That's the most naive thing I've ever read. Businesses don't care about capitalism. Businesses care about profit. If anything capitalism, in it's most idealistic form, is a detriment to a profitable business.
I agree with the "plays itself" notion. I used the same exact tactic for every fight and it worked every time in their linear world. D2 kicked the shit out of DS1 because the mobs had varied behavior and what worked on one type of mobs may fail miserably on another type. The Gas Powered Games people just can't seem to get that an action adventure game shouldn't "play itself". Once again, D2, as old as it is, still kicks the competition's ass. How sad is that?
It doesn't help if you simply insist it isn't so, you need to show that Goedel's theorem is wrong, or something of this magnitude.
Wikipedia:
1) The theorem does not imply that every interesting axiom system is incomplete. For example, Euclidean geometry can be axiomatized so that it is a complete system. (In fact, Euclid's original axioms are pretty close to being a complete axiomatization. The missing axioms express properties that seem so obvious that it took the emergence of the idea of a formal proof before their absence was noticed.)
2) The theorem only applies to systems that allow you to define the natural numbers as a set. It is not sufficient that the system contain the natural numbers. You must also be able to express the concept "x is a natural number" using your axioms and first-order logic. There are plenty of systems that contain the natural numbers and are complete. For example both the real numbers and complex numbers have complete axiomatizations."
I think you need to read more about Goedel's theorems before you start equating them to every random discussion you come across. I would suggest you go to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gödel's_incompletenes s_theorem
Then search for the "misconceptions" part where it basically points out that you have no idea what you're talking about.
I'm not trying to steal Laplace's idea. I will never promote my view as "badmammajamma's demon" or anything else. My point is that I do not have full knowledge of what he's arguing so don't hold me to arguing his opinion since I don't fully know what it is. In any event, since you've already said that I know nothing of physics because I know nothing of Laplace, it is by definition MY FUCKING IDEA. The fact that it happens to be the same or similar to his is merely coincidence.
"And this "demon"'s theoretical ability to exist has vanished, see the links given in the other post. And while one should never quote Wikipedia, this one has an interesting angle,..."
Yes, one shouldn't quote wikipedia unless of course it supports your view. Shit, nobody does that. In any event, you couldn't possibly be stupid enough to think that I would believe something so retarded as "there ain't enough time in the universe to figure it out". The scientist with the limited imagination who came up with such an idiotic conclusion should be shot. As Pickard once said, "Something is only impossible until it's possible." I believe that too. Don't worry though...I won't run around saying it's badmammajamma's axiom, law, demon or anything like that.
And finally, do you even have an opinion? Or are you just playing devil's advocate?
Yes, because I don't know the life story of Pierre de Laplace I obviously know nothing of physics. Frankly, I don't give a shit about Pierre because I'm arguing my opinion NOT his.
Thanks for your glib response though. You obviously have a real argument to make. lol
I won't comment on the dude from 1792 because I don't know anything about him other than the quote from the link you posted.
As for it not being true anymore... I would rephrase it to "Scientists found out there are more variables than they previously had anticipated and since they don't understand the new variables yet, they are now espousing shit that sounds a lot like hocus-pocus. Eventually, scientists will understand these things and will be able to work with them or work around them; however, we may all be long dead before that happens."
One should always be careful about equating something to the mystical unknown -- even scientists. Eventually, everything is known. Or to put it simply, everything is unknown until it's known.
There is no magic or man behind the curtain. There is simply a curtain.
"I'm not talking about vulnerabilities, I'm talking about lousy design. Currently, there are no well known and published vulnerabilities due to the fact that RPC etc. are exposed on the network, that does not change the fact that they are still there. Unknown exploits may well exist or crop up at any time. No one with any sense designs a product so that local services have to run on a network port because it gives crackers a great place to look for holes. I guarantee you there are flaws and they will probably be exploited. And yes I'm talking about Windows XP with Service Pack 2."
I have no intention of defending Windows security design because I know as well as anyone else that Msft doesn't have a fucking clue what they are doing. My point is that, as sucky as Windows security is, I get by just fine. I have never been infected by a virus except at work but that's outside of my control. Stuff in my control I nail down tight. I use password safes, I NEVER type in passwords. All sensitive data is encrypted, etc. This stuff you can do quite easily on any Windows box.
