One one hand I agree with you, sure the world may have looked pretty bad in 1947, but starting it at 5 to didn't really leave them much room for if the situation got worse.
On the other hand, it all depends on what you mean by "carrying on." The world "carried on" through 1939-1945, but that'd probably be at midnight on the clock.
They took the visible stats out, because too many people were gaming the stats and not playing the game organically, and letting their character develop naturally as they played. Which was their goal with TES4 in the first place. They didn't want people bunnyhopping everywhere to raise their athletics, repeatedly stealing an item and putting it back to raise theivery or finding an NPC that stands still, crouching behind a hedge and then walking back and forth to raise stealth. In other words, they did what they did to discourage the anal retentive min-maxers, not to "dumb it down" for console players.
There have been plenty of console RPG's with tons of stats so don't blame us for Bethesda finally cracking down on stupid basement dwelling RPG min-maxers.
A) Unless you're talking about an MMO or similar, if someone wants to do something retarded with their game then that's totally their decision.
B) Taking the stats out doesn't stop people doing stuff like that, if anything it makes them do it for longer to make sure they really have made it up to the level they want. (This part is where I start making assumptions about a game with which I'm only marginally familiar) The numbers are still there, they're just hidden from the player, so people will work out a way to back-calculate them and do exactly the same thing.
I think the issue is that under Sun, Java didn't suck, where Oracle seems to have made it suck in order to make money from it. People here are (generally) in favour of companies making money by delivering good products. The issues come up when they try to squeeze too much money out and by doing so degrade their products quality.
You know, I used to have a teacher that told me to read the question, and then answer the question being asked, rather than just skimming through it and writing something vaguely related to the subject.
Back on topic though, it's difficult to say whether or not the majority of the US is for/against gay marriage. The political system is set up to resist change, unless there is a big driving force to change it, so it is still possible for a majority to be in favour of it, but not enough of a majority to do anything about it. Also take in to account factors like old people voting in far higher numbers than young people, and you're back to pushing some stupid moral agenda on people who don't want it.
I agree with your sentiments about marriage. I makes me laugh that "small government" Republicans still would ban gay marriage. Low government interference, for some things...
So by banning it, that is imposing the moral agenda of the people who oppose it on to the people who are actually want to get married. The fact that two gay men happen to be married doesn't affect you in the slightest, there is no reason to be against gay marriage other than wanting everyone to live by your morals.
There could be quite a spirited debate about affirmative action, but allowing gay marriage is, like, the opposite of pushing your moral agenda on to people.
I guess people that mug others for money aren't particularly known for making good decisions, though.
Exactly. I read something on here a while ago (someone posted it) about a comparison of crimes vs. legitimate jobs using similar skills. Surprise, surprise everyone would do better to get a real job.
I got to trying to work that one out for myself a little while ago. I couldn't solve it on my own so I went to the internet for assistance. The solution I found multiplied by some huge prime number at the end, and I could never work out why, so I've shelved that problem for a little while...
(and with any design flaws found during those years mitigated)
Therein lies the rub. Had Fukushima been retrofitted with a passive cooling system none of these conversations would be taking place. Anything too expensive finds ways of not happening.
Even then, goods that need to be transported further will increase in price more, leading more people to choose locally produced stuff, benefiting the economy in that way.
I've always wanted to do something like that. I'm fairly sure it'd end up very badly for you, but it'd be fun anyway. Actually it wouldn't be that much fun, they'd radio for units in the area, the goons in the station would radio back, and you'd be arrested for filing a false report.
There were a couple of shindigs that went down in Europe before the Eastern Block was created. You may have seen TV shows about them, they were called World War 1 and World War 2.
The US also has a huge complex government, what with the DHS, TSA, UCIS, SOPA, PATRIOT ACT, decade long wars with random middle east countries, wars on drugs and poverty. I'm not as familiar with the EU, but they must be doing a hell of a lot that I don't know about if they're failing harder than the US.
Actually, looking at it again, that line looks more like an average than a regression... From that same site there this graphic: http://www.nerc-bas.ac.uk/icd/gjma/trends2010.col.pdf, showing that at 8 of the 16 stations there was a significant warming trend, with a significant cooling trend at only 2 stations.
I will agree with you that it is silly to attach a global warming angle to everything. The temperature is what it is, and you can only talk about global warming when you consider the whole planet.
So just zoom in on it. The trend line on the chart shows less than 1 degree increase over the time period. It does however show a lot more variance in the more recent readings than in the earlier readings... not sure exactly what we can read in to that...
So because we've already instituted a reasonable measure with low cost and a very high effectiveness, we should now go on to less reasonable measures with higher costs and lower marginal effectiveness. Good plan!
That's almost exactly how hsthompson69 described it
There's a small change in the environment, and the creatures that can't cope die. Then there's another small change and the creatures that could cope with the first but not the second change die off. Eventually it changes far enough that only the best adapted to that change are left. In the case of a sudden change, all the creatures that would have died over the course of the change die all at once.
Slashdot Mirror
One one hand I agree with you, sure the world may have looked pretty bad in 1947, but starting it at 5 to didn't really leave them much room for if the situation got worse.
On the other hand, it all depends on what you mean by "carrying on." The world "carried on" through 1939-1945, but that'd probably be at midnight on the clock.
