Still hard to match the good, well-written and imaginative text games. They play on all sorts of platforms, demand very little resources, and often provide great entertainment and challenge. Some of them are really thought-provoking.
Also keep in mind that most of them are free (or very inexpensive) and can be produced by a single talented person. The quality of tools has steadily improved (look at Inform 7, for instance). You don't have to be a mega-studio to produce a quality text game.
The NSA retains some offensive weapons. This is wrong?
You can answer that question as per your beliefs, and you're fully entitled to do that. But I could argue that if the NSA shouldn't have offensive weapons, neither should the Army or any other government entity. Again, you may be a pacifist and agree with that, too.
But there's practical reality at play here. Pacifism doesn't always work in the face of aggression.
This is the OP for this thread, some good answers here, and this is what I draw from it.
1. I pose a higher risk in someone's credit model because, with no debt, I have no recent history of installment payments (such as a mortgage would provide). 2. I offer a lower profit potential since the CC company will never get any interest from me. They do make plenty with swipe fees, but they can make tons more from someone who pays interest. Add to this (2a) that the CC company's risk does go up, even if slightly, if I get a higher limit, without them getting any upside except some swipe fees (minus cashback; see below). 3. I naively assumed--- and at my age I know better--- that the CC company would be interested in providing service in return for my business. Fat chance of that.
As to why I care:
1. I do use credit cards as a convenience, and I focus on the card with the greatest cashback, so that card get used very heavily. (And, now that I write it out, it's obvious that such usage--- taking the maximum cashback while not ever paying interest--- is hardly an incentive for the CC company to give me a limit increase.) 2. I'd want a higher limit to be able to make large one-time purchases on occasion, such as a new car or perhaps even a round the world cruise (well, probably not that! but you get the idea).
And as to the idea of going into debt being more optimal for me personally: That may in fact be true (although I certainly invest rather than keep savings in a savings account!). However I'm at an age where security of capital (so that it can produce income) is important. Investments in quality dividend-bearing mutual funds are about the right level of risk.
Thanks to all for a good discussion which for me, at least, clarified several points.
This reminds me of something said by a very wise Professor I had in grad school. I "go back a ways" and I was in grad school just as electronic hand held calculators were beginning to appear, and slide rules were in their last days.
The Prof declared that the new calculators were an efficient way to calculate the wrong answer to a high degree of precision.
In other words, whether calculator, slide rule, computer, or whatever device --- none of them substitute for knowledge and judgment.
I too have 800+ credit scores, very good savings, and a paid-off home. Therein lies the problem. I don't have any debt any more, and while I use credit cards for nearly everything, I never carry a balance beyond the payment due dates. I've been retired for a while and have a steady pension income that is quite adequate.
So I asked for an increase in my credit card limit, and was turned down, with the EXPLICIT statement, "You don't have enough debt." Not "your credit isn't good enough"--- they as much as said my credit was just fine.
In other words they see that in their industry I am, and will remain, what is called a "deadbeat." This does not mean a non-payer, this means someone who PAYS and doesn't carry balances, thereby denying the banks the opportunity to collect interest at extortionate interest rates.
Good point, thanks for posting the clarification. The little guys competed and survived on merit alone. They ended up doing a lot of good work for just enough money to get by[1]. The big guys had the right friends in the right places. They did a lot of bad work, if you can even call it work, and collected the maximum possible. Two different worlds.
[1] There was one major exception to this, but I'll leave it unsaid and avoid all the flames from the SJWs.
I think a lot of projects aren't terminated early enough. A small failure becomes a medium one becomes a giant one. Egotistical managers insist on "making it work" long past the point of no return.
It takes real courage to say, "This is failing, let's cut our losses now and not throw good money after bad."
As an ex-government person I support your statement. There were/are some of us, quite a few in fact, who actually did care and actually believed in the mission and tried despite all obstacles to carry it out. We understood that it was American taxpayer money we were spending and that we were morally accountable.
