Most RPGs - (Advanced) Dungeons and Dragons, Chivalry & Sourcery, Call of Cthulu etc.
Board games: Cluedo (Clue), Diplomacy, Risk.
Card Games: cribbage.
All of the above are zero-sum games - technically I don't think Monopoly is a zero sum game either as there is no reason to regard the cash supply as limited to that supplied in the box...
You could always try the Prisoners Dilemma or similar - try Douglas Hofstadters "Metamagical Themas" for ideas.
Is it part of the human condition that games that have no winner are considered worthless by most people - how many adult (or older child) games are there where winning is not the object? ----
It's not quite how you meant it but the best 'hard SF' book I've ever read is "Mission Of Gravity" by Hal Clement. In this he ignores all the business of starships, interstellar travel etc and takes that as background for the story - which is a wonderful exploration of one idea. This idea is to explore the implications of a dense, deformed, planet - where the gravity varies from 3g at the equator to several hundred g at the poles and all the consequences. There's no clever gadgets, just some (alien) psychology and a lot of good physics extrapolated from the basic idea. ----
I sometimes wonder if there are limits to human irrationality....
At one site I worked at there was a report suite which was known to be producing wrong numbers - the programs were demonstrably broken, there was no dispute about this. The trouble was that the end users (you know, the one who are actually paying the bills rejected the the corrected reports and insisted on having the wrong ones back as they 'preferred the numbers the old one gave'. Go figure.. ----
I prefer to have both, where possible. At home it's nice to be able to browse paper - it's easier to just come across stuff, which is hard on a screen. Plus I can have several books open on my desk at once.
On the other had for portability a laptop/pda with charger weighs a lot less than the pile of books I usually carry round, and is easier to pack. For a straight lookup, it's pretty even - finding a book+page off the shelf vs opening+search ref material from PC.
Oh, and I've never tripped over a power cord (at home anyway) but I've often tripped/kicked a pile of books on the floor - does anyone ever have enough shelf/cupboard space?? ----
Not necessarily - for example UV causing initiaion of cancerous cells might be common in the light sensitive cells in the eye - but the body's normal defense mechanisms might be able to keep it normally under check - if microwave heating causes these cells to reproduce more quickly it might raise the chances of cancer taking hold - maybe even in a non-linear manner.
This is exactly waht tbo said - that the microwave is a
promoter, it's not the initiator.
In Geneva air conditioning is only allowed where it's required for machinery (big iron, server farms etc), when it gets hot people do too. How bad would Californias energy shortage be if AC was banned? ----
Java is SLOW, no matter how fast you can make it run.
ehh??? Proof by assertion?
ok, so try "A box is ALWAYS empty, no matter how much stuff you put in it". That makes as much sense - ie NONE.
----
Re:What is nice about Opera (4\beta for Linux)?
on
Netscape 6 Vs. 4.7x
·
· Score: 1
As was said elsewhere, on Windows it is fast, fast enough not to notice anyway - once you get to a certain subjectice speed you don't really see any improvement until you get to WOW!:-)
My favourite feature in Opera, which I believe is unique, is it's zoom facility. When some half-witted web designer uses a microscopic font it's quite nice to be able to magnify a web page until readable.
BTW the zoom in opera magnifies (or tries hard) the whole page, not just the text a la mozilla - which I also like. A Lot.
The fact that Opera is MDI is quite handy too, if I have 20 browser windows open (yes, sometimes I do when mutltitasking) my taskbar is uncluttered and I can minimize all the browsers with one click-and leave the other open programs in place. ----
I didn't think I was accusing you of bigotry - the last para wasn't meant to be directed at you, and I apologise that it came across that way.
As to the rest- my point is that it is not a Christian idea, it is thought of as a Christian idea, but isn't. It is a misperception that some Christians unfortunately share.
I don't disagree with your claiming that focusing on the morality of motivation may dissuade some people, but may it not also motivate others into giving?
I'm not endorsing moral blackmail at all, but If you don't care why someone gives, so long as they give, what is the best way to increase giving? It probably varies from locale to locale. ----
I think that we basically agree (except about greenpeace), I don't feel that political-charitable maps to good-bad, they're orthogonal (to me).
I started repsonding to my perception of someone else equating political = bad and charity = good:-) I do sometimes get the ipression that US citizens map deductible=charity too, and that isn't always true either. ----
Re:EFF is a political lobbying group, not a charit
on
Geek Charities?
