It always amazes me the things people say "Godel, Escher, Bach" is about.
Read "I Am a Strange Loop", which is sort of Hofstadter's spiritual sequel to GEB, which not only more-plainly states what GEB is actually about (he, too, is always amazed at what people think his book was about), but expounds on where he was going with those ideas; 20 extra years has given him more time to hone his points. (Actually, read his preface to the 20th anniversary edition of GEB just before reading IAaSL.)
And even then, if you try to go to dell.com, and when you get to, for example, deel.com you see a pagefull of ads instead of dell's website, is that even trademark infringement? deel.com doesn't pretend to be dell, and anyone who's looking for dell can tell deel isn't it. (Now, if it is trying to look like Dell.com, that's another story.)
What astounds me is that enough morons mis-type these names, and then still click the links on what is obviously not the site they were looking for; enough that you can make quite a profit doing it.
"The sad part is, most of the IP addresses in question are... dark. Nothing there. Even though we're approaching 85% allocation, utilization is probably around 1-2%. No, I'm not kidding."
"Primary Slots: We've preserved a number of items that have traditional "plusses." Thes are the items we expect everybody to care about, and the ones that are factored into the math behind the game. If you're 9th level, we expect you to have a set of +2 armor, and the challenges in the game at that level are balanced accordingly. Here are the primary item slots:"
There are 3; weapon/impliment (think wand staff or rod), armor, neck (amulet or whathave you)
"Secondary Slots: These items don't have enhancement bonuses. That makes them essentially optional. You could adventure with no items in your secondary item slots and not see a huge decrease in your overall power. Take what looks cool, but don't worry about having empty slots."
There are more, but they claim you don't need them just to survive.
Well, yeah; but it'd be nice to be able to ROLE-PLAY a competant, faith-driven, warrior-priest that can actually... you know... get anything done within the framework of the rules. So, play a cleric and call yourself a paladin. Or, atlernately, fix the mechanic called "paladin" to actually reflect what the flavor-text claims it should be.
"Since based on what I've heard so far, not one of these is actually happening"
Then you should pay better attention. When I was reading your post, I assumed you were making a list of what they were doing right, because based on what I've heard so far, they're doing all those things. Grapple cleaned up, stacking bonuses cleared up (by simplifying and clarifying item slots mostly), the effect of gold->magicitems->power weakened (again, mostly through magic item slots, but through other means too), level appropriate abilities up the wazoo (no more "I guess I'll take dodge as my 18th level feat and that's the most interesting thing I got this level")... okay, I don't know who they've got doing playtesting.
I'm very excited, because everything that was really pissing me off in 3.x is precisely the stuff they're fixing.
Everyone complains about "the congress", and yet, everyone keeps re-electing the same scumbags back into it!
"Oh, no!" they say, "_my_ congressperson is doing a fine job! It's everyone _else's_ that's a problem!" Which really means "My guy brings the pork home, and that's good; but yours brings YOUR pork home, and that's bad!" And with the way the rules in congress works, a junior member has a lot less pull to bring that pork home; so 90% of the time, the incumbant wins.
Or they say "I would, except, $MY_PARTY keeps putting up the same choice for re-election, and I'm certainly not going to vote for $OTHER_PARTY," which is an appeal to how poorly the First Past the Post method of adjudicating elections works. With any more-robust voting method, parties could run multiple candidates without risks of spliting the vote and losing, or, *gasp*, third-party candidates could have a real chance, without acting as spoilers (damn you Ralph Nader!)
But again, that's just pointing out the problems. How do you fix the bylaws in congress, when those who benefit from them are the only ones with the power to change them? How do you change voting practices when all the lawmakers in power owe their position to the current method?
All I can think of, is start at the bottom. You can't change the nation before you change your state, and you can't change your state before you change your town. So, in order to fix the US Congress by, oh, 2020, run for town council today.
Let me add my anectdote to the pile; except for the city, it's the same as yours.
I could take public transit to work. I wouldn't even have to walk that far (a few hundred feet at each point). But I'd need to make two transfers, for a total of 57 minutes of my time, and pay $3.10 in fares. (I checked their trip-planner site to get that accurate.) Which isn't that bad.
I thought it was just one county, and they simply forgot Paul because he was at the bottom of the list when they sent in their report (even write-in candidates beat him). Nothing nefarious, or even electronic, just simple human error.
It just goes to show you: do not give the client more data than the player should have access to (and conversely, do not trust the client's response without checking it for validity.) (Or the inverse(s): any data you give to the client is accessible to the player (and any response from the client can not be trusted.))
Don't tell the client "here's everything; figure out what the player can see," tell it "here's what the player can see." It's been true since before Quake wall-hacks, and it's true now.
I see you've already gotten some knee-jerk replies; go ahead and ignore them.