"There are plenty of differences. Conceptually, however, I don't see much difference at all. Both are upgrades from poorly designed and outdated systems to newer ones that work better and have a lot more, useful features."
You keep focusing on this whole "which one is better" idea. That's only a small part of it. The real question is: "How much will it cost me to move to the on that's better?" This is simple economics and the benefit has to justify the cost.
"I won't argue with how much you have to spend because I don't know what your hardware and software requirements are. Just think, however, next time you upgrade that there is an alternative to buying a new Windows machine or OS. You are putting a $50 value on features you've never used. For me, well OS X saves me an hour of work a day and often more than that. I squander that time here on Slashdot. You'll probably remain a Windows user for a long time and you'll probably rave about all the new Vista features OS X users have been enjoying for the last few years. Why should you switch? I don't know that you should. It all depends upon what you do with your computer and what your specific needs and resources are. I can tell you this though, over the last several years more than half of the security experts I know have switched from Linux and Windows to OS X and plenty of people in other fields. Of all the people I know, none of them have ever switched back to Windows. Why do you suppose that is?"
I'm a gamer so I need a pretty badass machine: faster processor, very fast video card, plenty of RAM, etc. As for raving about new Vista features...I dunno. Usually the only reason I upgrade Windows is because I have to because some app I need requires it. It's hard to imagine I will ever rave about anything Msft builds since most of it is ass. Finally, if you think simply switching from XP to OSX makes you secure, you have a lot to learn about security.
"Actually it was just under 6 months. And UT2004 was released within a month. What does that prove? It took a year for Escape Velocity to be ported to the PC. I guess if games are your primary concern you should have one of each."
That's funny, my Mac buddy had to wait a year before he could get it. Then another month or two before they patched it so that the frame rate wasn't horrible.
"Of course you don't. Of course you don't need Windows XP either, you can get by with Windows 98..."
Yeah, yeah. I predicted this response. There's a big difference between going from 98 to XP and going from XP to the Mac. I presume you're intelligent enough that I don't need to explain why? And I'm sorry but the stuff you talk about is just sugar. Windows has everything I need. It's not that I think it's a great OS, but it's good enough that I'm not going to spend a crapload of money to buy a machine with an OS that has more bells and whistles (of which, I don't need any of them.)
As for security...I have a hardware firewall. I don't have to use Windows firewall to block ports or any of that shit. Anyone with any sense has a hardware firewall anyway. Also, since XP SP2, the vulnerabilities you speak of are gone anyway.
Please explain to me why I should spend $2k for a few features that are worth, at most, $50 to me.
Everything is predictable scientifically. It's just that there's too many variables to do it practically. Consequently, most scientific based prediction tools (such as weather prediction) use the most significant variables known to obtain a "mostly accurate" result. If there were no limit on variables, you could even predict what any given human would do under any given circumstance.
I'd like to know what it is that you feel you can predict better now than you could back when you were an athiest.
According to your link, 2/3rds of all scientists believe in god. For me this translates as: 2/3rds of all scientists aren't worth listening to because the believe magic, faeries, pixie dust, deities, ghosts, or other non-proveable bullshit. This problably explains why such a small number of scientists (the ones who don't believe in gods and faeries and other stupid shit) actually make any real progress moving science forward.
"That's not really true you know, right? Sure there are some games you can't play, but most games are ported and a number of good games never get ported from the the mac to Windows. If you just want to play games you might as well buy a console."
First, you should be advised that I have a good friend that's a Mac biggot so I know the drill. Some games are ported to the Mac but MANY are not. In some cases, the games take many months before they are ported: Unreal Tournament 2k3 took over a year to be ported. That's simply unacceptible to any real gamer. Some Mac game ports are incapible of talking to their PC counterparts (for online play). I also hate the vast majority of console games. Additionally, I prefer the keyboard and mouse over the controller.