·
· Score: 1
I understand that food aid may not be seen as a political act within the US, but consider the situation in Somalia and Eritrea over the past years where standard practice has been to try to starve the opposition. Do you think that either the rebels or government view the distribution of food to their 'enemies' as an apolitical act?
I can't comment on US tax as I know very little about it.
I don't know if Amnesty is political, I thought not - you can't provide practical help if you aren't allowed in the country. Is wanting to stop prisoners from being tortured political? Amnesty has concerns about the UK and US as well as other, perhaps more obvious, countries. My point is, the distinction between politics and charity is often not clear cut - most people seem to think of greenpeace as a charity and to me it's political, it depends upon your point of view.
All charity is political to someone. ----
Re:EFF is a political lobbying group, not a charit
on
Geek Charities?
·
· Score: 1
I'm not in the US, so I won't support the EFF.
But how does their opposition to spam, censorship and the opposition to the RIAA/MPAA etc show any representation of only the technical class? Surely this will benefit the public, who are much less clued up about these issues than technocrats?
I don't disagree that the EFF is run by technocrats and is primarily concerned with subjects of concern to them, but I don't see these issues as promoting the technocrats, over others. Most of the issues taken up by the EFF will affect the AOLuser, opposing the RIAA/MPAA in particular would benefit joe sixpack who wouldn't have to buy several more copies of things he'd already bought - this is more of an issue to those on lower incomes, surely?
This isn't to say I think the EFF is more worthy than charities that distribute food to the starving, quite the opposite, but I still don't agree that they are a technocrats interest political party. I think that the FSF is far more deserving of a political tag. In my view there may be political elements to what the EFF does, but you can say the same about Amnesty in Singapore or any direct action charity (food to the starving in a warzone) - my point was anything is political if you want it to be. ----
Re:OT: RE: ...or to save your soul?
on
Geek Charities?
·
· Score: 1
Nicely put, fellow Anglican!
I strongly suspect that Christans are a subset of Catholics, like they are a subset of Anglicans, Baptists etc. Every denomination probably has it's habitual attenders as well as believers, and not all Christians are members of a 'recognised' denomination.
I agree with you about the 'spirited arguments' - my, we could have fun! ----
Re:... to feed the hungry or to save your soul?
on
Geek Charities?
·
· Score: 1
the selfish Christian idea that the main purpose of charity is to save the soul of the giver, not to help the receiver
Sigh, another go at 'all X are Y' to which I am going to say. 'No, some X are Y'
By which I mean, as a Christian, that this is a fallacy often perpetuated - I don't want get into a religious flame war but there are many sorts of Christians, as there are of any other group.
This Christians explanation is this:
I am saved solely by the acceptance of Jesus as Saviour, nothing else is necessary, and no matter what Good Deeds I did, without this acceptance I would not be saved. Good deeds have nothing to do with saving the soul, that comes only from accepting Jesus. Now, having accepted Jesus I am trying to be a better person, by His teachings - I try to love people who if I weren't a Christian I would probably want to make suffer:-) It is the trying to be better that leads me to give to others, not to save my soul as that is already saved, but because my soul is saved. Christianity is very easy to get wrong, and every Christian gets it wrong.
Christianity is the least exclusive club around, anyone can join, no matter who they are or what they've done. Anyone.
Having said all the above, not too many flames please, I don't care why anybody gives time, money, whatever to the needy, what matters is that it is given. As a Christian if people starve to death they don't have any chance of a better life, which may include becoming Christian. Doesn't have to and that's up to them. Before I became a Christian I gave to charity just because I wanted to help those less fortunate than me, no thought of my soul there.
For the record I am pro-women priests, pro-privacy, anti-censorship, not (in US terms) either pro-life or pro-choice - I'm still thinking about that one. In my view becoming a Christian doesn't mean becoming intolerant and bigotted, and it certainly doesn't mean not thinking about each issue on its merits. Quite the opposite, unless you question and consider everything how can you decide what your Christian view on that issue is (for those who are Christians of course). A bit like Jimmy Carter leaving the Southern Baptist Church (eventually) because he couldn't accept their outdated views on women in the church.
None of the above is meant as disrespect for any non-Christians, it's merely an explanation of where some Christians (esp this one) are coming from, I'm quite happy to be tolerant of others faiths (or whatever), but it would be nice to have a little tolerance for mine. ----
Re:EFF is a political lobbying group, not a charit
on
Geek Charities?