But you're confused on the actual point of this trial (which won't matter now, since destroying evidence is pretty much a forfeit), which is that Torrent Spy (claims they) didn't infringe on anyone's copyright, and are protected by the safe-harbor provisions of the DMCA, which makes service providers not repsonsable for any illegal activities of their users (and additionally claim that they are not "inducing infringement" a la the Grokster decision.) If GPL programmers were suing Google for linking to GPL-violating software, or eBay for hosting sales of the same, THEN you could draw some parallels.
"Our brains certainly can't grasp more than 3 spatial dimensions."
Why do people always say this? I did a short project in high-school on higher-dimensional representations and vizualizing them, and I can still easily "grasp" four spatial dimensions; 6 with a bit of a mental stretching. Mabye you can't (or haven't been able to yet, or just haven't tried), but at least some humans can, and do; so the human brain certainly CAN do it.
There's little point in explaining how the misleading phrase "consume volts" might not actually be entirely wrong (it is.)
They should have said "opperate at 1.5 volts".
That said: there are so many other factors invovled (not the least of which being frequency and feature size), saying "lower voltage equals lower resistance equals less power consumed" is, at best, as misleading as the original statement.
Finally, let me point out that the most common unit for for measuring pressures is a length. How's that for crazy?
Different nuecleic acids? There's another pair beyong G, A, T, and C that scientist investigated years ago... but no known lifeform uses them. Or some other entirely different way of manufacturing proteins. Or not even using protiens at all. Or not using carbon as the back-bone of everything; silicon is almost the same... almost.
It's not looking for "more complex"; you misunderstand evolution if that's what you think they're looking for. They're looking for something that didn't evolve from or evolve into anything we know of. An entirely different chemistry of life.
Yeah, it's apparently been out-competed by our line, but maybe it's hiding somewhere.
"..."network neutrality," which I am against vehemently. I believe that paying for access tiers makes more sense than forcing the market to all stay at a certain level of service for everyone"
You do not know what network neutrality is. Neither does whoever moderated you insightful. What you described is not network neutrality, it is anti-neutrality FUD.
Network neutrality is saying that it's not fair to hold website operators hostage to give prefered "access" to the ISPs customers. The website operator and the cusomter both already pay their ISP; THAT's where the diferentiation of services is and where it should stay, and NO ONE who is pro-neutrality opposes that kind of tiering, as you falsely imply. "No double-dipping" is what it comes down to.
I snlreiecy digarese wtih the perisems put frtoh aobut scbrialnmg wrods, so I'm itionltlnaney enrovdaenig to ulizite leetnghir cpocmtaeild wodrs, not nclesiesray uonommcn wrdos, taht can not be dceerihped as ieuntlivity as tohse in the oirginal prgpraaah. The frist of my dsiceorives is taht wrods endnig in sufefxis or bnegining in pierxfes bmecoe daggesiend form the frist/lsat ltteer rothlpisneias
taht spupedsloy are the baiss of the pmseires, and bemcoe mcuh mroe clinaelnhgg, amsolt ieclenaipbhrde.
Slashdot Mirror
Complete, concise, consistent: pick two.
Read "I Am a Strange Loop", which is sort of Hofstadter's spiritual sequel to GEB, which not only more-plainly states what GEB is actually about (he, too, is always amazed at what people think his book was about), but expounds on where he was going with those ideas; 20 extra years has given him more time to hone his points. (Actually, read his preface to the 20th anniversary edition of GEB just before reading IAaSL.)
What astounds me is that enough morons mis-type these names, and then still click the links on what is obviously not the site they were looking for; enough that you can make quite a profit doing it.
You mea like this?
"Primary Slots: We've preserved a number of items that have traditional "plusses." Thes are the items we expect everybody to care about, and the ones that are factored into the math behind the game. If you're 9th level, we expect you to have a set of +2 armor, and the challenges in the game at that level are balanced accordingly. Here are the primary item slots:"
There are 3; weapon/impliment (think wand staff or rod), armor, neck (amulet or whathave you)
"Secondary Slots: These items don't have enhancement bonuses. That makes them essentially optional. You could adventure with no items in your secondary item slots and not see a huge decrease in your overall power. Take what looks cool, but don't worry about having empty slots."
There are more, but they claim you don't need them just to survive.
Well, yeah; but it'd be nice to be able to ROLE-PLAY a competant, faith-driven, warrior-priest that can actually... you know... get anything done within the framework of the rules. So, play a cleric and call yourself a paladin. Or, atlernately, fix the mechanic called "paladin" to actually reflect what the flavor-text claims it should be.
Then you should pay better attention. When I was reading your post, I assumed you were making a list of what they were doing right, because based on what I've heard so far, they're doing all those things. Grapple cleaned up, stacking bonuses cleared up (by simplifying and clarifying item slots mostly), the effect of gold->magicitems->power weakened (again, mostly through magic item slots, but through other means too), level appropriate abilities up the wazoo (no more "I guess I'll take dodge as my 18th level feat and that's the most interesting thing I got this level")... okay, I don't know who they've got doing playtesting.
