So an experiment done in 1929 when we knew almost nothing about math education applies how?
So we've learned absolutely nothing about math education for the 2500 or more years we've been teaching it but sometime during the last 80 years we finally learned something?
Every time someone links a "software solution" when asked about recording TV it makes me wonder if they have any common sense. It's like linking the circuit diagram for a toaster when someone says they want a small inexpensive machine to make toast.
Do you like it? If you're going to pick a career in life go with what you feel passionate about and be good at what you do. You may end up starting your own software company and become a billionaire. You may end up working for 10 pounds an hour doing trivial computer related work. The choice is yours.
In the real world, that is not the case, you might have followed the right guide to grind your career to the next level and still never ping because the AI has decided that they shall promote the girl because she is prettier or the guy because he is not a girl. Or the minority because there ain't enough of them or the majority because everyone knows minorities can't cut it.
Are you kidding? All kinds of guilds "promote" players based on the things you describe. "Suzie's not as good as Bob." "Yeah, but she's the only girl we've got. We have to keep her." I don't think you realize how hard it is to get random people to work together to achieve a common goal. Your company may not need more leaders but the world certainly does. Imagine all the new jobs we would have if there were more people willing and able to create successful businesses. Imagine how much better our government would be if the heads of our political parties were focused on governing (leading) rather than on gaining 50% + 1 vote over the other party at the next election. Yes the world needs more (and higher quality) leaders.
Thankfully our corruption is limited. Even though there are corrupt ties between congressmen and special interests, your basic local cop is usually not corrupt. This is the difference.
If it's an AI competition, I doubt the AI teams would be given any more information than the human teams had. Computers could be better at micro management, but probably not by enough to make up for humans' ability to adapt to changing circumstances and come up with new tactics on the fly.
The proof against protectionist tariffs is empirical not theoretical--when tariffs are dropped, standards of living rise. Over the past 50 years tariffs worldwide have fallen dramatically, and simultaneously living standards around the world have improved dramatically. There is no reason to argue in a vacuum about tariffs when there are decades of economic data to explore.
Philosophy provides a "why" and helps put data into context. Without a philosophical foundation, the evidence only "proves" coincidences. How do we know that the increased living standard is due to increased trade as opposed to any of the other things that have increased over the years? Philosophy, that is to say logic and reason, can provide theoretical principles from which we can understand why the correlation exists and helps us predict what might happen under various scenarios. Empirical evidence is best used to support or disprove the theories.
I'm certainly not an economist, but here's my understanding. Economy, at its heart, is just people doing things for each other. Before money, you could do trade-swap
You sir have a solid foundation from which to build. The Economy is in fact people doing things for each other. But some of your conclusions are flawed.
If you give $80 to the local, then he will (probably) spend that $80 locally as well; which means the money keeps flowing around, and will eventually come back to the person who spent $80 instead of $60.
This is true.
However, if you give $60 to the foreigner, you've just taken $60 out of the system: that's less money that will flow around other people and come back to you -- unless the foreigner (or someone else from his country) buys $60 worth of local goods.
This is the part that does not follow. Money is simply a tool to make trading more efficient as you yourself have stated. First you got an $80 something for $60 and second money is usually relatively worthless in itself (paper). So far, you are coming out ahead in this deal. (Do you agree?)
Now one of two things can happen: Either the money never comes back or it does come back.
If it never comes back, it has by definition left your system. If you need more money, you (your government) can create more. Or you could just live with the fact that the money left in the system is worth slightly more (deflation due to lower quantity). It is a bit like cheating because you're getting something for almost nothing, but you are better off.
In the second case it does come back. You indirectly provide a valuable good for the foreigner and we're back to the fundamental of people doing things for each other. This is the non cheating path. And although you're not as well off as you would be if the foreigner never bought anything, you're still better off than not trading because you have the item for $60 instead of $80.
As a side note, foreigners are people too. If you think of the planet as a local economy, the money never leaves the system at all and more people are doing things for each other (presumably in peace and harmony).