The biggest problem I saw was the army of Beltway Bandits anxious to land contracts and then bill for millions while producing nothing of value.
But there are other disciplines where it seems like it's a competition to find the best purple prose
Math textbooks, for one. I've seen so many texts at a more advanced level where the author's purpose is evidently to dazzle the student reader with his or her "brilliance" even if it makes the text no longer something the student can learn from.
There's more to this than you realize. When I was in the lower grades way back when, this was a big deal. If you had good penmanship, you were a good little kid and your work was "good." If you didn't have good penmanship, well, obviously you were a bad kid and your work was "bad." And if you committed the ultimate sin and were creative--- heaven help you.
I succeeded in life in spite of school, not because of it.
The problem here is that every big storm is taken by the "alarmists" to be solid evidence of catastrophic climate change. This only fuels the "deniers" who say that "alarmists" take every excuse to push their agenda... something both sides actually do.
When we phrase everything as a contest between "sides" we lose track of the reality. If dangerous climate change is indeed taking place while we're so caught up in fighting for our "side" we will really be in trouble. If dangerous climate change isn't taking place, we will have had a big fight for nothing, but that would be a safer outcome. I've said this many times: could we please concentrate on serious, non-politicized science?
This is irrelevant to the main discussion, but in fact checkers has already been solved and found to be a draw. That doesn't mean it doesn't have depth and interest for humans. Not at all. Humans are not zillion-processor supercomputers.
Cars can go faster than any human, but we still compete in running races. Cranes can lift more than any person, but we still have weight-lifting competitions.
Many of us enjoy checkers. I have thousands of readers, of all ages and from around the world, who attest to that.
"We had an ad-free internet once. We can have one again."
I wish that were true. Maybe it's possible.
I run a site for checker enthusiasts... I've run it almost 11 years with weekly updates and no ads, not ever, not even one. I run it because I want to, and there are plenty of other people doing similar things. Do I feel the need to monetize it? It costs me $10 a month for hosting, and how much revenue could I realistically get? It's not worth ruining it for my readers, even if I could make a little money. The fun would be gone for me and for them.
That's what most of the internet used to be. There's still some of it left, but the percentage isn't high.
I read through the linked article and it's enough to make me sick. In the end it's just another feminist who hates evil white males, 100% of whom are oppressors and 100% of whom deserve to die. The ostensible thesis, though, is that by praising successful Asians we promote prejudice against blacks. Seriously... white people can't get anything right, apparently... even when they praise people who have overcome hardship and done well, there has to be a reprehensible motive for it.
Many people have worked their way up. With great courage and perseverance they earned their success. They deserve praise. And we ought to, now, withhold that praise because some others didn't succeed in the same way?
There's something else that as yet hasn't been mentioned. You can fix up elderly[1] clients who don't have a lot of money (most of us, I think) with a cast-off, older machine that you might be able to get for free. For basic browsing needs, as long as you have about 2 GB of memory (so that videos run without stutter), you don't need much of a machine. Linux is fabulous for older machines now considered low-spec[2].
When you fix up an elderly client on a limited income with a free computer that does what they need with little fuss or hassle, I think you're doing quite a commendable thing.
[1] I qualify as elderly myself but I've kept up with technology over the years.
[2] Like my 6+ year old Acer netbook, with 2 GB of memory, which does browsing, videos, etc., just fine on Mint 17. Okay, it takes 60 seconds to boot....
Slashdot Mirror
Why don't you go back to playing GTA or something suitable for you.
Still hard to match the good, well-written and imaginative text games. They play on all sorts of platforms, demand very little resources, and often provide great entertainment and challenge. Some of them are really thought-provoking.
Also keep in mind that most of them are free (or very inexpensive) and can be produced by a single talented person. The quality of tools has steadily improved (look at Inform 7, for instance). You don't have to be a mega-studio to produce a quality text game.
The NSA retains some offensive weapons. This is wrong?