They took the visible stats out, because too many people were gaming the stats and not playing the game organically, and letting their character develop naturally as they played. Which was their goal with TES4 in the first place. They didn't want people bunnyhopping everywhere to raise their athletics, repeatedly stealing an item and putting it back to raise theivery or finding an NPC that stands still, crouching behind a hedge and then walking back and forth to raise stealth. In other words, they did what they did to discourage the anal retentive min-maxers, not to "dumb it down" for console players.
There have been plenty of console RPG's with tons of stats so don't blame us for Bethesda finally cracking down on stupid basement dwelling RPG min-maxers.
A) Unless you're talking about an MMO or similar, if someone wants to do something retarded with their game then that's totally their decision.
B) Taking the stats out doesn't stop people doing stuff like that, if anything it makes them do it for longer to make sure they really have made it up to the level they want. (This part is where I start making assumptions about a game with which I'm only marginally familiar) The numbers are still there, they're just hidden from the player, so people will work out a way to back-calculate them and do exactly the same thing.
Dude, saying we should plant more trees doesn't mean we have to demolish people's houses to plant trees. There's a lot of land out there.
I think the issue is that under Sun, Java didn't suck, where Oracle seems to have made it suck in order to make money from it. People here are (generally) in favour of companies making money by delivering good products. The issues come up when they try to squeeze too much money out and by doing so degrade their products quality.
You know, I used to have a teacher that told me to read the question, and then answer the question being asked, rather than just skimming through it and writing something vaguely related to the subject.
Back on topic though, it's difficult to say whether or not the majority of the US is for/against gay marriage. The political system is set up to resist change, unless there is a big driving force to change it, so it is still possible for a majority to be in favour of it, but not enough of a majority to do anything about it. Also take in to account factors like old people voting in far higher numbers than young people, and you're back to pushing some stupid moral agenda on people who don't want it.
I agree with your sentiments about marriage. I makes me laugh that "small government" Republicans still would ban gay marriage. Low government interference, for some things...
So by banning it, that is imposing the moral agenda of the people who oppose it on to the people who are actually want to get married. The fact that two gay men happen to be married doesn't affect you in the slightest, there is no reason to be against gay marriage other than wanting everyone to live by your morals.
There could be quite a spirited debate about affirmative action, but allowing gay marriage is, like, the opposite of pushing your moral agenda on to people.
I guess people that mug others for money aren't particularly known for making good decisions, though.
Exactly. I read something on here a while ago (someone posted it) about a comparison of crimes vs. legitimate jobs using similar skills. Surprise, surprise everyone would do better to get a real job.
I got to trying to work that one out for myself a little while ago. I couldn't solve it on my own so I went to the internet for assistance. The solution I found multiplied by some huge prime number at the end, and I could never work out why, so I've shelved that problem for a little while...
(and with any design flaws found during those years mitigated)
Therein lies the rub. Had Fukushima been retrofitted with a passive cooling system none of these conversations would be taking place. Anything too expensive finds ways of not happening.
Even then, goods that need to be transported further will increase in price more, leading more people to choose locally produced stuff, benefiting the economy in that way.
Seriously, your argument is photography? You have so much photographic equipment that it can't fit into a hatchback so you need an SUV?
I've always wanted to do something like that. I'm fairly sure it'd end up very badly for you, but it'd be fun anyway. Actually it wouldn't be that much fun, they'd radio for units in the area, the goons in the station would radio back, and you'd be arrested for filing a false report.
I came here to suggest the Moonlander, but you beat me to it. Surly is a good company that makes really good bikes.
I still don't see how that's a problem. The point of reading a textbook is to learn. If anything the availability of secondary resources is a plus.
There were a couple of shindigs that went down in Europe before the Eastern Block was created. You may have seen TV shows about them, they were called World War 1 and World War 2.
The US also has a huge complex government, what with the DHS, TSA, UCIS, SOPA, PATRIOT ACT, decade long wars with random middle east countries, wars on drugs and poverty. I'm not as familiar with the EU, but they must be doing a hell of a lot that I don't know about if they're failing harder than the US.
In most of my books the answers to the exercises were in the back of the book, why would having them available online be any different?
That concern ended twenty years ago with the fall of the Eastern Bloc.
Can't tell if trolling...
There's the US.
Ok trolling...
Obligatory? http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=49
The only thing they could do is set a fixed $ amount for the royalty rates or rates per ticket and have the cinemas work out their minimum from there.
It is my understanding that this is exactly what does happen.
Nor do they require a capital letter in the proceeding word...
Actually, looking at it again, that line looks more like an average than a regression... From that same site there this graphic: http://www.nerc-bas.ac.uk/icd/gjma/trends2010.col.pdf, showing that at 8 of the 16 stations there was a significant warming trend, with a significant cooling trend at only 2 stations.
I will agree with you that it is silly to attach a global warming angle to everything. The temperature is what it is, and you can only talk about global warming when you consider the whole planet.
So just zoom in on it. The trend line on the chart shows less than 1 degree increase over the time period. It does however show a lot more variance in the more recent readings than in the earlier readings... not sure exactly what we can read in to that...
So because we've already instituted a reasonable measure with low cost and a very high effectiveness, we should now go on to less reasonable measures with higher costs and lower marginal effectiveness. Good plan!
That's almost exactly how hsthompson69 described it
There's a small change in the environment, and the creatures that can't cope die. Then there's another small change and the creatures that could cope with the first but not the second change die off. Eventually it changes far enough that only the best adapted to that change are left. In the case of a sudden change, all the creatures that would have died over the course of the change die all at once.