Bay 12 Games Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Rusty

Pages: [1] 2
1
General Discussion / Re: AmeriPol thread
« on: June 05, 2020, 10:09:09 am »
Quote from: Max™ on June 05, 2020, 07:04:55 am
Quote from: Rusty on June 05, 2020, 02:21:20 am
Quote from: Max™ on June 05, 2020, 12:41:46 am
When you look at census numbers you would find something like 10% of rural adults are veterans while only 7% of urban adults are, accordingly you might think there is a significantly larger number of rural enlistments, but we're looking at 10% of less than a fifth of the population vs 7% of the rest of the population aren't we?
You're putting the cart before the horse.  Where a veteran lives after leaving the military is irrelevant, and there's a lot of reasons why that would skew urban, the primary being that census of all veterans necessarily includes all age demographics, including those that require to be close to major healthcare facilities due to age.  What matters to this conversation is what areas supply the military, and that is skewed rural.  Waaay rural.  Looking at military recruits, 36% of them came from rural areas and almost 40% were suburbanites.  Less than a quarter came from the country's most populous areas.
Now, I did consider afterwards that there are no doubt a varied number of ex-rural vets who moved inwards towards cities, but it seems weird as hell to hear anyone consider suburbs in any way resemble actual rural areas.

I mean, I personally lived in all three categories around Dallas, going from Lewisville and DeSoto suburbs out to a house in Hutchins where we had horses and the neighbor on one side was like 10 miles away, the other was actually next door, but then it was another half mile to the guy that raised emus, and another couple of miles to get to where Chuck Norris lived so I guess it was pretty damn rural even before considering the huge fallow field across the road... after that we moved briefly to a duplex in East Dallas where I could see downtown if I stood out in the street on the closest thing to a hill around there and we had three or four windows shot out which were completely unrelated to us, just stray bullets.

Ever heard a lowrider thumping la cucaracha? It's a trip, but if East Dallas wasn't full of mexican bangers and you couldn't literally see downtown I would definitely say it was more like any suburb I've lived in than those suburbs resembled rural areas.

I mean, to go to a convenience store in hutchins was a several mile bike ride, I once rode one of our horses out there because he loved trying to figure out what the fuck emus were and it was hilarious the first time we were clipclopping down the road and he saw them come out from behind their shed and LITERALLY slid to a stop on the road... KSSSHHHHHH and if we had been going much faster/I hadn't kinda been expecting him to want to take a look I mighta smacked into the back of his head. Big beautiful moron.

No argument there from me.   The issue is overrepresentation.  Rural people is the only demographic there that is overrepresented, and it's by a lot.  Only 23% of the nation's population is rural.  Unfortunately I haven't found solid numbers on it, but from 20 years in the military my gut tells me that if you were able to break that down to actual jobs you'd find that the rural overrepresentation skews even harder when you only look at the actual trigger pullers.  I'm in the National Guard right now (I'm not going to say where because, yes, I'm in a major city doing riot control and I'd rather not put out too much information until this whole thing is done) and my state has 5 combat arms battalions (infantry, armor, cavalry, artillery).  Only one is headquartered out of any of our major cities, and zero are headquartered out of the capital.

2
General Discussion / Re: The Abusive Policing Thread: Beyond Brown, No Justice
« on: June 05, 2020, 09:41:10 am »
Quote from: kaijyuu on June 05, 2020, 08:22:43 am
I'd rather guns be in the hands of civilians over cops. At least the civilians typically have accountability when they shoot someone (aside from, of course, ridiculous "stand your ground" laws and such that try to take such accountability away...).

Radical changes would be awesome of course but a more plausible thing to do on a national level I think would be to keep guns out of the hands of first responders. No more gun holsters as part of the standard uniform; guns are kept inside police cars or in the hands of secondary responders (swat/etc) that are called in AFTER the situation's been established.

Stand Your Ground is, frustratingly, one of those situations in law where myth has vastly overtaken reality.  It's an extremely rare situation where both the loudest opponents and proponents of the law are not only in complete agreement of how the law operates, but they're also completely wrong on that point as well.  How most people think stand your ground works isn't actually how it works.  I blame politicians and the media for attaching cute monikers to it like "make my day law" and "line in the sand law" that have little to no semblance to its actual legal effect.

