5th amendment and Mirandization, and whether she has to testify on the specifics of what she already said before trying to claim the 5th.

Guaranteeing something that you can not actually guarantee is foolish, even if it does make for good rhetoric. The burden of proof should always be on the person who makes the claim*, as is the case with ravenshrike and his "guaran****ingtee that no liberal org had to answer anything remotely intrusive as them". If that statement was not intended to be a factual statement, that should be clarified. *Imagine what science would be like, if any yahoo could claim any outrageous thing without having to provide any evidence whatsoever. I'll agree that others should be able to prove it right or wrong, but the person who makes the claim should have more proof than "liberal orgs weren't bitching" to support their case. Except between human nature and the fact there is undisputable statistical evidence that Tea Party groups et al were targeted my guarantee that no liberal groups were targeted in the same way, while not rising to the equivalent of scientific Law, certainly clears the equivalent of Theory. Only if you're using theory like criminal theory, not scientific theory. And even then it wouldn't hold up in court. True, but in court the discovery process would allow me to get copies of the questionnaires the liberal groups were forced to fill out, thus making this entire conversation irrelevant.

Guaranteeing something that you can not actually guarantee is foolish, even if it does make for good rhetoric. The burden of proof should always be on the person who makes the claim*, as is the case with ravenshrike and his "guaran****ingtee that no liberal org had to answer anything remotely intrusive as them". If that statement was not intended to be a factual statement, that should be clarified. *Imagine what science would be like, if any yahoo could claim any outrageous thing without having to provide any evidence whatsoever. I'll agree that others should be able to prove it right or wrong, but the person who makes the claim should have more proof than "liberal orgs weren't bitching" to support their case. Except between human nature and the fact there is undisputable statistical evidence that Tea Party groups et al were targeted my guarantee that no liberal groups were targeted in the same way, while not rising to the equivalent of scientific Law, certainly clears the equivalent of Theory.