"How about spell checking, grammar checking, language translation, dictionary/thesaurus/google lookup of all text everywhere? How about just using the same spell checking dictionary in both your mail and word processor if you so desire? How about the ability to make a PDF from every application without having to buy additional software? How about being able to view PDFs without your machine grinding to a halt while they load? How about being able to leave your computer running 24/7 for a month with a dozen applications open without worrying about your machine slowing down or a game running slowly because other programs are open? How about having the option of viewing all of your open windows simultaneously and instantly with a single mouse button press and being able to select from among them? How about being able, without additional software and without writing a line of code to automatically script hundreds of different computer operations from renaming files to downloading images from a web site, scaling them to size, inserting them in a PDF, and e-mailing them to a given address. How about being able to find and launch any program, file, website, etc. with a quick 5 keystrokes that are ordered in such a way that you don't need to memorized them (cmd-space-1st letter of name - 2nd letter - enter)? How about just being able to browse the web and open any e-mail message without having to worry that it might contain a virus or internet worm?"
That's quite a mouthful. However, of all the things you mention, I can either 1) download software the gives me that functionality, or 2) don't need that functionality. In regards to performance, I simply don't have performance problems. I can have World of Warcraft running with a half dozen other apps running and everything is simply honkey-dorey. I'm sorry but I just don't see the benefit especially when you factor in the cost premium.
What's the point? There's numerous add-ons for IE that have been around for a long time now that give this kind of functionality. The only difference is that they don't try to emulate the look of firefox
"Windows has fallen behind and is trying to catch up. Deal with it."
Really? What exactly am I missing? I've NEVER sat at my XP machine and said, "Damn, if only I was using OSX right now!"
Frankly, OSX (any version) would be a HUGE downgrade for me since you can't play most games on it. All the other shit I need a computer for like browsing, email, DAP sync, word processing works just fine under XP.
So, I say again, what does OSX have that I actually need? Cute UI bullshit isn't a need.
"Calories arent bad, the body needs as many calories as you can give it. It's the quality of the calories which make the difference."
Actually this is not true. What I said before is correct: calories consumed vs. calories burned. If you don't burn the calories, it simply turns to fat and you gain weight. In fact, I'm living proof that you can still eat garbage and still lose weight by merely controlling your quantity. Weight Watchers is actually based on this principle. The difference is that they try and make sure you have the food groups properly represented.
This is true. The French not only have less heart disease they also have far less obesity.
The reason for this has been explained in many ways including the use of oils not containing transfats, drinking wine, and more exercise. Personally, I think all of that has something to do with it. However, I think it's mostly that people in the US simply eat too damn much. We're fucking gluttons.
I started watching what I eat from the perspective of quantity only. I made almost no changes as far as what kinds of foods I eat. Simply reducing my food intake to eating only when I'm hungry has resulted in a loss of 7 lbs. in two months. Now, you might say 7 lb.s in two months is weak but you have to remember that it took me a LONG time to put on weight. The nice thing about this is I don't feel like I'm sacrificing jack shit. I can still eat shit foods if I want, I just don't eat tons of food anymore.
At the end of the day it's all about calories consumed vs. calories burned. If the consumed > burned, you get heavy. Either consume less or or burn more (or both) to correct the problem.
I see where you're coming from. Hell, I was surprised I couldn't donate blood because of the UK restriction. However, maybe the reason only 200 people have died from it is because of the severe restrictions?
Dogma? What the fuck are you talking about? I don't recall entering anything into this discussion about WMA other than fact that I want a player that supports it. Stfu and read the thread before you open your fucking trap, dipshit.
"Almost nobody cares about OGG, FLAC or even WMA these days."
Lets rephrase this so that it's actually accurate... "Nobody who uses an iPod cares about OGG, FLAC, or WMA these days."
"Besides looks, the iPod has a huge third-party addon market and the largest online music store to supply users with music."
I don't need addons. I just need the damn thing to play my music and if I need an addon for that then I don't want it. As for the largest online music store...who cares? 95% of the music I have I buy in CD form. I rip it myself because iTunes (and others) doesn't provide sufficient quality. That said, I really don't care to get into a debate on online music retailers.
"Having briefly used a Karma I actually cannot fully understand what part of uisng that device you consider superiour to the iPod. I do of course only use my device to play music and perhaps there's some additional feature you make use of I would have no use for."
I only use my Karma for playing music. To compare the two, just try picking a song from one of your favorite albums and navigate to it as quickly as you can. I guarantee you that I can do it twice as fast on a Karma as you can on an iPod. No special search utility...just raw navigation.
Actually, I did figure that in. Admittedly, there's completely different design philosophies used in the Karma and the iPod. The iPod is designed for the average Joe and is very easy to get around and use but lacks the navigational efficiency of the Karma. I can navigate to a song in an album much faster in a Karma than an iPod.
