Ember

Hidden because the original post was significantly edited: [hide] This is why I don't discuss things on the internet. You can't even reason through a hypothetical situation without being absurd. Oh, sorry for calling you out on your (presumably unintentional) sexism. What's really absurd here is that you can't even build a scenario to campaign against sexism without being sexist yourself. You don't explicitly state that women would quit at a greater rate than men, but it's pretty heavily implied. After all, how could it be sexist (even by your backward-looking standard) if no sex sees disproportionate adversity? There's a reason you chose a disproportionate decline in female players, and I was genuinely curious as to why. Well done on disregarding most of my post, though. Obviously. Thank you for helping me to correct my flawed understanding of the world. Dictionary.com says: I had to double check in case it had changed. Yeah, looks like I might understand what a hypothetical situation/scenario is. [/hide]

K K What, because only women are upset enough about teabagging to quit? That's a pretty sexist thing to suppose. Unless you're targeting people because of their gender, the outcome doesn't much matter. A work requirement of being able to lift and move 100 pounds for the duration of a shift may exclude more women than men, but that doesn't change the nature of the work or the job requirements. In my experience, many more women are engaged in local nursing programs than men. Should a local posting for a nursing job include a requirement for a nursing degree even though such a requirement disqualifies men at a significantly higher rate than women? The intent is obviously to make sure that candidates can actually do the work, but what I'm gathering from you is that it's still sexist (and therefore bad) because it results in a "sexist outcome"

It's weird in the "I don't get it" sort of way. It's annoying in the "knock it off and work on the objective" sort of way, and in the "get out of my way so I can work on the objective" sort of way. Not to mention, "what do you even get from that?" and "I don't understand you, that's not what the game is about." I wouldn't generally say that I feel sexually harassed by that sort of thing. It's a little uncomfortable, but mostly because I feel sorry/embarrassed for the person doing it. In my experience, although I recognize that it may not be universal, someone aping inappropriate touching through a video game is nothing like unwanted sexual contact and is much easier to stop/avoid. You have the power to leave a game, even if it's not your favorite thing. Nobody but you is keeping you in that game.

Why shouldn't it be? I don't see anything wrong with VR groping regardless of gender.

Is that a brick in your pocket, or are you just happy to see me?

We have cyclists. I see them on pretty much a daily basis when the weather isn't cold/ice and sometimes even when it is. I tried to break my bicycle out of storage, but it was a little small when I was 14 and hasn't gotten any bigger. A new bike (sized appropriately) is on my wishlist, but I just bought a house and need to get settled in.

Why is West Palm Beach on the East side of the state? Where is East Palm Beach?

Ouch. Is that to import as an individual, or do commercial importers pay that and roll it into the selling price? I overlooked the pawn shops, found one that will do transfers for $25 per item. I still don't like it, but I'll take paying $100 over paying $200. If the guns were 50+ years old, I could have had them shipped to my front door. These are not that old.

Even if I walk into their store to buy, they would have to ship to a dealer in my state for me to take possession.

Buying guns online sucks. I found a dealer in Missouri who has police trade-in Glock 22s for less than $300, but federal law requires that I have the guns shipped to a licensed dealer in my state who will run the NICS check (or won't, because I have a concealed pistol license). All the dealers around me want ~$50/gun to let me have the gun shipped to them and for about five minutes of paperwork to fill out the sales record for the ATF... which makes it much less of a deal than if I could just have the things shipped to me.

Why not both? I have an older i7-based laptop pretty much dedicated to work and a decent desktop for games, music, movies, whatever at home. I don't really use a computer away from home, and I can take the laptop and my phone along if I expect to. The laptop cost $100 when my wife's employer retired it, and the desktop would probably be about $1400 or in parts to replace it and external storage.

Not on Runescape, because the maximum length for a username in Runescape is 12 characters.

I flew to Finland some years ago, then traveled by train into St Petersburg, reversing the procedure to return. Entering the US was by far the least pleasant part of the entire trip.

I've found that I have better luck fetching video drivers from AMD/NVidia rather than system builders or video card manufacturers, especially on older hardware.

Once the paperwork goes through, my wife and I will be NRA certified instructors and able to conduct the training required to get a concealed pistol license in Michigan. We still need an attorney or other qualified person to teach the legal section, which sucks because I know the relevant laws better than some attorneys and most law enforcement officers who actually teach that section. We'll also be able to certify qualifying shooters for NRA marksman status, which it pretty cool.