Obama has a pretty big problem with perception now. It isn't just the IRS stuff, it's the systematic spying on journalists for doing their job even if everyone* agrees what they've done is legal, it's prism, it's the persecution of whistleblowers, the unbelievably ill conceived notion of claiming the right to summarily execute by fiat of terrorist label and the overall conclusion has to be that the guy who promised transparency (hey, he's talking about it right now in RSA) really meant that the US public would be transparent, not its government. He looks more and more like a US version of Tony Blair- articulate enough to deflect criticism for a while, but ultimately immensely disappointing and not likely to be remembered kindly. *well, those who want to criminalise journalism would like it to be illegal to publicise a leak as well as actually do the leak I know, I wasn't talking about anything except the IRS schtick. My point was that the IRS thing was internal to the IRS, and not Obama sitting in office going "I want you to go out and ensure that my opponents have tax issues!" to the IRS bosses. GD makes it sound like Obama had a Fast and Furious esque CCTV view of all of the deals and was quietly giggling to himself each time a republican was delayed or turned down. We THINK it was internal. One should wait until the investigation is done to declaim such a thing solidly however. Lerner's testimony should be interesting. Hopefully the republicans will actually have the balls to use their sergeant at arms and that nice warm jail cell they have under Congress if she continues to try and plead the 5th after already testifying that she broke no IRS rules or regulations and that she has not provided any false infomation to the commitee. Which means she waived any and all right not to answer questions concerning IRS rules and regulations or any information previously given to Congress. Now, since that was not a Mirandization, she can still selectively not answer any questions about other topics, but anything under those categories is fair game. And we thought it was entirely external due to the media blitz pushing that connection and the politicization. A political witch hunt will net us nothing, and just because somebody doesn't have the Miranda rights read to them doesn't mean that those rights do not exist. If she feels that something she says could incriminate her, be it for this particular topic or one unrelated to these investigations, she will always have the right to not say anything. Oh this should be good. Since you seem to know so much about Miranda, please explain the SCOTUS' rationale for creating the Miranda right and how it differs from standard 5th amendment protections. Also, please explain why you think Miranda rights apply to Lerner. You're the one who started throwing around Miranda rights there skipper. And technically "Miranda Rights" is really just the official notification to the suspect (or interrogated) of what their rights are and aren't. In this case, she always has the right to remain silent, she always has the right to an attorney, and she always has the right to stop speaking until she speaks to an attorney. It's not some magical constitutional on-off switch where you have your rights as long as the government informs you of them. Aaand your knowledge of constitutional law is as sketchy as Obama's. Congratulations. What I actually said was that her claim of the 5th did not Mirandize her. Mirandization ONLY applies when in the custody of law enforcement. it does not apply to people merely called to testify on the witness stand when not the focus of a criminal investigation. Instead they are covered by the standard 5th amendment. Which means they can selectively invoke the 5th if there is a chance they may incriminate themselves. HOWEVER, that means they may not testify at all as to the subject they are claiming the fifth on. In Lerner's case that she broke no IRS rules and regulations and that all the information she provided Congress was true. The two statements that she broke no laws and that she was innocent do not apply because those are not judicially findable facts. Since she testified as to the two former statements, she cannot then refuse to answer questions which directly concern those statements. So Congress could, if they really wanted to be giant douchebags, go through every single IRS rule and regulation and ask her if she ever violated it. Interestingly, it also gives them the ability to seize all her work emails and other work correspondence so long as they grant her immunity from any other possible crimes she committed. As to Mirandization, the reasons that SCOTUS created it out of whole cloth was because they felt the coercion of being in police custody, both physical and mental, broke the spirit of the Bill of Rights and thus stated you could refuse to answer questions the police asked of you without your lawyer present. Technically speaking it should have been codified under the 6th amendment and not the 5th, but there you go. Then guaranteeing it seems a bit foolish doesn't it? If the leftist orgs had been subject to the same types of questions, they would have bitched about it just like the Tea Party orgs did. Oddly enough not a single leftist 501( c )4 has done so even during this brouhaha. So while I suppose the probability that they were subject to the same type of intrusive questioning is non-zero, it's still really ****ing small.

Obama has a pretty big problem with perception now. It isn't just the IRS stuff, it's the systematic spying on journalists for doing their job even if everyone* agrees what they've done is legal, it's prism, it's the persecution of whistleblowers, the unbelievably ill conceived notion of claiming the right to summarily execute by fiat of terrorist label and the overall conclusion has to be that the guy who promised transparency (hey, he's talking about it right now in RSA) really meant that the US public would be transparent, not its government. He looks more and more like a US version of Tony Blair- articulate enough to deflect criticism for a while, but ultimately immensely disappointing and not likely to be remembered kindly. *well, those who want to criminalise journalism would like it to be illegal to publicise a leak as well as actually do the leak I know, I wasn't talking about anything except the IRS schtick. My point was that the IRS thing was internal to the IRS, and not Obama sitting in office going "I want you to go out and ensure that my opponents have tax issues!" to the IRS bosses. GD makes it sound like Obama had a Fast and Furious esque CCTV view of all of the deals and was quietly giggling to himself each time a republican was delayed or turned down. We THINK it was internal. One should wait until the investigation is done to declaim such a thing solidly however. Lerner's testimony should be interesting. Hopefully the republicans will actually have the balls to use their sergeant at arms and that nice warm jail cell they have under Congress if she continues to try and plead the 5th after already testifying that she broke no IRS rules or regulations and that she has not provided any false infomation to the commitee. Which means she waived any and all right not to answer questions concerning IRS rules and regulations or any information previously given to Congress. Now, since that was not a Mirandization, she can still selectively not answer any questions about other topics, but anything under those categories is fair game. And we thought it was entirely external due to the media blitz pushing that connection and the politicization. A political witch hunt will net us nothing, and just because somebody doesn't have the Miranda rights read to them doesn't mean that those rights do not exist. If she feels that something she says could incriminate her, be it for this particular topic or one unrelated to these investigations, she will always have the right to not say anything. Oh this should be good. Since you seem to know so much about Miranda, please explain the SCOTUS' rationale for creating the Miranda right and how it differs from standard 5th amendment protections. Also, please explain why you think Miranda rights apply to Lerner.