So, which is better? This boils down to personal taste. For me, I'd rather have the efficiency of the karma.
"Truth is, Apple simply crushed them with superior development, product and marketing."
I take issue with the "product" part of that sentence. I would put my Karma up against any iPod, any day. The only thing the iPod had over the Karma was looks. In every other way, the Karma is the superior product. Just like Windows, the iPud wins on better marketing and sexier wrapping paper. *sigh*
Anyway, this is sad. I was really hoping for a next gen Karma, mainly for the option of getting a bigger hard drive. 20gig is pretty good but I really need a 40gig. Anyone know of a player that has >20gig of space, plays OGG, FLAC, WMA, and is reasonably compact?
Fear not, Mr. History Teacher. When I was in high school I had no interest in history and thought it was a complete waste of time. Ironically, my favorite teacher would become a history teacher who used to go into all kinds of details about war strategies used in the civil war and other wars involving America. I would sit there and listen very intently to everything he had to say about these battles. However, I still only got a C in his class. This was in part due to his tough tests and partially because even though I found his lectures interesting, I still never did my history homework.:)
Fastforward about 10 years... I developed a great appreciation for history and watch all this shit on the history channel, read books, have discussions with friends, etc. What really matters in the end is whether the person you are teaching is ready for the information. I wasn't in high school but many years later I was. I still remember that teacher though and wish I could sit there and listen to him talk about those battles once again. Cest la vie...
My experience is very similar to yours. The REALLY smart people tend to be really fucked up. The people I know in the 120 - 150 range do the best. People over 150 seem to have serious issues. They may be geniuses but they simply can't handle it. I don't think our brains have evolved enough to manage it well.
Note: those numbers are mostly estimates based on my knowledge of my own IQ and the abilities of the people in relation to me and others where I know their exact IQ.
Slashdot Mirror
That's the most naive thing I've ever read. Businesses don't care about capitalism. Businesses care about profit. If anything capitalism, in it's most idealistic form, is a detriment to a profitable business.
I agree with the "plays itself" notion. I used the same exact tactic for every fight and it worked every time in their linear world. D2 kicked the shit out of DS1 because the mobs had varied behavior and what worked on one type of mobs may fail miserably on another type. The Gas Powered Games people just can't seem to get that an action adventure game shouldn't "play itself". Once again, D2, as old as it is, still kicks the competition's ass. How sad is that?
Wikipedia:
The theorem does not apply.
I think you need to read more about Goedel's theorems before you start equating them to every random discussion you come across. I would suggest you go to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gödel's_incompletenes s_theorem
Then search for the "misconceptions" part where it basically points out that you have no idea what you're talking about.
Yes, one shouldn't quote wikipedia unless of course it supports your view. Shit, nobody does that. In any event, you couldn't possibly be stupid enough to think that I would believe something so retarded as "there ain't enough time in the universe to figure it out". The scientist with the limited imagination who came up with such an idiotic conclusion should be shot. As Pickard once said, "Something is only impossible until it's possible." I believe that too. Don't worry though...I won't run around saying it's badmammajamma's axiom, law, demon or anything like that.
And finally, do you even have an opinion? Or are you just playing devil's advocate?
Yes, because I don't know the life story of Pierre de Laplace I obviously know nothing of physics. Frankly, I don't give a shit about Pierre because I'm arguing my opinion NOT his.
Thanks for your glib response though. You obviously have a real argument to make. lol
I won't comment on the dude from 1792 because I don't know anything about him other than the quote from the link you posted.
As for it not being true anymore...
I would rephrase it to "Scientists found out there are more variables than they previously had anticipated and since they don't understand the new variables yet, they are now espousing shit that sounds a lot like hocus-pocus. Eventually, scientists will understand these things and will be able to work with them or work around them; however, we may all be long dead before that happens."
One should always be careful about equating something to the mystical unknown -- even scientists. Eventually, everything is known. Or to put it simply, everything is unknown until it's known.
There is no magic or man behind the curtain. There is simply a curtain.
I have no intention of defending Windows security design because I know as well as anyone else that Msft doesn't have a fucking clue what they are doing. My point is that, as sucky as Windows security is, I get by just fine. I have never been infected by a virus except at work but that's outside of my control. Stuff in my control I nail down tight. I use password safes, I NEVER type in passwords. All sensitive data is encrypted, etc. This stuff you can do quite easily on any Windows box.
