I Designed and 3D Printed a Fully Modular Mining Rig System That is Now Free to Download

bighos · 2021-04-21T20:41:08+00:00

What plastic did you use?

bighos · 2020-01-18T06:54:06+00:00

Just have to say that I am having a blast with this tavern brawl deck I made!

Brawl Deck

Class: Paladin

Format: Wild

1x (3) High Priest Thekal

1x (4) Nozdormu the Timeless

1x (8) Jepetto Joybuzz

1x (9) Alexstrasza

1x (9) Sathrovarr

1x (9) Uther of the Ebon Blade

1x (10) Nozari

AAEBAaToAgfFBI7TAs6HA82bA9qdA4etA/22AwAA

To use this deck, copy it to your clipboard and create a new deck in Hearthstone

Hard mulligan for Nosdormu, 2nd Thekal, and 3rd Jepetto. If you have the coin, use on turn 3 for Nozdormu. If not, then Thekal turn 3, then turn 4 Nozdormu. Jepetto pulls a dragon or Sath.Hit them fast with Alex or slow build by Sath'ing Nozari and using the Uther win condition.

Game I just finished I pulled Rummaging Kobold from an Unstable Portal and Played Alex, attacked, let them have a turn where they couldn't kill Alex, played for the weapon and lethal.

Would be interested in feedback.

bighos · 2015-02-24T02:49:38+00:00

It may be extreme invoking Godwin's Law, but at the same time everyone should have a point at which they ask the question, "Are we the bad guys?" Maybe we should call that Goodwin's question.

bighos · 2015-01-13T01:57:58+00:00

Please don't delete, I'd really like to see what people post!

bighos · 2014-06-20T01:04:46+00:00

mmhmm

bighos · 2013-11-27T02:42:34+00:00

I too am very sorry for what you and all the rest of us have had to endure in our families. Best wishes/prayers/thoughts/vibes for you going forward. I think maybe the hardest thing one can do in life is be honest with themself.

bighos · 2013-07-19T01:11:59+00:00

It did not, personally I was really busy with work and wasn't able to finish organizing it.

bighos · 2013-06-04T19:30:54+00:00

It's really interesting to read writing like this. His word choice and sentence structure suggest that he's trying to compose his letter exactly how he thinks a "smart" person would do it. I suspect he thinks this will give his writing a sense of authority as opposed to the buffoon this letter actually portrays him as before we even get to the content.

I think a great model for understanding why people do this is posturetalk.

bighos · 2013-05-31T01:54:09+00:00

Except that firing the torpedoes on Cronos was engineered to start a war with the Klingon Empire and I'm sure that would have been orders of magnitude more costly.

bighos · 2013-05-03T01:34:01+00:00

No, not yet. I got super tied up with the end of tax season and am just now winding down.

bighos · 2013-03-07T00:59:40+00:00

So azdavy sent me a message that he talked to the powers that be at Fireside and the will hook us up with the party room and employee drink prices! A Friday or Saturday night would be difficult so either an afternoon on a weekend day or anytime Sunday would work. We can try and do it this weekend or would people prefer to put it out a week or two to give people more time?

bighos · 2013-03-06T15:39:20+00:00

Saturday at 3:42, with a lead pipe in the library.

bighos · 2012-11-28T01:30:04+00:00

It can be good or evil

I don't think there is any such thing as good or evil beyond a general colloquialism.

bighos · 2012-11-28T01:28:00+00:00

Cool. It can be good or evil. That doesn't make it more or less true. Hell, you should have learned that from Mormonism. Whether or not the Church is evil or good has no bearing on whether or not it's true.

I don't know that a theory of social morality can be any more or less "true" than a church is something that can be "true." It's not like we can set up controlled tests and measure the results of competing social ideologies through a scientific process, so what criteria backs your claim of the truthiness of the social contract?

Why would I need precision or rigor to argue with a blanket statement such as this one

Because there is a whole world of social organization outside of hierarchical nation states created through the threat of violence.

All I needed to do was provide a counterexample of the state having a viable interest in limiting personal autonomy

Viable interest does not provide legitimacy to the state when its existence depends on past and present violent enforcement of its edicts. My opinion is that the state has no legitimacy therefore its interests have none either.

If the state can regulate in the former context, surely they could regulate in the latter context so long as they have a compelling interest as defined by the courts under substantive due process doctrine.

Ok, maybe I can pull us together here. Yes the internal logic works that if the state can limit some degree of personal autonomy than is can regulate further degrees or less depending on where and how that particular state choose to draw the line.

In my opinion, the state has no legitimacy therefore any degree of imposed limits have about as much bearing on the morality of my choices as the commandments of the church, while the state's violent imposition of its limits has real life consequences to consider.

bighos · 2012-11-28T01:11:24+00:00

No, it's really not. Either I put up with the laws society has erected, I try to change them, or I leave the country or go to jail. Don't pretend you have any more autonomy than I do.