For all the people wanting minor increases, please remember that this is high fantasy where the amount you are in tune with your soul directly effects how badass you are and how much cool **** you can do and punishment you can take. It ain't Iron Kingdoms or Warhammer RPG. I don't think so.. As an example: a 3.5e D&D fighter going from level 5 to level 6 gets a +1 BAB increase on top of their existing +5. That's roughly a +20% improvement in the combat department. The hit points increase by a comparable proportion; other capabilities perhaps not as much. I'm just saying why not use an exponential improvement scheme? After about level 3 in D20 it makes much more sense to compare against the dice in question. So every 4 levels the barbarian, fighter, ranger, and paladin gains 20% to hit; monks, rogues, clerics, and bards 15%; and Sorcs and Wizards 10%. This doesn't include their other abilities of course, but still.

Obama has a pretty big problem with perception now. It isn't just the IRS stuff, it's the systematic spying on journalists for doing their job even if everyone* agrees what they've done is legal, it's prism, it's the persecution of whistleblowers, the unbelievably ill conceived notion of claiming the right to summarily execute by fiat of terrorist label and the overall conclusion has to be that the guy who promised transparency (hey, he's talking about it right now in RSA) really meant that the US public would be transparent, not its government. He looks more and more like a US version of Tony Blair- articulate enough to deflect criticism for a while, but ultimately immensely disappointing and not likely to be remembered kindly. *well, those who want to criminalise journalism would like it to be illegal to publicise a leak as well as actually do the leak I know, I wasn't talking about anything except the IRS schtick. My point was that the IRS thing was internal to the IRS, and not Obama sitting in office going "I want you to go out and ensure that my opponents have tax issues!" to the IRS bosses. GD makes it sound like Obama had a Fast and Furious esque CCTV view of all of the deals and was quietly giggling to himself each time a republican was delayed or turned down. We THINK it was internal. One should wait until the investigation is done to declaim such a thing solidly however. Lerner's testimony should be interesting. Hopefully the republicans will actually have the balls to use their sergeant at arms and that nice warm jail cell they have under Congress if she continues to try and plead the 5th after already testifying that she broke no IRS rules or regulations and that she has not provided any false infomation to the commitee. Which means she waived any and all right not to answer questions concerning IRS rules and regulations or any information previously given to Congress. Now, since that was not a Mirandization, she can still selectively not answer any questions about other topics, but anything under those categories is fair game.

And that shows you have no clue what was going on. NONE of the applications in question were denied. They were all delayed until conveniently right after the election. These were not 501©3 orgs who are not allowed political spending. These are 501©4s. Moreover, the questionnaires that the orgs in question were required to fill out are downright disturbing and I guaran****ingtee that no liberal org had to answer anything remotely intrusive as them Moreover, as the Treasury IG found Pretending that this wasn't a political chilling attempt is asinine.

Pink is awesome. And the reason for that awesomeness is simple. Pink is the color your brain percieves as a graphical glitch. It goes "I've got Red, Orange, Yellow, Blue, Indigo, Violet, I'll output white... Wait, where's Green? I can't do anything without Green. AHHHHHHHHH!!!." and then you see pink.