3
General Discussion / Re: AmeriPol thread
« on: June 05, 2020, 02:21:20 am »
Quote from: Max™ on June 05, 2020, 12:41:46 am
When you look at census numbers you would find something like 10% of rural adults are veterans while only 7% of urban adults are, accordingly you might think there is a significantly larger number of rural enlistments, but we're looking at 10% of less than a fifth of the population vs 7% of the rest of the population aren't we?

You're putting the cart before the horse.  Where a veteran lives after leaving the military is irrelevant, and there's a lot of reasons why that would skew urban, the primary being that census of all veterans necessarily includes all age demographics, including those that require to be close to major healthcare facilities due to age.  What matters to this conversation is what areas supply the military, and that is skewed rural.  Waaay rural.  Looking at military recruits, 36% of them came from rural areas and almost 40% were suburbanites.  Less than a quarter came from the country's most populous areas.

4
General Discussion / Re: AmeriPol thread
« on: June 05, 2020, 12:24:06 am »
Quote from: SalmonGod on June 04, 2020, 02:09:01 pm
My more cynical take.

The thing that separates Trump most from previous administrations isn't as much the things he does.  It's the things he says.  He says things that you're really not supposed to say.  And I don't mean the fascist rhetoric.  That only tars himself and his party in electoral politics.  I mean things like openly stating to press "We have the oil.  We left troops behind only for the oil."  That rips masks off everyone, depriving them of their rhetorical plausible deniability.  They don't like that.

Elected officials have a different set of concerns regarding how they position themselves in relation to a figure like Trump than an unelected official like someone high ranking in the military or intelligence communities.  Unelected officials aren't concern with maintaining the energy of a specific voting base.  They just want to stay out of the spotlight so federal budgets can continue feeding them endless money without issues, and so they can keep recruiting up.  Now you've got a whole generation of kids who tell military recruiters "Sorry I don't want to work for an oil company".  Or after these protests genuinely weighing the possibility that if they join up, they might be ordered to fire on their own friends and family.

Consider that the portion of society that is participating in the protests is not, and largely never has been, the demographic that is enlisting in the military.  The military is disproportionately rural.  Putting aside whether they agree or disagree with the message (they do), they're generally not going to be part of the kind of protest that gripped, say, Minneapolis.  So when the average enlisted person thinks of scenarios where they might be ordered to fire on friends and family, a protest like this is not the scenario that comes to mind.  The prospect of riot control in the city is not something that gets them fired up.

5
General Discussion / Re: AmeriPol thread
« on: June 02, 2020, 11:22:46 am »
Quote from: Lord Shonus on June 02, 2020, 05:23:43 am
Applying the Insurrection Act in this case is much more dubious, legally speaking, than it might seem. The protests are not in opposition to the Federal government, and the Department of Defense reports that there are 0 requests from state governments declaring them an insurrection against the state and asking the Feds to intervene. That's two of the three legal justifications blown out of the water. The third justification, that of resolving disorder that is preventing exercise of civil rights, would probably not stand up in court unless it was used against the police (who bear the primary responsibility for this getting out of hand, because they vastly overreacted to the well-justified protests), not for them.

Given that any orders to do anything would have to go through career officials who very much do not want to be the star guests at capital trials in a few years, any actual use of military force is highly unlikely, except possibly in an unarmed "physically separate them with sheer numbers" way.

Except that the exercise of civil rights is not the be all, end all of section 333.  In relevant part:

"The President, by using the militia or the armed forces, or both, or by any other means, shall take such measures as he considers necessary to suppress, in a State, any
. . . domestic violence . . . if it--
(1) so hinders the execution of the laws of that State, and of the United States within the State . . ."  10 USC 333.

6
General Discussion / Re: The Abusive Policing Thread: Beyond Brown, No Justice
« on: June 02, 2020, 04:19:08 am »
Quote from: wierd on June 02, 2020, 03:57:00 am
They could still be found guilty of a 2nd degree manslaughter charge, which seems to fit the circumstances more closely.

Not impossible, but highly improbable.  The problem is the requirement that the defendant be "negligent."  More specifically, negligence requires that the defendant owe a duty to the victim.  The duty to refrain from engaging in dangerous acts is easy.   For example, when I drive a car I have a duty to other drivers and pedestrians to refrain from speeding the wrong way on a one way street.  This case is not that, though.  In this case, the prosecution wouldn't be claiming a negligent act, but a negligent omission.  The defendants had a duty to the victim to take certain actions and failed to do so.   That is a LOT harder.  No person has a general duty to act.  Period.  It's the baby on the train tracks.  If I recognize that danger and, instead of acting on it, I walk away, I might be a scumbag, but under the law I've done nothing wrong because I am under no obligation to act in someone else's interests.  To overcome that, they would have to argue that, as police officers, they had a special relationship with the victim that created a duty to act.  That's not a new theory.  It's been tried and failed.  The general position the law takes is that an officer's duty is to society as a whole and NOT to any particular individual.  No duty=no negligence.