Was that more than an annoyance because they called you a stupid gringo, or because of some action/inaction on their part in addition to the insult?

[hide] Of course our experiences are different. Were it otherwise, we would have nothing to discuss. As it is, perhaps we can help each other to understand and both come away better for it. I'm a libertarian so I draw much the same line as most people on the right would. If you wanna talk about the millions of horribly written laws that will never be altered, barriers to entry for indidvuals seeking to make businesses, and nanny state regulations then your preaching to the choir. But I think an obvious difference between a nanny state and a tyrannical state is comparing the US to Iran. But the examples you brought up of underhanded ways the government outlaws things aren't a good slippery slope to suggest that it will become a blank ban on weapons. A blank ban on weapons will be a very public and deliberate affair. I think you'll agree with me that there is no reason mustard gas, mines, grenades, bazookas, machine guns, assault rifles, or any other weapon designed to suppress an area would be good self defense weapons. I think you'll also agree that laws banning such weapons have been surprisingly effective in preventing the general population from using them. After all whens the last time you hear of a shooter starting his rampage by throwing a grenade into a crowd. I'd also agree that a determined terrorist will manage to get any banned weapon. But having laws requiring background checks will prevent the average wife beater or schizophrenic from getting a gun. Now I'm not insane I agree that some weapons need to be legal to deal with situations where the police wont respond in time. But is there a situation where a pistol won't do? Since in the case of animal attacks or home invasion its all at close range there is literally no need for a rifle. I'd go even further, theres not too many situations of home invasion or wild animal attacks where the outcome would be too different if you were using [hide] [/hide] instead of [hide] [/hide] In what ways should the US and Iran be compared, and to what end? If the key difference between a "nanny state" and "tyranny" is in the degree of malice, then I see them equally as things to be resisted. Do you think that these measures were not very public or deliberate? Is it difficult to imagine this pattern of increasing restrictions continuing to the point that a blanket ban isn't a great leap as it would be today? Is it difficult to imagine that anything less than a blanket ban could be too much? The definition of "machine gun" under the NFA/GCA include any firearm capable of firing multiple rounds per action of the trigger, including Personal Defense Weapons. I'm not going to agree that PDWs have no use in personal defense. One of the firearms my wife and I keep as a defensive weapon is her AR-15. It isn't select-fire, but would have been banned under the 1994 AWB and its proposed successors. A select-fire variant may not be any more useful in a defensive role, but it certainly wouldn't be any less so. Gasses (although perhaps not mustard gas) may be useful in defending buildings or resisting carjacking. Explosives are probably poorly-suited to most personal defense. Laws restricting possession of these items has certainly had an effect on their lawful use. I'm not convinced that prohibiting destructive devices has done much to eliminate bombings, for example. I'm of the impression that criminal use of machine guns was fairly low even when one could walk into a hardware store and walk out with a new tommy gun. I can't think of any instances of an attacker tossing a hand grenade at the start of a shooting spree before the restrictions. Other explosive destructive devices have certainly been used before and since 1934. Many domestic abusers (most, in my experience) are never reported, so there's nothing to show up on a background check. Most people with schizophrenia are non-violent, so there is no reason to disarm all of them. While your intent may be admirable, I believe that your efforts to keep them from legally owning guns are misguided. As it stands, convicted felons are a prohibited class; more of my acquaintances who are convicted felons own guns than don't... most of the remainder have no desire to. Hogs, in particular, I've had trouble putting down humanely with a handgun, even at point-blank range... and that's for animals that aren't attacking. Handguns suck, comparing ballistics with long guns; their redeeming virtue is that they are relatively easy to conceal and can be carried comfortably. Many defensive situations do not involve firing a shot, but some do. Nearly any of them involving a fired shot that doesn't immediately incapacitate all attackers would have a different outcome, as preparing a crossbow for a follow-up shot is much more involved than readying a semi-automatic pistol. Other animals may not be able to recognize this and may still be spooked off by a single crossbow shot, but human attackers would have the ability to recognize that their crossbow-wielding victim is effectively disarmed until they can reload. I grew up in a rural area, but the things I listed happened while I lived in a city of about 30k. The deer incident was outside of town, but within a quarter-mile of the local community college. I don't see it as a matter of taking the law into one's hands; I'm not talking about hunting down suspects or holding "trials" or anything like that, just meeting imminent threats with sufficient force that they cease to be imminent threats. Having extremist views is not criminal. International travel is not criminal. Having been interviewed by the FBI (which apparently saw no cause for action) is not criminal. Being secretly placed on a watch list with no opportunity for rebuttal or appeal by an agency that either doesn't have sufficient evidence to make an arrest or is otherwise disinclined to do so is not indicative of crime. I am unwilling to "compromise" (poor word choice for a one-sided sacrifice) to the point that citizens can be deprived of rights without due process. See section 3 of my response to Ring_World for more on "compromise." Okay, but maybe when a guy who ticks all of those boxes and has told coworkers that he has familial ties to Al Qaeda heads down to the shops to pick up two guns and a load of ammo and tries to buy body armor, maybe it's time to bust out the Smith Flower Company surveillance van and follow him around for a couple weeks. If we're going to have the NSA and constant surveillance and all of this, why not at least use it to protect some people? Even if we could process all of the data we collect to get meaningful information and share it across all agencies in real time, at what point is it okay to act against a person who hasn't committed a crime, who hasn't broken the law? [/hide] I'm having a hard time thinking of an instance where having a derogatory term used against me was more than an annoyance.