This combined with their attempt to force SaaS on the common consumer through both the XBone and their current Office offerings is a pretty bad sign. Especially since there is no real benefit to said consumer. On a corporate basis SaaS is useful but except for the support issue none of the other benefits transfer over and the average person just doesn't need lots of tech support. The difference is that Linux is FREE. Windows is not. Nor is it legacy software. So having to **** around to get basic functionality back(As the W8 interface sucks donkey shlong without a touchscreen interface) for a piece of software costing over $100 is blatantly unacceptable

There are two things that are amusing about the article. The first is that it initially appeared on MotherJones. Just like something appearing on FreeRepublic, it should make one leery of any claims made in the article. The second amusing thing is that not once does the article mention the skyrocketing rates of scientific fraud since the 1970's. The one with the nastiest consequences being SIDS. Well, and the outright ban of DDT. That's killed about 3 milion a year. There was absolutely no reason not to use it as mosquito repellent. It was bad science that got it banned. While nasty when used in the amounts needed for **** like crop dusting, the minor amounts needed to guard against mosquitos have little to no effect on the environment. Of course, since those doing the dying live in Africa they're not very important in the larger scheme of things.

You just had to voice that idea. Now it won't leave my head, and I keep thinking about different ways to **** with time travel to benefit porn. Hate you SO much.

Arguably it's more because Moffat can't keep long running threads together well unlike RTD and less that Smith is better or worse than Tennant. Not to mention Moffat's inability to give the companions a proper denoument, WARNING SPOILERS AHOY The if you read it it's true bit is especially silly. That makes no flipping sense given the nature of time travel and the fact that people LIE. And yet it was how he resolved the Ponds' departure. Cause, y'know, The Doctor couldn't go to an equivalent year that they traveled back to in sayyyy, New Jersey, rent a car, drive to NY, pick up the Ponds, drive back to the TARDIS, drop the Ponds off in their normal time, go back to the year they "died" in Jersey, drive back to NY, get two vagrants who died from the morgue,and plant their bodies in the cemetary with a fake headstone SPOILERS OVER SAFE TO READ Although Tennant does do the whiny angst bit better. As to the topic at hand, currently rewatching Lie to Me with my cousins. It sucks royally that show was cancelled. Going to try and get them hooked on Black Books next.

Until the tech can be set so you can shift from VR to AR when other humans are about or loud enough noises outside the headset occur I'll pass.

I ended up softmodding my Wii because there was a really kickass mod for Super Smash Brawl which both balanced play and vastly improved the AI. Not to mention all the homemade levels for SMB wii.

For me, that's kinda the point. I've been calling the original XBox, the Xbox1 since the 360 came out (which I to referred my 360 as: my Xbox since I thought saying Xbox 360 was dumb and kinda cumbersome with all of those needless syllables) Xbone to me is my way of distinguishing it from the original Xbox (see all of those extra needless letters and syllables), while also in a way, showing my contempt for such a stupid name for a third console. In fairness, the console now has two nicknames. The XBone, and the XBox 180, both of which remain apropos. The former because they STILL have the ****ty Kinect function which has no possible reason for being manditorily connected except for piss poor design, forcible content restriction, and crap like commercials that pause when you'e not in front of the tv and actually WATCHING it. Not to mention the idea that being able to "turn off" the Kinect through a software switch is laughable. Which means the PS4 is STILL going to be the military choice of this console generation as the XBone will still not be allowed anywhere civilians aren't

His terminology is off, but his point is valid. Circumventing DRM is illegal in many countries. Yeah, so? Malum prohibitum laws are ****ing bull**** dreamt up by authoritarian **** who should go die in a fire. They are the reason the average adult commits three felonies a day, whether aware or not. Moreover, while the probability of being caught downloading games is very small but still real, the probability of getting caught merely using the cracks is so infinitesimal as to be laughable.

To be fair, as much as there are Republicans who're up in arms mainly because it's Obama and who defended Bush for doing similar things there are also more than a few Democrats who would have been incandescent with rage had this come out during Bush's term who are either quiet or defending it under Obama because he's their guy. If it had been Bush bugging reporters and having the IRS 'independently' decide to investigate his political opponents the internet would be replete with Bu$Hitler's and the like every bit as much. Looking at the poll results on the issue, it was only about a 10% switch for either side. The rest of repubs/dems stuck to their guns. Of course, since both parties were at least within 10 percentage points of for/against, to someone without an understanding of statistics, it looks like dems and repubs completely switched positions on the issue, instead of only 10% switching their opinion.