You keep focusing on this whole "which one is better" idea. That's only a small part of it. The real question is: "How much will it cost me to move to the on that's better?" This is simple economics and the benefit has to justify the cost.
I'm a gamer so I need a pretty badass machine: faster processor, very fast video card, plenty of RAM, etc. As for raving about new Vista features...I dunno. Usually the only reason I upgrade Windows is because I have to because some app I need requires it. It's hard to imagine I will ever rave about anything Msft builds since most of it is ass. Finally, if you think simply switching from XP to OSX makes you secure, you have a lot to learn about security.
"Actually it was just under 6 months. And UT2004 was released within a month. What does that prove? It took a year for Escape Velocity to be ported to the PC. I guess if games are your primary concern you should have one of each."
That's funny, my Mac buddy had to wait a year before he could get it. Then another month or two before they patched it so that the frame rate wasn't horrible.
"Of course you don't. Of course you don't need Windows XP either, you can get by with Windows 98..."
Yeah, yeah. I predicted this response. There's a big difference between going from 98 to XP and going from XP to the Mac. I presume you're intelligent enough that I don't need to explain why? And I'm sorry but the stuff you talk about is just sugar. Windows has everything I need. It's not that I think it's a great OS, but it's good enough that I'm not going to spend a crapload of money to buy a machine with an OS that has more bells and whistles (of which, I don't need any of them.)
As for security...I have a hardware firewall. I don't have to use Windows firewall to block ports or any of that shit. Anyone with any sense has a hardware firewall anyway. Also, since XP SP2, the vulnerabilities you speak of are gone anyway.
Please explain to me why I should spend $2k for a few features that are worth, at most, $50 to me.
Everything is predictable scientifically. It's just that there's too many variables to do it practically. Consequently, most scientific based prediction tools (such as weather prediction) use the most significant variables known to obtain a "mostly accurate" result. If there were no limit on variables, you could even predict what any given human would do under any given circumstance.
I'd like to know what it is that you feel you can predict better now than you could back when you were an athiest.
According to your link, 2/3rds of all scientists believe in god. For me this translates as: 2/3rds of all scientists aren't worth listening to because the believe magic, faeries, pixie dust, deities, ghosts, or other non-proveable bullshit. This problably explains why such a small number of scientists (the ones who don't believe in gods and faeries and other stupid shit) actually make any real progress moving science forward.
First, you should be advised that I have a good friend that's a Mac biggot so I know the drill. Some games are ported to the Mac but MANY are not. In some cases, the games take many months before they are ported: Unreal Tournament 2k3 took over a year to be ported. That's simply unacceptible to any real gamer. Some Mac game ports are incapible of talking to their PC counterparts (for online play). I also hate the vast majority of console games. Additionally, I prefer the keyboard and mouse over the controller.
That's quite a mouthful. However, of all the things you mention, I can either 1) download software the gives me that functionality, or 2) don't need that functionality. In regards to performance, I simply don't have performance problems. I can have World of Warcraft running with a half dozen other apps running and everything is simply honkey-dorey. I'm sorry but I just don't see the benefit especially when you factor in the cost premium.
What's the point? There's numerous add-ons for IE that have been around for a long time now that give this kind of functionality. The only difference is that they don't try to emulate the look of firefox
"Windows has fallen behind and is trying to catch up. Deal with it."
Really? What exactly am I missing? I've NEVER sat at my XP machine and said, "Damn, if only I was using OSX right now!"
Frankly, OSX (any version) would be a HUGE downgrade for me since you can't play most games on it. All the other shit I need a computer for like browsing, email, DAP sync, word processing works just fine under XP.
So, I say again, what does OSX have that I actually need? Cute UI bullshit isn't a need.
"Calories arent bad, the body needs as many calories as you can give it. It's the quality of the calories which make the difference."
Actually this is not true. What I said before is correct: calories consumed vs. calories burned. If you don't burn the calories, it simply turns to fat and you gain weight. In fact, I'm living proof that you can still eat garbage and still lose weight by merely controlling your quantity. Weight Watchers is actually based on this principle. The difference is that they try and make sure you have the food groups properly represented.
This is true. The French not only have less heart disease they also have far less obesity.