·
· Score: 1
This isn't a flame, but are Gates, Ellison, McNealy etc the sort of people whose interests are represented by the EFF? They are among the most affluent, esp. BG. I was under the, possibly mistaken impression, that the EFF was against the sort of stupidity that will likely make the above even richer - DMCA,RIAA, MPAA etc
Asked in a spirit of curiosity, I'm not a (financial) supporter of the EFF as it is a US institution - not that I'm anti-US, but I don't live their either.
It seems the EFF is anti-censorship, pro-privacy, anti-spam etc. If this is political, what isn't? Why shouldn't be food-aid seen as political, i.e. what isn't political? If Amnesty is regarded as political in places like China and Singapore, does this make it less of a charity in other countries? ----
Slashdot Mirror
It's still probably quicker to fly in either case.
----
That's not what zero sum means.
Games can have winners/losers and be zero-sum or not, but these two things are not necessarily related.
----
Rubbish - non zero-sum games often have winners, winning and losing has nothing to do with a game being zero sum or not.
----
Most RPGs - (Advanced) Dungeons and Dragons, Chivalry & Sourcery, Call of Cthulu etc.
Board games: Cluedo (Clue), Diplomacy, Risk.
Card Games: cribbage.
All of the above are zero-sum games - technically I don't think Monopoly is a zero sum game either as there is no reason to regard the cash supply as limited to that supplied in the box...
You could always try the Prisoners Dilemma or similar - try Douglas Hofstadters "Metamagical Themas" for ideas.
Is it part of the human condition that games that have no winner are considered worthless by most people - how many adult (or older child) games are there where winning is not the object?
----
It's not quite how you meant it but the best 'hard SF' book I've ever read is "Mission Of Gravity" by Hal Clement. In this he ignores all the business of starships, interstellar travel etc and takes that as background for the story - which is a wonderful exploration of one idea.
This idea is to explore the implications of a dense, deformed, planet - where the gravity varies from 3g at the equator to several hundred g at the poles and all the consequences. There's no clever gadgets, just some (alien) psychology and a lot of good physics extrapolated from the basic idea.
----
Hmm, I don't suppose 55 mph speed limits vs effectiveley unlimited Autobahnen might have been a factor?
----
Personally I'd need a boat or train to achieve this, my car isn't amphibious....
----
Ah, so you have a Palm then?
----
At one site I worked at there was a report suite which was known to be producing wrong numbers - the programs were demonstrably broken, there was no dispute about this. The trouble was that the end users (you know, the one who are actually paying the bills rejected the the corrected reports and insisted on having the wrong ones back as they 'preferred the numbers the old one gave'. Go figure..
----
At home it's nice to be able to browse paper - it's easier to just come across stuff, which is hard on a screen. Plus I can have several books open on my desk at once.
On the other had for portability a laptop/pda with charger weighs a lot less than the pile of books I usually carry round, and is easier to pack.
For a straight lookup, it's pretty even - finding a book+page off the shelf vs opening+search ref material from PC.
Oh, and I've never tripped over a power cord (at home anyway) but I've often tripped/kicked a pile of books on the floor - does anyone ever have enough shelf/cupboard space??
----
----
In Geneva air conditioning is only allowed where it's required for machinery (big iron, server farms etc), when it gets hot people do too.
How bad would Californias energy shortage be if AC was banned?
----
Unless source-safe was hacked :-)
That's assuming MS use their own products of course....
----
Why aren't they using all the dishes for aperture synthesis?
----
----
Proof by assertion?
ok, so try "A box is ALWAYS empty, no matter how much stuff you put in it".
That makes as much sense - ie NONE.
----
My favourite feature in Opera, which I believe is unique, is it's zoom facility. When some half-witted web designer uses a microscopic font it's quite nice to be able to magnify a web page until readable.
BTW the zoom in opera magnifies (or tries hard) the whole page, not just the text a la mozilla - which I also like. A Lot.
The fact that Opera is MDI is quite handy too, if I have 20 browser windows open (yes, sometimes I do when mutltitasking) my taskbar is uncluttered and I can minimize all the browsers with one click-and leave the other open programs in place.
----
As to the rest- my point is that it is not a Christian idea, it is thought of as a Christian idea, but isn't. It is a misperception that some Christians unfortunately share.
I don't disagree with your claiming that focusing on the morality of motivation may dissuade some people, but may it not also motivate others into giving?
I'm not endorsing moral blackmail at all, but If you don't care why someone gives, so long as they give, what is the best way to increase giving? It probably varies from locale to locale.