You can answer that question as per your beliefs, and you're fully entitled to do that. But I could argue that if the NSA shouldn't have offensive weapons, neither should the Army or any other government entity. Again, you may be a pacifist and agree with that, too.
But there's practical reality at play here. Pacifism doesn't always work in the face of aggression.
This is the OP for this thread, some good answers here, and this is what I draw from it.
1. I pose a higher risk in someone's credit model because, with no debt, I have no recent history of installment payments (such as a mortgage would provide).
2. I offer a lower profit potential since the CC company will never get any interest from me. They do make plenty with swipe fees, but they can make tons more from someone who pays interest. Add to this (2a) that the CC company's risk does go up, even if slightly, if I get a higher limit, without them getting any upside except some swipe fees (minus cashback; see below).
3. I naively assumed--- and at my age I know better--- that the CC company would be interested in providing service in return for my business. Fat chance of that.
As to why I care:
1. I do use credit cards as a convenience, and I focus on the card with the greatest cashback, so that card get used very heavily. (And, now that I write it out, it's obvious that such usage--- taking the maximum cashback while not ever paying interest--- is hardly an incentive for the CC company to give me a limit increase.)
2. I'd want a higher limit to be able to make large one-time purchases on occasion, such as a new car or perhaps even a round the world cruise (well, probably not that! but you get the idea).
And as to the idea of going into debt being more optimal for me personally: That may in fact be true (although I certainly invest rather than keep savings in a savings account!). However I'm at an age where security of capital (so that it can produce income) is important. Investments in quality dividend-bearing mutual funds are about the right level of risk.
Thanks to all for a good discussion which for me, at least, clarified several points.
This reminds me of something said by a very wise Professor I had in grad school. I "go back a ways" and I was in grad school just as electronic hand held calculators were beginning to appear, and slide rules were in their last days.
The Prof declared that the new calculators were an efficient way to calculate the wrong answer to a high degree of precision.
In other words, whether calculator, slide rule, computer, or whatever device --- none of them substitute for knowledge and judgment.
I too have 800+ credit scores, very good savings, and a paid-off home. Therein lies the problem. I don't have any debt any more, and while I use credit cards for nearly everything, I never carry a balance beyond the payment due dates. I've been retired for a while and have a steady pension income that is quite adequate.
So I asked for an increase in my credit card limit, and was turned down, with the EXPLICIT statement, "You don't have enough debt." Not "your credit isn't good enough"--- they as much as said my credit was just fine.
In other words they see that in their industry I am, and will remain, what is called a "deadbeat." This does not mean a non-payer, this means someone who PAYS and doesn't carry balances, thereby denying the banks the opportunity to collect interest at extortionate interest rates.
Is there something wrong with this whole system?
Good point, thanks for posting the clarification. The little guys competed and survived on merit alone. They ended up doing a lot of good work for just enough money to get by[1]. The big guys had the right friends in the right places. They did a lot of bad work, if you can even call it work, and collected the maximum possible. Two different worlds.
[1] There was one major exception to this, but I'll leave it unsaid and avoid all the flames from the SJWs.
I think a lot of projects aren't terminated early enough. A small failure becomes a medium one becomes a giant one. Egotistical managers insist on "making it work" long past the point of no return.
It takes real courage to say, "This is failing, let's cut our losses now and not throw good money after bad."
As an ex-government person I support your statement. There were/are some of us, quite a few in fact, who actually did care and actually believed in the mission and tried despite all obstacles to carry it out. We understood that it was American taxpayer money we were spending and that we were morally accountable.
The biggest problem I saw was the army of Beltway Bandits anxious to land contracts and then bill for millions while producing nothing of value.
If I lived there, I'd certainly leave.
Evidently you don't live here and that's something we both can be glad about.
No no no ... they made an agreement with Obama not to hack any more and of course we can trust them, after all we trust the Iranians.....
I think I'll just keep playing Civ I under DOSemu :)
That is the CIO's job.
You clearly don't get it. Management's job is always to blame the staff for everything.