The reason for this has been explained in many ways including the use of oils not containing transfats, drinking wine, and more exercise. Personally, I think all of that has something to do with it. However, I think it's mostly that people in the US simply eat too damn much. We're fucking gluttons.
I started watching what I eat from the perspective of quantity only. I made almost no changes as far as what kinds of foods I eat. Simply reducing my food intake to eating only when I'm hungry has resulted in a loss of 7 lbs. in two months. Now, you might say 7 lb.s in two months is weak but you have to remember that it took me a LONG time to put on weight. The nice thing about this is I don't feel like I'm sacrificing jack shit. I can still eat shit foods if I want, I just don't eat tons of food anymore.
At the end of the day it's all about calories consumed vs. calories burned. If the consumed > burned, you get heavy. Either consume less or or burn more (or both) to correct the problem.
I see where you're coming from. Hell, I was surprised I couldn't donate blood because of the UK restriction. However, maybe the reason only 200 people have died from it is because of the severe restrictions?
Dogma? What the fuck are you talking about? I don't recall entering anything into this discussion about WMA other than fact that I want a player that supports it. Stfu and read the thread before you open your fucking trap, dipshit.
"Almost nobody cares about OGG, FLAC or even WMA these days."
Lets rephrase this so that it's actually accurate...
"Nobody who uses an iPod cares about OGG, FLAC, or WMA these days."
"Besides looks, the iPod has a huge third-party addon market and the largest online music store to supply users with music."
I don't need addons. I just need the damn thing to play my music and if I need an addon for that then I don't want it. As for the largest online music store...who cares? 95% of the music I have I buy in CD form. I rip it myself because iTunes (and others) doesn't provide sufficient quality. That said, I really don't care to get into a debate on online music retailers.
"Having briefly used a Karma I actually cannot fully understand what part of uisng that device you consider superiour to the iPod. I do of course only use my device to play music and perhaps there's some additional feature you make use of I would have no use for."
I only use my Karma for playing music. To compare the two, just try picking a song from one of your favorite albums and navigate to it as quickly as you can. I guarantee you that I can do it twice as fast on a Karma as you can on an iPod. No special search utility...just raw navigation.
Actually, I did figure that in. Admittedly, there's completely different design philosophies used in the Karma and the iPod. The iPod is designed for the average Joe and is very easy to get around and use but lacks the navigational efficiency of the Karma. I can navigate to a song in an album much faster in a Karma than an iPod.
So, which is better? This boils down to personal taste. For me, I'd rather have the efficiency of the karma.
Apparently you never heard of OS/2 or the battle between the operating systems and how Windows won...
"Truth is, Apple simply crushed them with superior development, product and marketing."
I take issue with the "product" part of that sentence. I would put my Karma up against any iPod, any day. The only thing the iPod had over the Karma was looks. In every other way, the Karma is the superior product. Just like Windows, the iPud wins on better marketing and sexier wrapping paper. *sigh*
Anyway, this is sad. I was really hoping for a next gen Karma, mainly for the option of getting a bigger hard drive. 20gig is pretty good but I really need a 40gig. Anyone know of a player that has >20gig of space, plays OGG, FLAC, WMA, and is reasonably compact?
Fear not, Mr. History Teacher. When I was in high school I had no interest in history and thought it was a complete waste of time. Ironically, my favorite teacher would become a history teacher who used to go into all kinds of details about war strategies used in the civil war and other wars involving America. I would sit there and listen very intently to everything he had to say about these battles. However, I still only got a C in his class. This was in part due to his tough tests and partially because even though I found his lectures interesting, I still never did my history homework. :)
Fastforward about 10 years...
I developed a great appreciation for history and watch all this shit on the history channel, read books, have discussions with friends, etc. What really matters in the end is whether the person you are teaching is ready for the information. I wasn't in high school but many years later I was. I still remember that teacher though and wish I could sit there and listen to him talk about those battles once again. Cest la vie...
My experience is very similar to yours. The REALLY smart people tend to be really fucked up. The people I know in the 120 - 150 range do the best. People over 150 seem to have serious issues. They may be geniuses but they simply can't handle it. I don't think our brains have evolved enough to manage it well.
Note: those numbers are mostly estimates based on my knowledge of my own IQ and the abilities of the people in relation to me and others where I know their exact IQ.