In this case, both countries are worse off. "Why should we favor this one particular industry in our country when it makes the citizens of both the US and Canada worse off on average?" with the response being "Averages don't produces campaign funds or votes while this particular industry produces both."
So either its OK to save money by skipping all those human rights things, in which case we should do the same here or the Chinese are not humans like us.
It's an interesting start, but for this argument to be logically sound, you must show that the Chinese would be better off if we didn't buy their camera. Without that piece of the argument your "choice" could be used to justify any action (such as going to war to "liberate" them and save our environment): "Either it's OK to ignore those human rights things and not liberate them, in which case we should enslave Americans and work in polluting factories, or the Chinese are not human like us."
I don't have an HDTV yet. But eventually I will. Eventually I'll hook up my TV to the Internet. It may not be now, but 10 years from now it will probably be a standard feature for new TVs. I'm old enough to remember when nobody had Internet outside of a few College campuses. Actually, most people didn't even have computers. Now almost everyone with a job has a computer and uses the Internet. It's a mistake to think that people will be forever stuck with current technology or that their habits and desires will never change.
not everyone has their TV/Entertainment system hooked up the internet
Not everyone has radio. Not everyone has TV. Not everyone has color TV. Not everyone has cable. Not everyone has Internet access. Not everyone has a VHS player. Not everyone has a DVD player. Not everyone has a blue-ray player.
I don't see how your example is any different than non-automated D&D. Plus, what's the big deal about dieing? If I recall correctly, you don't lose experience or levels anymore. I believe one of the epic level powers or feats is written as "once per day, when you die..." The whole "the party is screwed if one person bites it" meme is so previous editions.
This is a proof of concept. They said the DM has a separate screen/computer to input the enemy movements etc... The actual program is software based so the DM can choose software that lets him have whatever control level he desires. Heck, even without built in rules, the potential variety of map environments and enemy types would be a great addition to any D&D game.
Slashdot Mirror
I believe it would be an infinite loop in C.
Does Java really treat for loops differently than C? Or will the code print nothing?
Coincidentally, I just gave this book as a birthday present to a 9 year old. She said she likes it so far (chapter 5).
So we've learned absolutely nothing about math education for the 2500 or more years we've been teaching it but sometime during the last 80 years we finally learned something?
Every time someone links a "software solution" when asked about recording TV it makes me wonder if they have any common sense. It's like linking the circuit diagram for a toaster when someone says they want a small inexpensive machine to make toast.
Some of us can flex our time such that if we spend 2 hours extra today (for whatever reason) we can go home 2 hours earlier tomorrow.
Do you like it? If you're going to pick a career in life go with what you feel passionate about and be good at what you do. You may end up starting your own software company and become a billionaire. You may end up working for 10 pounds an hour doing trivial computer related work. The choice is yours.
Are you kidding? All kinds of guilds "promote" players based on the things you describe. "Suzie's not as good as Bob." "Yeah, but she's the only girl we've got. We have to keep her." I don't think you realize how hard it is to get random people to work together to achieve a common goal. Your company may not need more leaders but the world certainly does. Imagine all the new jobs we would have if there were more people willing and able to create successful businesses. Imagine how much better our government would be if the heads of our political parties were focused on governing (leading) rather than on gaining 50% + 1 vote over the other party at the next election. Yes the world needs more (and higher quality) leaders.
Well, part of that does sound interesting. About how much time would you say is spent "busting your arse" compared to "feel a genuine thrill?"
It's still not a "real" loss though right? I mean hopefully those months of time "lost" were actually fun to play. Is this the case?
But what Eve has taught me is that while games can be amusing or entertaining, they'll never be thrilling and exciting without a real risk of loss.
What do you consider risk of loss? Do you get a new appendage amputated every time you lose your ship in EvE or is it just pixels?
Sounds like you just described teaching. Become a Software Engineer, not a programmer, if you want good hours.