At some point the offspring will encounter opposing view points, perhaps discover that evil exists in the world.
They are being taught that evil exists in the world, in the form of straight white males.
But there are other disciplines where it seems like it's a competition to find the best purple prose
Math textbooks, for one. I've seen so many texts at a more advanced level where the author's purpose is evidently to dazzle the student reader with his or her "brilliance" even if it makes the text no longer something the student can learn from.
I love the way people second-guess Truman's decision to use atomic weapons, and assume they are right.
Truman had to make one of the toughest decisions any human has ever been called upon to make. Would anyone liked to have been in his shoes?
He knew he would be judged by history, but he made the best decision he could given what he knew.
His grade was based on his penmanship.
There's more to this than you realize. When I was in the lower grades way back when, this was a big deal. If you had good penmanship, you were a good little kid and your work was "good." If you didn't have good penmanship, well, obviously you were a bad kid and your work was "bad." And if you committed the ultimate sin and were creative--- heaven help you.
I succeeded in life in spite of school, not because of it.
I don't have mod points today, but thanks for one of the most pointed and meaningful ./ posts I've ever seen.
The problem here is that every big storm is taken by the "alarmists" to be solid evidence of catastrophic climate change. This only fuels the "deniers" who say that "alarmists" take every excuse to push their agenda ... something both sides actually do.
When we phrase everything as a contest between "sides" we lose track of the reality. If dangerous climate change is indeed taking place while we're so caught up in fighting for our "side" we will really be in trouble. If dangerous climate change isn't taking place, we will have had a big fight for nothing, but that would be a safer outcome. I've said this many times: could we please concentrate on serious, non-politicized science?
Fat chance, but it's the only way out.
This is irrelevant to the main discussion, but in fact checkers has already been solved and found to be a draw. That doesn't mean it doesn't have depth and interest for humans. Not at all. Humans are not zillion-processor supercomputers.
Cars can go faster than any human, but we still compete in running races. Cranes can lift more than any person, but we still have weight-lifting competitions.
Many of us enjoy checkers. I have thousands of readers, of all ages and from around the world, who attest to that.
"We had an ad-free internet once. We can have one again."
I wish that were true. Maybe it's possible.
I run a site for checker enthusiasts ... I've run it almost 11 years with weekly updates and no ads, not ever, not even one. I run it because I want to, and there are plenty of other people doing similar things. Do I feel the need to monetize it? It costs me $10 a month for hosting, and how much revenue could I realistically get? It's not worth ruining it for my readers, even if I could make a little money. The fun would be gone for me and for them.
That's what most of the internet used to be. There's still some of it left, but the percentage isn't high.
I read through the linked article and it's enough to make me sick. In the end it's just another feminist who hates evil white males, 100% of whom are oppressors and 100% of whom deserve to die. The ostensible thesis, though, is that by praising successful Asians we promote prejudice against blacks. Seriously ... white people can't get anything right, apparently ... even when they praise people who have overcome hardship and done well, there has to be a reprehensible motive for it.
Many people have worked their way up. With great courage and perseverance they earned their success. They deserve praise. And we ought to, now, withhold that praise because some others didn't succeed in the same way?
So a Windows phone is somehow going to be better?
Guess again. iOS updates don't do well on older phones by design.
There's something else that as yet hasn't been mentioned. You can fix up elderly[1] clients who don't have a lot of money (most of us, I think) with a cast-off, older machine that you might be able to get for free. For basic browsing needs, as long as you have about 2 GB of memory (so that videos run without stutter), you don't need much of a machine. Linux is fabulous for older machines now considered low-spec[2].
When you fix up an elderly client on a limited income with a free computer that does what they need with little fuss or hassle, I think you're doing quite a commendable thing.
[1] I qualify as elderly myself but I've kept up with technology over the years.
[2] Like my 6+ year old Acer netbook, with 2 GB of memory, which does browsing, videos, etc., just fine on Mint 17. Okay, it takes 60 seconds to boot ....