The balls to nerf and annoy the cry baby players is important to making a sustainable MMO (from a playability point of view, not from a profitability point of view).
At some point you will screw up and introduce an item or power or combination that is simply too powerful. You need to fix it if you want to not have every character be exactly the same and have whatever that thing is. Nerfing it is orders of magnitude better than powering up everything else since if you power everything else up you'll get something wrong again and some other thing will be overpowered.
But the idiot players don't like nerfing (even though it has the same effect as powering up everything else), so almost all the MMOs end up stuck in an endless cycle of increasing the power level - it's like a Dragon Ball Z series...
Or maybe the doctor made a horrible mistake and he didn't actually have cancer at all, but those alternative treatments gave him cancer and hence killed him.?
When the doctor says "you have 3 years to live" he doesn't mean "you will drop dead at this minute on this date in 3 years time" he means "95% of people with what you have die within 3 years, 4.98% die in 3-10 years time, 0.01% drop dead while I am saying this and 0.01% live for another 50 years." (with less made up numbers hopefully...
The article is about a study claiming that people are influenced by others - that happy people make other people happy, that fat people make other fat, etc, etc. Which he says is obvious.
And a common saying that says that exact same thing (that people do what their friends do). Which seems to reinforce the obviousness.
Of course studying the obvious is worthwhile - since when things aren't the way everyone thinks they are you can get interesting (and maybe even useful) results.
So why do those car companies not smuggle drugs and people into the USA? There's more profit in that than in making cars. Selling nuclear weapons to rogue states is likely more profitable too.
Oh, I see, your simplistic slogan isn't actually "their job"...
Really? Vastly over priced? And yet they were selling for almost triple the initial offer price two years later.
Sure they are below that price now so those people who bought then and are still holding see the shares that cost them $3.30 are now selling for $3.24. I'm pretty sure it will have been very easy to have done worse in a stock pick.
Oh but inflation, you say? Yes $3.30 then is equivalent to $4.53 now. But I skipped the dividends, those $3.30 shares if held for all this time will have paid $3 in dividends. Since $5.24 is greater than $4.53 that "vastly overpriced" investment has done better than inflation which seems strange for being overpriced at purchase time...
Those who got in later didn't do so well, but that wasn't the "first release".
"near" does not mean "behind", it can also mean "beside" in which case yes two idiots take each other out which sounds good except that non-idiot with the shiny car with a radar in it gets side swiped in the resulting crash because he was overtaken by an idiot being followed by another idiot.
China isn't a democracy, "China is fine with it" means that the people running the show are fine with it, since they are "China". The people are just along for the ride.
They don't care. Why would they give a shit if their pollution is spreading the world over? What's the rest of the world going to do about it?
If you are the idiot driver then you wouldn't install the cameras. If you are the idiot driver but thought you weren't then you wouldn't mention the cameras when you be an idiot and hit something. If you are actually a reasonable driver who gets hit by an idiot then how will they hurt?
It could be a random blip, but they'd likely notice that after long enough and drop it anyway. It it's random it won't be harming them anyway...
If cereal X makes people bad drivers or if bad drivers prefer cereal X or if there is some other factor that causes people to both like cereal X and be bad drivers. Those are all the same to the insurance company, if "prefer cereal X" is easy to measure and detect then they might as well use it.
""" The bacteria Wall is studying are bio-corrosives and can change the solubility of heavy metals. They can take uranium and convert it to uraninite, a nearly insoluble substance """
It's stuff that can "change the solubility" of something, and the product is "nearly insoluble". It's not exactly a huge inference to conclude that it was changed from something more soluble than "nearly insoluble" since changing from "really really nearly insoluble" to "nearly insoluble" doesn't sound very exciting.
I'm not surprised there's more than one "less-lethal" variant of such an obvious choke point defense device.
I'd prefer all of them to an actual claymore mine, given it's going to be lethal unless I'm the luckiest man alive (though I won't be feeling lucky afterwards I would think:).
It says uraninite, which is UO2 (and a bit of lots of other things, it's a mineral after all).
Uranium will dissolve into the water, since that is what soluble means. So yes a chunk will sink to the bottom where it will dissolve meaning the uranium won't stay trapped at the bottom but instead will be carried downstream or disperse throughout a non-flowing body like a lake.
They really shouldn't have to clarify what soluble means to anyone who got through the 3rd grade.
""" They can take uranium and convert it to uraninite, a nearly insoluble substance that will sink to the bottom of a lake or stream. """
not answer your questions?
The difference is the dangerous one is soluble, the safe one is insoluble. The reason it is safer is it will sink to the bottom instead of being in the water supply.
Of course insoluble forms can be more toxic to handle since they bioaccumulate whereas the soluble forms cause more initial absorption but are also more readily excreted.
Slashdot Mirror
Really, you think he had a search warrant?
The balls to nerf and annoy the cry baby players is important to making a sustainable MMO (from a playability point of view, not from a profitability point of view).
At some point you will screw up and introduce an item or power or combination that is simply too powerful. You need to fix it if you want to not have every character be exactly the same and have whatever that thing is. Nerfing it is orders of magnitude better than powering up everything else since if you power everything else up you'll get something wrong again and some other thing will be overpowered.
But the idiot players don't like nerfing (even though it has the same effect as powering up everything else), so almost all the MMOs end up stuck in an endless cycle of increasing the power level - it's like a Dragon Ball Z series...