Having extremist views is not criminal. International travel is not criminal. Having been interviewed by the FBI (which apparently saw no cause for action) is not criminal. Being secretly placed on a watch list with no opportunity for rebuttal or appeal by an agency that either doesn't have sufficient evidence to make an arrest or is otherwise disinclined to do so is not indicative of crime. I am unwilling to "compromise" (poor word choice for a one-sided sacrifice) to the point that citizens can be deprived of rights without due process. See section 3 of my response to Ring_World for more on "compromise." I'm not sure whether I qualify as "on the right," but you seem to make some assumptions or implications that I want to clarify. 1.) How do you define tyranny? Some people would claim that the US is already there, and I have as much trouble believing that we couldn't have tyranny as that we do. 2.) I called 911 to report two people smashing a stool against my neighbor's house. By the time the police showed up, they had finished taking what they wanted. My sister (with two toddlers in tow) saw a man's head bashed in with a rock while she was on her way home from Independence Day fireworks. I don't know whether he survived, but there were no police around to stop it or to apprehend his attacker. I had to sit and watch a dying deer for 45 minutes after a car crash, because laws prohibited my putting it out of its misery; as soon as the deputy arrived, we dragged it off the road and he shot it. A neighbor made threats and brandished a weapon at my (other) sister; I came out of the house with a 12-gauge. When police came, they were more interested in harassing us for ending the situation than in taking a report of what we were responding to. They had a good response time there, at about 15 minutes; had the neighbor not backed down, or had I not shown up as I did, that's plenty of time for them to have found a corpse. She started openly carrying my .45, and that neighbor left her alone until he eventually moved out. I'm not saying that police aren't ever helpful, but they certainly aren't always the best solution to every problem. 3.) I think this is a mischaracterization, or possibly just a misunderstanding. See my reply to rocc0 regarding "compromise." In the US: We gave up certain gun rights in 1934, when the National Firearms Act passed. In 1938, we passed the Federal Firearms Act, which imposed licensing requirements on dealers, manufacturers and importers of firearms. We gave up another chunk of gun rights (mostly to do with interstate trade) when we passed the Gun Control Act in 1968. In 1986, we passed the FOPA (Firearm Owners Protection Act), which did loosen some restrictions, but in exchange for other restrictions. In 1990, the Gun-Free School Zones Act passed, which restricts possession of firearms within 1000 feet (3-5 city blocks?) of school property. This includes some public land that was designated for hunting, and makes it incredibly impractical for someone like my cousin (who lives across the road from a school) to openly carry a pistol without a license, which would otherwise be legal in his state. In 1993, we passed the Brady Handgun Prevention Act, that included a federal 5-day waiting period. (which was replaced in 1998 with a 3-business-day waiting period unless NICS returns an approval/denial) In 1994, we passed the Assault Weapons Ban that stood for a decade and, by most accounts, had negligible effect (if any) on crime. I don't think it's unreasonable to say that gun control in the US has been incrementally stripping rights (that is, making things illegal which had previously been legal) for a long time. Even the 1986 FOPA, which was a supposed "win" for gun owners closed the machine gun registry, making it impossible for an individual to register a new machine gun while not making it legal to possess an unregistered machine gun. When I was growing up, farmers were constantly complaining about government restrictions/interference. Lots of people I know who have tried jumping through hoops to build a house/garage had complaints about government interference. Where do you draw the line between restrictions that suck and tyranny? Should everyone always use the same standard? I don't understand why you think anyone believes that. The only time I've ever heard it suggested is by people who want to point out that it sounds ridiculous. It's not unheard of here, but it's not exactly common unless you find yourself in the company of militiamen.