Thankfully our corruption is limited. Even though there are corrupt ties between congressmen and special interests, your basic local cop is usually not corrupt. This is the difference.
If it's an AI competition, I doubt the AI teams would be given any more information than the human teams had. Computers could be better at micro management, but probably not by enough to make up for humans' ability to adapt to changing circumstances and come up with new tactics on the fly.
Philosophy provides a "why" and helps put data into context. Without a philosophical foundation, the evidence only "proves" coincidences. How do we know that the increased living standard is due to increased trade as opposed to any of the other things that have increased over the years? Philosophy, that is to say logic and reason, can provide theoretical principles from which we can understand why the correlation exists and helps us predict what might happen under various scenarios. Empirical evidence is best used to support or disprove the theories.
You sir have a solid foundation from which to build. The Economy is in fact people doing things for each other. But some of your conclusions are flawed.
This is true.
This is the part that does not follow. Money is simply a tool to make trading more efficient as you yourself have stated. First you got an $80 something for $60 and second money is usually relatively worthless in itself (paper). So far, you are coming out ahead in this deal. (Do you agree?)
Now one of two things can happen: Either the money never comes back or it does come back.
If it never comes back, it has by definition left your system. If you need more money, you (your government) can create more. Or you could just live with the fact that the money left in the system is worth slightly more (deflation due to lower quantity). It is a bit like cheating because you're getting something for almost nothing, but you are better off.
In the second case it does come back. You indirectly provide a valuable good for the foreigner and we're back to the fundamental of people doing things for each other. This is the non cheating path. And although you're not as well off as you would be if the foreigner never bought anything, you're still better off than not trading because you have the item for $60 instead of $80.
As a side note, foreigners are people too. If you think of the planet as a local economy, the money never leaves the system at all and more people are doing things for each other (presumably in peace and harmony).
Bastiat did a pretty good job in my opinion:
http://www.econlib.org/library/Bastiat/basSoph1.html
In this case, both countries are worse off. "Why should we favor this one particular industry in our country when it makes the citizens of both the US and Canada worse off on average?" with the response being "Averages don't produces campaign funds or votes while this particular industry produces both."
It's an interesting start, but for this argument to be logically sound, you must show that the Chinese would be better off if we didn't buy their camera. Without that piece of the argument your "choice" could be used to justify any action (such as going to war to "liberate" them and save our environment): "Either it's OK to ignore those human rights things and not liberate them, in which case we should enslave Americans and work in polluting factories, or the Chinese are not human like us."
I don't have an HDTV yet. But eventually I will. Eventually I'll hook up my TV to the Internet. It may not be now, but 10 years from now it will probably be a standard feature for new TVs. I'm old enough to remember when nobody had Internet outside of a few College campuses. Actually, most people didn't even have computers. Now almost everyone with a job has a computer and uses the Internet. It's a mistake to think that people will be forever stuck with current technology or that their habits and desires will never change.
not everyone has their TV/Entertainment system hooked up the internet
Not everyone has radio. Not everyone has TV. Not everyone has color TV. Not everyone has cable. Not everyone has Internet access. Not everyone has a VHS player. Not everyone has a DVD player. Not everyone has a blue-ray player.
And yet technology keeps moving forward.
I don't see how your example is any different than non-automated D&D. Plus, what's the big deal about dieing? If I recall correctly, you don't lose experience or levels anymore. I believe one of the epic level powers or feats is written as "once per day, when you die..." The whole "the party is screwed if one person bites it" meme is so previous editions.
Actually, that's rather insightful. Hasbro has a lot more games than just D&D that a touchscreen table can be used for.
If you don't like tactics then 4e is not the game for you and the automated game table is irrelevant.
This is a proof of concept. They said the DM has a separate screen/computer to input the enemy movements etc... The actual program is software based so the DM can choose software that lets him have whatever control level he desires. Heck, even without built in rules, the potential variety of map environments and enemy types would be a great addition to any D&D game.