If I were the prosecutor, I'd argue that taking the victim into custody created a special relationship and, by extension, a duty of care and a duty to act, but there's pitfalls to that, not the least of which is clarifying when such a duty actually starts.

7
General Discussion / Re: The Abusive Policing Thread: Beyond Brown, No Justice
« on: June 02, 2020, 03:51:36 am »
Quote from: wierd on June 02, 2020, 03:18:16 am
Murder II might apply via depraved indifference.

https://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=1897#:~:text=second%20degree%20murder,arson%2C%20rape%20or%20armed%20robbery.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depraved-heart_murder#:~:text=In%20United%20States%20law%2C%20depraved,not%20explicitly%20intending%20to%20kill.

Nope... because those sources are not the relevant law here.  Those are okayish references for general law stuff, but once you put rubber to road and talk about specific facts in specific situations at specific times and places, the only relevant authority is the written statutes of the jurisdiction.  In Minnesota, under Stat. 609.19, Murder in the Second Degree only applies to (1) drive-by shootings, (2) felony murder and (3) deaths that occur while causing harm to a person that is under an order of protection.  That's it.

The closest Minnesota has to what you're talking about is Murder in the Third Degree.   However, that statue requires proof that the defendant "caus[ed] the death of another by perpetrating an act eminently dangerous to others."  That explicitly rules them out because they themselves didn't cause the death nor did they act.   On the contrary, the complaint is that they failed to act, which is a valid complaint, but it falls outside the definition of Murder Three.

8
General Discussion / Re: The Abusive Policing Thread: Beyond Brown, No Justice
« on: June 02, 2020, 03:10:00 am »
Quote from: Rolan7 on May 31, 2020, 03:41:34 pm
Quote from: McTraveller on May 31, 2020, 10:44:03 am
What's the de-escalation plan for the protesters?  Have they even indicated the things that would make them stop protesting / rioting?

I mean something practical, not just "we want justice!"  What do they want other than just having the perpetrators put in jail?  If that won't appease them, what will?  I don't think a public execution is a realistic demand, even though I'm sure that what some people want.
Fair question.  The protests aren't really centralized of course, so there isn't a hard line that would cause some high command to send all the angry, desperate demonstrators home.  But there are demands being made, some a bit more short-term and demonstrable than ending racial police brutality.

The main one is that the three other officers involved in the killing be arrested.  The mood seems to be that a single scapegoat isn't enough anymore (even assuming that this one gets convicted).  I agree with the logic here - the systemic problem isn't lone racists.  Its the fact that lone racists (or more generally, any cop who breaks the law of makes yet another fatal mistake) is supported by other officers.  There is an internal system for investigation and it has CLEARLY failed.  In my opinion it has failed to uphold justice and accountability, but it has very evidently failed to convince the public that they can trust internal investigation. 

Even prosecutors have to risk their entire careers by bringing such cases, in a systematic conflict-of-interest.  Theoretically departments should be happy to work with prosecutors to disavow and incarcerate dirty cops, but instead they very nearly always close ranks and resist investigation.  I know there are many good cops.  But the system is so deeply corrupt that they aren't in a position to help (beyond anonymous whisteblowing, or risking their lives).

Er, right - that's why the other cops involved need to be arrested this time.  To show that being complicit has consequences for once.

Other demands tend to include amnesty for nonviolent civil disobedience in the protest.  I don't know if that's common as a guarantee, but such charges are often thrown out by prosecutors after protests.  So... some evidence of that happening would be good.

More arrests of the police on video assaulting protesters with doors is probably on the list for many people.  Basically:  Getting more than one maniac cop off the streets would go a long way to showing that the protests were taken seriously.  Whether any charges will stick is obviously a longer-term issue, but the demonstrations have... demonstrated... that there will be consequences for trying to sweep these actions under the rug.