Or maybe the doctor made a horrible mistake and he didn't actually have cancer at all, but those alternative treatments gave him cancer and hence killed him.?
When the doctor says "you have 3 years to live" he doesn't mean "you will drop dead at this minute on this date in 3 years time" he means "95% of people with what you have die within 3 years, 4.98% die in 3-10 years time, 0.01% drop dead while I am saying this and 0.01% live for another 50 years." (with less made up numbers hopefully...
Because making it didn't libel/slander anyone.
Where is the contradiction?
The article is about a study claiming that people are influenced by others - that happy people make other people happy, that fat people make other fat, etc, etc. Which he says is obvious.
And a common saying that says that exact same thing (that people do what their friends do). Which seems to reinforce the obviousness.
Of course studying the obvious is worthwhile - since when things aren't the way everyone thinks they are you can get interesting (and maybe even useful) results.
Did you read the study to see if they managed to account for that appropriately?
Or are you just ranting without actually checking what they did?
So why do those car companies not smuggle drugs and people into the USA? There's more profit in that than in making cars. Selling nuclear weapons to rogue states is likely more profitable too.
Oh, I see, your simplistic slogan isn't actually "their job"...
Really? Vastly over priced? And yet they were selling for almost triple the initial offer price two years later.
Sure they are below that price now so those people who bought then and are still holding see the shares that cost them $3.30 are now selling for $3.24. I'm pretty sure it will have been very easy to have done worse in a stock pick.
Oh but inflation, you say? Yes $3.30 then is equivalent to $4.53 now. But I skipped the dividends, those $3.30 shares if held for all this time will have paid $3 in dividends. Since $5.24 is greater than $4.53 that "vastly overpriced" investment has done better than inflation which seems strange for being overpriced at purchase time...
Those who got in later didn't do so well, but that wasn't the "first release".
To decrease the stupid cost per blocked url metric?
quick.
Wow!
2.5 MW.
That's really going to replace those 1,000 MW single nuclear reactors.
Do you think we can fit 1350 of those windcharger things into Lower Alloways Creek Township?
"near" does not mean "behind", it can also mean "beside" in which case yes two idiots take each other out which sounds good except that non-idiot with the shiny car with a radar in it gets side swiped in the resulting crash because he was overtaken by an idiot being followed by another idiot.
China isn't a democracy, "China is fine with it" means that the people running the show are fine with it, since they are "China". The people are just along for the ride.
They don't care. Why would they give a shit if their pollution is spreading the world over? What's the rest of the world going to do about it?
Did you learn to drive any farm equipment by 11?
So are you agreeing or disagreeing with him?
Since everything you posted seems to indicate that, yes, children from farming areas do do all that with tractors by the time they are 11.
Why would there be a "campaign to keep children younger than 12 away from tractors" is that wasn't the case?
No it wouldn't.
If you are the idiot driver then you wouldn't install the cameras. If you are the idiot driver but thought you weren't then you wouldn't mention the cameras when you be an idiot and hit something. If you are actually a reasonable driver who gets hit by an idiot then how will they hurt?
Obviously you don't record sound...
They don't care.
It could be a random blip, but they'd likely notice that after long enough and drop it anyway. It it's random it won't be harming them anyway...
If cereal X makes people bad drivers or if bad drivers prefer cereal X or if there is some other factor that causes people to both like cereal X and be bad drivers. Those are all the same to the insurance company, if "prefer cereal X" is easy to measure and detect then they might as well use it.
Maybe, or maybe it was a pun on the results of idiots suddenly slowing down everytime you get close behind them.
And hence cause idiots to keep jamming the breaks when you get near them...
"""
The bacteria Wall is studying are bio-corrosives and can change the solubility of heavy metals. They can take uranium and convert it to uraninite, a nearly insoluble substance
"""
It's stuff that can "change the solubility" of something, and the product is "nearly insoluble". It's not exactly a huge inference to conclude that it was changed from something more soluble than "nearly insoluble" since changing from "really really nearly insoluble" to "nearly insoluble" doesn't sound very exciting.
I'm not surprised there's more than one "less-lethal" variant of such an obvious choke point defense device.
I'd prefer all of them to an actual claymore mine, given it's going to be lethal unless I'm the luckiest man alive (though I won't be feeling lucky afterwards I would think :).
How does that matter to it being clearly "less-lethal" than a claymore mine?
And why would the police use it anyway? THe description in the article refers to "Military personnel" at "checkpoints".
Not "non-lethal", "less-lethal".
And yes I would prefer to be standing in front of that when it went of that be standing in front of a claymore mine when it went off.
And the purpose is obviously to fire into a crowd at a choke point in order to hurt as many of them as you can.
It says uraninite, which is UO2 (and a bit of lots of other things, it's a mineral after all).
Uranium will dissolve into the water, since that is what soluble means. So yes a chunk will sink to the bottom where it will dissolve meaning the uranium won't stay trapped at the bottom but instead will be carried downstream or disperse throughout a non-flowing body like a lake.
They really shouldn't have to clarify what soluble means to anyone who got through the 3rd grade.
How does:
"""
They can take uranium and convert it to uraninite, a nearly insoluble substance that will sink to the bottom of a lake or stream.
"""
not answer your questions?
The difference is the dangerous one is soluble, the safe one is insoluble. The reason it is safer is it will sink to the bottom instead of being in the water supply.
Of course insoluble forms can be more toxic to handle since they bioaccumulate whereas the soluble forms cause more initial absorption but are also more readily excreted.