----
I think that we basically agree (except about greenpeace), I don't feel that political-charitable maps to good-bad, they're orthogonal (to me). :-)
I started repsonding to my perception of someone else equating political = bad and charity = good
I do sometimes get the ipression that US citizens map deductible=charity too, and that isn't always true either.
----
I can't comment on US tax as I know very little about it.
I don't know if Amnesty is political, I thought not - you can't provide practical help if you aren't allowed in the country. Is wanting to stop prisoners from being tortured political? Amnesty has concerns about the UK and US as well as other, perhaps more obvious, countries.
My point is, the distinction between politics and charity is often not clear cut - most people seem to think of greenpeace as a charity and to me it's political, it depends upon your point of view.
All charity is political to someone.
----
But how does their opposition to spam, censorship and the opposition to the RIAA/MPAA etc show any representation of only the technical class? Surely this will benefit the public, who are much less clued up about these issues than technocrats?
I don't disagree that the EFF is run by technocrats and is primarily concerned with subjects of concern to them, but I don't see these issues as promoting the technocrats, over others. Most of the issues taken up by the EFF will affect the AOLuser, opposing the RIAA/MPAA in particular would benefit joe sixpack who wouldn't have to buy several more copies of things he'd already bought - this is more of an issue to those on lower incomes, surely?
This isn't to say I think the EFF is more worthy than charities that distribute food to the starving, quite the opposite, but I still don't agree that they are a technocrats interest political party. I think that the FSF is far more deserving of a political tag. In my view there may be political elements to what the EFF does, but you can say the same about Amnesty in Singapore or any direct action charity (food to the starving in a warzone) - my point was anything is political if you want it to be.
----
I strongly suspect that Christans are a subset of Catholics, like they are a subset of Anglicans, Baptists etc.
Every denomination probably has it's habitual attenders as well as believers, and not all Christians are members of a 'recognised' denomination.
I agree with you about the 'spirited arguments' - my, we could have fun!
----
By which I mean, as a Christian, that this is a fallacy often perpetuated - I don't want get into a religious flame war but there are many sorts of Christians, as there are of any other group.
This Christians explanation is this: I am saved solely by the acceptance of Jesus as Saviour, nothing else is necessary, and no matter what Good Deeds I did, without this acceptance I would not be saved. :-)
Good deeds have nothing to do with saving the soul, that comes only from accepting Jesus. Now, having accepted Jesus I am trying to be a better person, by His teachings - I try to love people who if I weren't a Christian I would probably want to make suffer
It is the trying to be better that leads me to give to others, not to save my soul as that is already saved, but because my soul is saved.
Christianity is very easy to get wrong, and every Christian gets it wrong.
Christianity is the least exclusive club around, anyone can join, no matter who they are or what they've done. Anyone.
Having said all the above, not too many flames please, I don't care why anybody gives time, money, whatever to the needy, what matters is that it is given.
As a Christian if people starve to death they don't have any chance of a better life, which may include becoming Christian. Doesn't have to and that's up to them. Before I became a Christian I gave to charity just because I wanted to help those less fortunate than me, no thought of my soul there.
For the record I am pro-women priests, pro-privacy, anti-censorship, not (in US terms) either pro-life or pro-choice - I'm still thinking about that one.
In my view becoming a Christian doesn't mean becoming intolerant and bigotted, and it certainly doesn't mean not thinking about each issue on its merits. Quite the opposite, unless you question and consider everything how can you decide what your Christian view on that issue is (for those who are Christians of course). A bit like Jimmy Carter leaving the Southern Baptist Church (eventually) because he couldn't accept their outdated views on women in the church.
None of the above is meant as disrespect for any non-Christians, it's merely an explanation of where some Christians (esp this one) are coming from, I'm quite happy to be tolerant of others faiths (or whatever), but it would be nice to have a little tolerance for mine.
----
I was under the, possibly mistaken impression, that the EFF was against the sort of stupidity that will likely make the above even richer - DMCA,RIAA, MPAA etc
Asked in a spirit of curiosity, I'm not a (financial) supporter of the EFF as it is a US institution - not that I'm anti-US, but I don't live their either.
It seems the EFF is anti-censorship, pro-privacy, anti-spam etc. If this is political, what isn't?
Why shouldn't be food-aid seen as political, i.e. what isn't political? If Amnesty is regarded as political in places like China and Singapore, does this make it less of a charity in other countries?
----
What are the politics of the Florida Electors?
Can they vote as they like, i.e. is the Florida vote binding upon them?
----