Edit:  Last I heard the body cam footage was still being held, too.  That's an obvious one, and I hope they have a good explanation for how long they're holding it!
(Like, I actually hope so.  This situation is very rough, and my voting ass wants my government to negotiate this situation away like yesterday)

The problem is that an arrest and prosecution isn't as simple as "they did a bad thing."  Now, my knowledge of the law in Minnesota is limited, but, based on what I know of the law there (and the law generally), I'm having a difficult time thinking of what they'd be charged with.  They can't be charged with murder because they didn't actually cause the death.  Almost every other crime they could be charged with is hamstrung by the fact that they aren't claiming that it was intentional homicide.  Aiding and abetting?  You can't aid and abet an unintentional crime.  Felony murder?  First, see aiding and abetting, and, second, in Minnesota felony murder is 2nd degree, which would be a really awkward theory to push (the actual murderer gets 3rd degree, but everyone else gets a higher charge).  In general, nobody has a legal duty to act without some special relationship, so trying to pitch it as a crime of omission (they failed to intervene) doesn't work either.  Maybe they could try to argue that their status as a police officer created a special relationship and duty to act, but that would be a super novel theory and unlikely to succeed given that what little case law exists on that point says "no duty to protect individuals."  I can understand the anger, but, to be honest, it's not an easy case.   Not at all.

9
General Discussion / Re: AmeriPol thread
« on: June 02, 2020, 02:32:10 am »
Quote from: SalmonGod on June 01, 2020, 09:41:33 pm
Quote from: Dostoevsky on June 01, 2020, 08:11:30 pm
Quote from: SalmonGod on June 01, 2020, 07:03:28 pm
Bush suspended Posse Comitatus.  Obama undid that.  But then also signed the 2012 NDAA that re-suspended Posse Comitatus but only when its terrorists (anybody the state doesn't like is a terrorist).  He publicly stated that he had no choice because of republican shenanigans always putting in those riders and the other stuff in the bill is so important that it wasn't worth shutting it all down just for the sake of ol' Posse Comitatus.  Then a coalition of activists and journalists led by Chris Hedges filed a suit against it, and won the first round in court.  And it was white house legal teams that appealed and won the next round in higher court.

So if Trump wants to employ the military against this he absolutely has the legal grounds to do so if he wants, and his move to label Antifa a terrorist organization indicates thats exactly how he intends to go about it.  Never forget who to thank for him having the ability to do this.

Out of curiosity, how does that jive with the wikipedia description? (Not that I consider wikipedia the final word at all, just trying to get clarification). The quotes from there, particularly the "Nothing in this section" text, seem to suggest it's more limited than that.

Spoiler: Wiki sez (click to show/hide)

The lawsuit would be a good point of reference on that.

The first part describing who is a "covered person" is incredibly vague.  And I think the crux of it is doubts as to whether the 2nd part carries as much weight in interpretation as the first.  Some really big names and multiple civil rights organizations condemned those sections, and I respect their opinions more than the representatives of the state that has continually engaged in slimy legal wordplay to justify things like putting environmental activists on terrorism watchlists that were intended for the types of people who fly planes into buildings, not people who chain themselves to trees.

You all are over thinking this.  While Trump definitely has a political reason to spout off about antifa, he doesn't need all the legal wrangling to get around posse comitatus.  Any circumstances covered by any act of Congress authorizing the use of military force are an exception to the Posse Comitatus Act.  The situation we are in right now is firmly within the president's authority under the Insurrection Act of 1807.  He can deploy troops today and be totally within his legal authority to do it.  No terrorism declarations necessary.

10
DF General Discussion / Re: Signs that you play Dwarf fortress (way) too much
« on: March 12, 2017, 06:50:40 pm »
2327

Sample of how I read every case in law school now:

Urist McDeputy: "Do you know why I pulled you over, sir?"

Urist McSuspect is throwing a tantrum!

Urist McDeputy punches Urist McSuspect in the head, bruising the muscle!

Urist McSuspect has been knocked unconscious!

Urist McDeputy: "It was inevitable."

11
DF General Discussion / Re: Is making a non-commercial game explicitly set in the Dwarf Fortress world allow
« on: March 08, 2017, 02:03:29 am »
What is the "Dwarf Fortress World?"  Its a procedurally generated world with a procedurally generated history and populated with generic creatures that are either actual creatures or derivatives of actual creatures, or fantasy creatures that have been the staple of stories forever... or randomly assembled beasts.  None of that would even be possible to claim ownership of.  The language, maybe?  Content wise, there isn't much there that isn't already public domain.  I'm thinking his ownership stake is solely in this wonderful piece of software that he has lovingly built over the years to assemble the world and create stories; not in the actual in game content itself. 