Torrenting Windows? I don't think so in the US. Uploading/seeding it to a swarm is distribution of copyrighted material. I haven't seen anyone get sued over it for Windows, but I'm out $1500 (attorney's fees and settlement, because it was cheaper than continuing to pay the attorney) after (I'm guessing) one of my sister's kids downloaded some Adam Sandler movie on my connection. I hadn't heard of it until Comcast sent the subpoena notice, and it apparently did very poorly in theaters. Maybe they could have had the case continued, but they never provided anything to support that the IP address had been used to share copyrighted material, only that some device at the address was a member of the swarm. (TL;DR: copyright trolls suck) DigitalRiver used to host Windows 7 installer images via http, which wouldn't involve redistribution on the downloader's part.

I took over payments on my dad's Aveo, but he never signed off and wound up totaling it, so that doesn't count. My first vehicle was a motorcycle (1983 Honda Nighthawk 650) I found listed on Craigslist and paid $600 for. By September of that year, I realized it would soon get too cold to ride; I went to a dealer and bought a 2002 Firebird. You know, because I liked it and thought it was funny to refer to it as a Winter beater. Somebody ran a stop sign into the side of the car and totaled it late in December. After riding a motorcycle to work once in December, I found a 1997 Mercury Mountaineer on Craigslist for $800. After a brief test drive, I paid the asking price and the other guy signed off the title. Two and a half years later, I'm letting my nephew use it, because he doesn't have a vehicle and it's an excuse to keep a truck around. We sort of bought my wife's car (2000 Buick LeSabre) from her parents. When my mother-in-law found out we were paying, she had my father-in-law sign off on the rest as a wedding gift. It was originally her grandparents' car. That was a little different, because everybody involved wanted to see her get a decent car and for the car to be taken care of, so full disclosure was a given. It had also been in the family since it was new, and they kept detailed logs down to recording mileage and date at each fuel stop. I had a string of issues (since resolved) with the Mountaineer late last year and early this year, which led to my wife and I buying our 2007 Mazda 3 from a dealer. I've actually never taken a vehicle to a mechanic before buying it, and usually don't check too thoroughly myself. I think the only time that's bitten me is when I spent $1000 a 1983 Honda Goldwing (GL1100) with rear brakes (actually both wheels, because linked brakes) that don't release. 1983 is the only year the GL1100 had linked brakes and the GL1200 was introduced in 1984 with a different brake system, so parts are kind of a pain to get. That said, I'm not advocating buying a car without having it checked. If you're looking for alternate models, my father and sister have both had good luck with Mazda 323s, and I love our Mazda 3. Ford Rangers are plentiful and common around here, and not horrible on fuel. Friends and family have all had good experiences with Saturn's sedans from 1998-2008 or so. Really, though, anything that's been taken care of will be better than something that's been neglected or worse. Check out the seller too, not just the car. If they can get really excited about it and want to share all its cool (or annoying) little design quirks, history, and nostalgia, odds are they know the car and care about it enough to have taken care of it. Bonus point if they have more of the same model in the driveway or are selling it to buy (or because they bought) a newer version. If the house and yard are trashed and their other vehicles are rolling refuse bins, how well do you think they took care of the car they're selling? If they snap and bark at their kids (or spouse, friends, etc.) while you're there, how do you think they treat a machine when nobody's looking? EDIT: That kind of got away from me.

I wish they'd given me effective painkillers when they took my teeth. They gave me hydrocodone/acetaminophen 7.5/325, and I couldn't tell that I'd taken anything. When I told the surgeon that I thought he'd given me a placebo, he prescribed oxycodone/acetaminophen 7.5/325. They didn't do a much for the pain, but my sex drive spiked.

I feel like that's just normal-aggressive.

Nobody needs more than 20 shots! Ban high-capacity assault bottles!

Thrantax the Mighty is level 70 in game, but the bestiary has it listed as level 100 and the quest guide describes it as level 92. Picture courtesy of Vonric: [hide][/hide]

It looks like Sir Mordred is level 23, while the bestiary indicates level 34. The quest guide also shows level 34. Picture courtesy of Vonric: [hide] [/hide]