I'm very excited, because everything that was really pissing me off in 3.x is precisely the stuff they're fixing.
Everyone complains about "the congress", and yet, everyone keeps re-electing the same scumbags back into it!
"Oh, no!" they say, "_my_ congressperson is doing a fine job! It's everyone _else's_ that's a problem!" Which really means "My guy brings the pork home, and that's good; but yours brings YOUR pork home, and that's bad!" And with the way the rules in congress works, a junior member has a lot less pull to bring that pork home; so 90% of the time, the incumbant wins.
Or they say "I would, except, $MY_PARTY keeps putting up the same choice for re-election, and I'm certainly not going to vote for $OTHER_PARTY," which is an appeal to how poorly the First Past the Post method of adjudicating elections works. With any more-robust voting method, parties could run multiple candidates without risks of spliting the vote and losing, or, *gasp*, third-party candidates could have a real chance, without acting as spoilers (damn you Ralph Nader!)
But again, that's just pointing out the problems. How do you fix the bylaws in congress, when those who benefit from them are the only ones with the power to change them? How do you change voting practices when all the lawmakers in power owe their position to the current method?
All I can think of, is start at the bottom. You can't change the nation before you change your state, and you can't change your state before you change your town. So, in order to fix the US Congress by, oh, 2020, run for town council today.
Amortized over the life of the car, those miles probably cost at most another dollar. So it's still seven times faster, and at least twice as cheap.
I could take public transit to work. I wouldn't even have to walk that far (a few hundred feet at each point). But I'd need to make two transfers, for a total of 57 minutes of my time, and pay $3.10 in fares. (I checked their trip-planner site to get that accurate.) Which isn't that bad.
But if I drive? 8 minutes and 55 cents in gas.
Seven times more costly; there's no comparison.
Public transit is a joke in this country.
Call us when he's done getting his numbers correct^K^K^K^K^K^K^K"updated" by people with actual statistics backgrounds.
I thought it was just one county, and they simply forgot Paul because he was at the bottom of the list when they sent in their report (even write-in candidates beat him). Nothing nefarious, or even electronic, just simple human error.
Don't tell the client "here's everything; figure out what the player can see," tell it "here's what the player can see." It's been true since before Quake wall-hacks, and it's true now.
Dude, I was there; I know what I saw. You are wrong about what is possible.
But you're confused on the actual point of this trial (which won't matter now, since destroying evidence is pretty much a forfeit), which is that Torrent Spy (claims they) didn't infringe on anyone's copyright, and are protected by the safe-harbor provisions of the DMCA, which makes service providers not repsonsable for any illegal activities of their users (and additionally claim that they are not "inducing infringement" a la the Grokster decision.) If GPL programmers were suing Google for linking to GPL-violating software, or eBay for hosting sales of the same, THEN you could draw some parallels.
Why do people always say this? I did a short project in high-school on higher-dimensional representations and vizualizing them, and I can still easily "grasp" four spatial dimensions; 6 with a bit of a mental stretching. Mabye you can't (or haven't been able to yet, or just haven't tried), but at least some humans can, and do; so the human brain certainly CAN do it.
I guess it's time to stop using 4-bit encryption on my private corespondances. -- PBP (Pretty Bad Privacy) Public Key Follows: 10
They got the saying all wrong. It goes "A man who wears one watch always knows what time it is; a man who wears two watches is never sure."
Paying US workers less than a living wage: not okay. Paying other nation's workers less a living wage: okay.
They should have said "opperate at 1.5 volts".
That said: there are so many other factors invovled (not the least of which being frequency and feature size), saying "lower voltage equals lower resistance equals less power consumed" is, at best, as misleading as the original statement.
Finally, let me point out that the most common unit for for measuring pressures is a length. How's that for crazy?
I'm pretty sure that story is satirical.
It's not looking for "more complex"; you misunderstand evolution if that's what you think they're looking for. They're looking for something that didn't evolve from or evolve into anything we know of. An entirely different chemistry of life.
Yeah, it's apparently been out-competed by our line, but maybe it's hiding somewhere.
The Illuminatus' Kraken is more appropriate. (And still not very appropriate.)
You do not know what network neutrality is. Neither does whoever moderated you insightful. What you described is not network neutrality, it is anti-neutrality FUD.
Network neutrality is saying that it's not fair to hold website operators hostage to give prefered "access" to the ISPs customers. The website operator and the cusomter both already pay their ISP; THAT's where the diferentiation of services is and where it should stay, and NO ONE who is pro-neutrality opposes that kind of tiering, as you falsely imply. "No double-dipping" is what it comes down to.
Found at http://www.metafilter.com/28301/Scrambled-Text after searching for "first last letter" rebuttal