Edit:  Oh yeah, but if you're going to use the actual title, that is something different.  "Dwarf Fortress" is a specific identifiable thing that is distinctly his property... but if he opened it up to the world, then have at it, I think.     

12
DF General Discussion / Re: PeridexisErrant's DF Starter Pack
« on: March 05, 2017, 05:26:20 pm »
I found a big problem with the in game manager.  When trying to set a material condition, the available materials only go as far as "Moth" and then everything after that is "Unknown Material."  Trying to manually search for "pig iron" as a material condition for making pig iron bars causes the game to crash every time.   I just don't know if that is a problem with DF, the starter pack, DFHack, the applied graphics pack (Meph), or what.  Once I get some time I'm going to download the base game and see if its a problem there too.  Anyone else have this problem?

13
DF General Discussion / Re: PeridexisErrant's DF Starter Pack
« on: March 01, 2017, 05:15:45 pm »
Quote from: Sheila on March 01, 2017, 07:36:11 am
Quote from: PeridexisErrant on March 01, 2017, 12:20:30 am
Quote from: Sheila on February 28, 2017, 09:06:43 pm
Sorry if this has been talked about or answered somewhere, I'm hardly very involved in the community, but will Dwarf Therapist make a return at some point or is the only choice to move on with the other tools for now? I can't say I'm a fan of managing labors in the game with its UI or having them manage themselves, that takes a lot out of the game. Thanks  :)

There are many people interested, so it will probably return at some point!

Until then, manipulator is probably your best option.
Yeah I've seen it and I can't say I'm looking forward to it! But I've been feeling like playing DF lately again so I might give it a try  :) Thanks!

It's not bad.  It's not as pretty or as comprehensive as DT, but it's core function is identical. It shows skill ratings and lets you turn labors on and off.  It's an adequate substitute.

14
DF General Discussion / Re: PeridexisErrant's DF Starter Pack
« on: February 15, 2017, 02:29:36 am »
Quote from: Archereon on February 13, 2017, 08:57:10 pm
Quote from: PeridexisErrant on February 11, 2017, 01:00:29 am
Quote from: Rusty on February 10, 2017, 10:21:06 pm
Quote from: Spectre9000 on February 10, 2017, 08:53:47 pm
This has probably been asked a million times, but as there are over 200 pages to peruse, I'll ask again... is there an ETA on this being updated to 43.05?
From what I understand, it's a matter of getting dfhack and DT done first, so... No.
Unfortunately this is correct.  There's an alpha version of DFHack, and Therapist supports 32-bit 43.05, but there's no TwbT.  So we'll continue to wait and see...

Quote from: WCG on February 10, 2017, 03:48:01 pm
Quote from: DAOWAce on October 15, 2016, 11:03:32 pm
I'm afraid I'm not understanding the new importer.

I get this message after selecting the old DF folder: WARNING: Can only import content from single basedir.

If I don't select the main DF folder, I get: Import failed. Does not seem to be a DF install directory.
This was originally posted as a question in October, but I haven't seen an answer here. I'm having the same problem. Which folder is it asking for, when I try to "Import from previous installation"? Nothing seems to work.

I don't really need my old game, but after two hourse of churning out a new world, the game crashed before I got it saved. So I figured I'd use the world I'd created last May. But I can't get that to work, either.
It should work by selecting the old DF dir, but apparently this doesn't work for everyone.  Unfortunately it does work on my computer, so there's not much I can do to fix it. :(


I mean, at this rate, I'm somewhat worried we'll end up getting 0.45.01 before TWBT gets updated to the latest version, much less therapist.

Nooo.... I've heard this song and seen this dance before.  I know exactly what will happen. 

They are going to release on the same day.  The pack will be updated in the morning... and then be behind again that afternoon.

It is inevitable.

15
DF General Discussion / Re: PeridexisErrant's DF Starter Pack
« on: February 10, 2017, 10:21:06 pm »
Quote from: Spectre9000 on February 10, 2017, 08:53:47 pm
This has probably been asked a million times, but as there are over 200 pages to peruse, I'll ask again... is there an ETA on this being updated to 43.05?

From what I understand, it's a matter of getting dfhack and DT done first, so... No.

Pages: [1] 2