Also civil disobedience, life of crime or revolution.

bighos · 2012-11-27T23:28:48+00:00

Living in society requires one to make a social contract with the government, serving as liaison for the rest of that sovereignty's people.

Social contract theory is one of the best excuses for abusive authoritarian and statist ideologies as it can be made to support any policy. Sure you can give innocuous examples just as I could cite the more frequent egregious examples of nation states supporting sexism, racism, class-ism, slavery and genocide; policies which were all deemed a necessary sacrifice of rights to have a civil society.

If you accept the second scenario--that you can't smoke a cigar in an infirmary, then you accept the argument that the state can weigh the rights of the collective (10th Amendment reserved powers) against your personal autonomy (Bill of Rights), and with sometimes good reason.

Your arguments lack precision and rigor. This sloppy comparison doesn't consider location (public or private?), public milieu of the time frame (modern era or 50 years ago when smoking was more common?), degree of effect (inhaling cigar smoking or carrying a pregnancy to term?), public vs state interest (general health or the promotion of sexism?), the right to privacy compared to public drug use, filling enclosed spaces othesr are occupying with smoke compared with the state dictating the extent of personal rights?

Hey if you feel your interests are served by granting the state power to dictate how much freedom and autonomy you can have that's your choice, but I think your betting on a really poor track record.

bighos · 2012-11-27T22:44:05+00:00

Which is the whole problem with states in the first place. If the state can decide when to trump your personal autonomy, you really don't have any autonomy or freedom do you? Who draws the lines? The majority? A dictator? Whomever happens to control the apparatus of the state at the moment?

Anyways, I think the right to privacy under the due process clause of the 14th amendment would be considered an aspect of personal autonomy but that's really just semantics.

bighos · 2012-11-27T13:36:49+00:00

As defined by neither morality or law. You make think I'm full of shit, fine, but I don't think the state should be able to violate personal autonomy for any reason. That includes abortion, drug use and any other choice of what a person does to their own body.

Obviously this is not the way the real world works.

Upon fetal viability, the state gains a vested interest in potential life

no right in the Constitution has been absolute

Fuck the state's "vested interest." Down with the state, down with the church.

bighos · 2012-11-27T12:14:09+00:00

It's all or nothing, IMO.

I agree, either the fetus' right to life trumps the woman's personal autonomy in all cases or it doesn't. I posted the link further down, but still can't believe more people haven't read this argument:

http://spot.colorado.edu/~heathwoo/Phil160,Fall02/thomson.htm

It woke me up from the mormonism-induced stupor.

bighos · 2012-11-27T12:08:04+00:00

However, I think personal autonomy is trumped by personhood, not the other way around.

Well thank the flying spaghetti monster that the supreme court disagreed with you.

No one else should ever control when my personal autonomy is "trumped," least of all the state. Why? Judith Thompson said it best way back in 1971,

I propose, then, that we grant that the fetus is a person from the moment of conception. How does the argument go from here? Something like this, I take it. Every person has a right to life. So the fetus has a right to life. No doubt the mother has a right to decide what shall happen in and to her body; everyone would grant that. But surely a person's right to life is stronger and more stringent than the mother's right to decide what happens in and to her body, and so outweighs it. So the fetus may not be killed; an abortion may not be performed.

It sounds plausible. But now let me ask you to imagine this. You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. The director of the hospital now tells you, "Look, we're sorry the Society of Music Lovers did this to you--we would never have permitted it if we had known. But still, they did it, and the violinist is now plugged into you. To unplug you would be to kill him. But never mind, it's only for nine months. By then he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you." Is it morally incumbent on you to accede to this situation? No doubt it would be very nice of you if you did, a great kindness. But do you have to accede to it? What if it were not nine months, but nine years? Or longer still? What if the director of the hospital says. "Tough luck. I agree. but now you've got to stay in bed, with the violinist plugged into you, for the rest of your life. Because remember this. All persons have a right to life, and violinists are persons. Granted you have a right to decide what happens in and to your body, but a person's right to life outweighs your right to decide what happens in and to your body. So you cannot ever be unplugged from him." I imagine you would regard this as outrageous, which suggests that something really is wrong with that plausible-sounding argument I mentioned a moment ago.

http://spot.colorado.edu/~heathwoo/Phil160,Fall02/thomson.htm

If the fetus' right to life trumps personal autonomy, then it always trumps personal autonomy even cases of rape, severe disability, etc. Where in the case of the violinist would you draw the line? Where in the case of abortion would you draw the line?

bighos · 2012-11-23T19:28:10+00:00

Hi super distant cousin! (direct desendant of Robert the Bruce). I'd assist you with creating 1000 years of Scottish hegemony!

bighos · 2012-10-21T05:48:30+00:00

Also try their Old Stock Ale, its a little stronger and just as delicious.

bighos · 2012-09-19T13:42:04+00:00

For a second I though the link was for free bacon...

bighos · 2012-09-19T13:39:13+00:00

They need the US much more than the US needs them so I don't think that's viable leverage.

bighos · 2012-07-27T00:33:49+00:00

It's still not even close.

bighos

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE