Amentep

Divinity Original Sin 2: Character Creation video. I'm liking the look of character creation (said knowing very well that'll I restart a dozen times to try out new character ideas most likely).

I haven't watched Justified yet (maybe someday) but I was disappointed to find out it was filmed in California and not Kentucky.

I play a lawyer on tv.* I think seat belt laws were passed nationwide since federal transportation dollars were put up as the carrot if they were approved the state. *Disclaimer: not an actual tv lawyer either. PS - auto correct changed my misspelling of disclaimer to ducksimmer

Only true if your car is parked. So theoretically the police could fly a helicopter over your car, have an officer climb down a rope ladder from the helicopter, then dive through an open window and that officer could search your car until you could stop it and it wouldn't be illegal (provided he stopped searching once it was no longer in motion and became private property)? Seriously though, IIRC, the Carroll case led to reduced expectation of privacy with regard to car searches in context of the 4th Amendment (thus greater lattitude to search) based on their ability to be moved out of the district before a warrant could be gathered. Arguably (I'd think) this isn't about privacy so much as it is public safety. The government already forbids you drinking alcohol and driving, for example. But in that case there's a clear link to the activity and the impairment (and yes you can be drunk before getting into a car, but tossing back a bud as you drive would also get you pulled over). So arguably the question would end up being whether the activity in a not-as-private-as-a-house vehicle has a clearly proven ramification outside of the car. Which I'm not sure it does. Or I could just be totally wrong on everything, totally not a lawyer.

I wasn't really arguing it was regarding liberties (although GD make a good 4th Amendment point, I think), just throwing my $.02 about the thing. I think there are potentially a number of reasons to dislike such a law, not just any encroachment on liberties.

It's a matter of personal freedom to be a liability to everyone around you? Actually.. that explains a lot about your country come to think of it So here's the actual phrasing of the proposed law: "An operator of a moving motor vehicle shall not engage in any activity unrelated to the actual operation of a motor vehicle in a manner that interferes with the safe operation of the vehicle on a public road or highway." My first question would be - how do you define "in a manner that interferes with the safe operation of the vehicle"? In other words if I can talk to my passenger and operate the vehicle safely, but the next person could not, does the rule apply to the lowest skill level (implying that one couldn't talk, listen to a radio, drink, eat, listen to navigational directions from phone or device, etc since all of those things COULD interfere with the safe operation of the vehicle) or does it go by some sort of individual test, and if so what would that test be? My second question is how are the police supposed to prove that it was eating a taco that caused you to drift out of your lane and not say, tiredness, road hypnosis, or just plain wool gathering on your part. Or is the assumption if I have a taco wrapper in my car, that it was the taco that distracted me? My third question is does it mean listening to the radio guarantees that I'm pulled over whether it actually interferes with the safe operation of the vehicle for me or not? Or does this just become an "add on" penalty to, say, when you get a citation for an accident you were in with no other purpose than to tack on more penalties to those responsible for accidents?

Because Wonder Woman is holding Doomsday with her Golden Lasso while Batman is weakening him. Which Superman can't do as he's weakened by kryptonite.

Sure, she's a fighter, but could she have stabbed him with the spear in the right place, hard enough to kill him without anyone holding him? I'm not sold on that point.

SUICIDE SQUAD (2016) [spoilers ahead] Overall I thought it was a good, entertaining film. Its not perfect (and I think I see what may have turned critics off) but I think the characters are more true to their comic counterparts than any of the DC films that have come before it. And ultimately it ends up being a fun film; I do suspect there might be a better film lurking inside it, though. The film has several narrative threads woven together; primarily we see the stories of Deadshot and Harley Quinn as a through story. However I don't think that the film started out with this being the case, I think that originally Enchantress and El Diablo had to have an equal amount of story time. From a story perspective this gives two characters who have family (Deadshot, Diablo) and two who have relationships (Enchantress-Rick Flagg, Harley Quinn-Joker) to compare and contrast through their story-arcs. The edit as is focuses the story heavily on Deadshot and Harley, but at the expense of a transition between the first third and the second third. This comes off clumsily and confusing and I imagine is the point that critics are getting thrown out of the story narrative. I've read that none of the Enchantress stuff was supposed to be flashbacks, and I think that is what was supposed to be part of the transition. Also for a "Dirty Dozen" style film, we get little footage (also possible in the middle) that would have shown the 'team' meeting one another. If I'm right this lessens the impact of Enchantress' turn, but as is the film does okay without it. But once we kick into the second third, the film kicks into high gear and rolls along just fine; while I think Joker and Enchantress get short shrift from the edit, there is enough there to "get" their characters. The rest of the Squad don't have a lot of time spent on them, but there's enough there to get the basics of their characters. That said, whoever thought it was a good idea to re-edit Killer Croc's backstory with footage from later in the film - you were wrong, it was a bad idea. The goals are clear - if simple; free an asset, not defeat the bad guys. But as with every other "Dirty Dozen" style film, the mission goes pear-shaped and they have to figure out what - if anything - they can do. As to Amanda Waller's controversial moment towards the end I've seen some complaints over - that was classic Amanda Waller. She's not a good guy; one of the re-occuring themes of the book is that Waller - the nominal good guy protecting the nation/world is quite willing to do the most horrible things ever as the "ends justifies the means" and she will do whatever it takes to keep a secret a secret, to protect those who need protecting or whatever goal she's focused on. She's the ultimate embodiment of the needs of the many outweigh the few - and she's totally willing to sacrifice the few to protect the many even if it means outright killing them. Its a dark moment (although I feel the film may have kept more dark moments on the editing room floor) but its a dark moment that's true of the character. All in all, I enjoyed the film a lot and I hope we get a director's cut version for home media. And I may have to go see it again in the theaters. So in your version of BvS with Wonder Woman spearing Doomsday - who is the one holding Doomsday still with WW's Golden Lasso? It can't be Clark, he'd be weakened by Batman's kryptonite weapons that were weakening Doomsday and also by the Spear itself as it got close to Doomsday and thus Superman would be unable to hold him still long enough for him to be speared. So that leaves you with ... Batman and Lois? There's a lot to complain over with respect to Wonder Woman's role in the film, but in the final fight, as presented, she's really the only one who can hold Doomsday long enough for Superman to get a clear shot with the spear.

He was killed in 1992 and they still sent him to the Hague? Harsh!

Yeah, irony is so ironic. :|

IMO, since we'll probably never eliminate the political parties entirely, the better solution to what we have now is to have multiple viable parties; Libertarians and Green seem to be the most likely candidates for such at the moment. In a way I hope the R & D having such divisive candidates may allow the system to really branch out, with voters trying to grasp at alternatives such as they become viable past this election cycle. "Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally. This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy. The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty. Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it." - George Washington, 1776

GD does this mean the Libertarian party will become a permanent political party and voting option going forward in the USA? The Libertarian Party has been a permanent party since 1971. The Green Party since 1990. The issue - as I understand it - is that (a) people believe that if you vote for anyone other than Repub/Demo you are wasting your vote (or worse "voting for" whichever one you don't align with politically as a way to scare you into voting for Repub/Demo) and (b) without a certain % of the popular vote in the national election, the Libertarian & Green party presidential candidates don't get automatically on the ballot and have to spend considerable time and money getting their candidates on the ballot instead of promoting themselves to the public.

is not all that complicated in this instance. no ruling. iran were seeking $10 billion via arbitration at the hague. the curious timed settlement 'tween US and iran would send $1.7 billion to iran. $400 million were first payment o' the settlement... which obama claimed had nothing whatsoever to do with the nuke deal or the prisoner release. HA! Good Fun! Thanks, I hadn't had an opportunity to really look into it for myself, hence why I could only parrot what I'd heard (possibly swapping settlement for ruling in my head too).

Yeah, I really don't know the details of it, hence the liberal use of the word "supposedly".

Supposedly the $400 Million is from an international court ruling regarding a disagreement between US-Iran dating to the late 1970s when the US agreed to back the Shah of Iran in buying arms. The US's position had been that the change of regime made the agreement null and void, whereas the international court determined the agreement was with the country and that the regime was irrelevant. This is - again supposedly - why the right has been arguing that US agreed to "accept" the international court ruling as a cover to buy off Iran to release prisoners.

There was a local school that has a "Good News" club that the Satanic Temple is aiming to get an "After School Satan" club in, according to the local news.

"Science fiction is what we point to when we say it." — Damon Knight.

The concept wasn't explained sufficiently, in my opinion, or else I wouldn't have bothered to ask questions (and I say that while ignoring the backhanded attempt to insult me with a variation of the "Oh you don't get it, you must not be intelligent enough to see my genius!" defense). I had some sympathy for you - having had philosophical posts get derailed myself in the past - but its difficult to have a discussion if it is going to consist of you making statements/pronouncements and then refusing to clarify them. Or...discuss them at all.

Hmmm, but there's no quod erat demonstrandum by merely stating that its logical to think something. You have to show why it'd be logical to think such a thing. In this case, why is it logical to think that prolonged focus on our eyes in motion would make us more attuned to it rather than, say, self-consciously aware that we were focusing our eyes in motions to the exclusion of other things we expect from visual sensory input? Why would we naturally draw the conclusion that the motion would appear understandable rather than conclude that the was an autonomic response to internal/external stimuli?

Didn't Bioware try to close their boards once before? I can't say I was over there much since they went to the EA style forums, but I do think it sad that companies actually think that social media is a better place to communicate with fans than a message board. My experience is that level of contact with fans goes down significantly when a company shunts communication off to their social media accounts.

You haven't defined what you mean by "crossed eye" nor how this relates to humans being "educated stupid" which you also haven't defined Your use of the word "lucid" doesn't appear to make sense in the context of the sentence; I can't tell if you're implying control (as in lucid dreaming but that's a specific phrase definition) or implying "easy to understand" You tell us the pictures mean something and then argue that the meaning proves your theory. You can't define something and use that definition to prove something else in any sort of logic I'm aware of without first proving the definition is correct (at least for that instance if not universally)

How does one go about rating the potentially incalculable? I know you said you were joshing, but theoretically there's no upper limit to Hulk's strength. The longer he fights and the madder he gets the stronger he gets. So if you're going to beat him in a fight, its going to be done early, eventually his strength curve will take him past you. I felt compelled to both like and stinkeye this post. Dooo eeet, its pretty fun. Not that I don't want to, I just have too many shows to watch right now.

Not seen Dark Matter, but cast list says The Android is played by Zoie Palmer who was a regular supporting cast member on Lost Girl (which I've only seen a few episodes of).

http://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2016/08/suicide-squad-review This is particularly harsh "Suicide Squad is bad. Not fun bad. Not redeemable bad. Not the kind of bad that is the unfortunate result of artists honorably striving for something ambitious and falling short. Suicide Squad is just bad. It’s ugly and boring, a toxic combination that means the film’s highly fetishized violence doesn’t even have the exciting tingle of the wicked or the taboo. (Oh, how the movie wants to be both of those things.) It’s simply a dull chore steeped in flaccid machismo, a shapeless, poorly edited trudge that adds some mildly appalling sexism and even a soupçon of racism to its abundant, hideously timed gun worship. But, perhaps worst of all, Suicide Squad is ultimately too shoddy and forgettable to even register as revolting. At least revolting would have been something." That author admits to hating Ayer's previous films, referring to them as "repugnant" which makes me think he wasn't in the market for this film. But who knows? I won't until I see it.