Access to the "electronic" version is included with the "dead wood" subscription price. RTA. It enlightening. The "35 subscribers" is kind of misleading. It's more like 90k subscribers when you include paper subscribers and the local cable company.
Lets be fair. Subscribers to the "print" edition also have access to the electronic edition as well as subscribers to the local cable company (I'm sure they get some money generated from that one, too).
Can I review your financials and decide what to do with your money? What did those dorks like Locke, Madison, Adams and Hamilton know about liberty anyway, right?
Re:I'm 15 and I ask, is this worth playing?
on
M.U.L.E. Is Back
·
· Score: 1
I can't answer that for you. I've played it fairly consistantly since it's release (I'm 42 now). It's addictive -- and particularly fun against human players.
I think the hardest part you'd have with the game is that it's TURN based -- which means you sit and wait while the 3 other players take their turns (auction not withstanding).
1. I'm not arguing for the GP -- or against the point you make 2. I've read the article and understand quite well
Read the thread. You'll understand.
I'm saying the GP's question wasn't totally without merit -- and certainly not worthy of some of the responses. Just someone trying to grasp/understand the concept.
Yeah? What of it. I'm very familiar with it. We're talking about creating a "work" that has maybe 3000 "letters" or less, but not 26 different letters, just 4! A, C, G and T.
There's what, 3 trillion base pairs in the human genome? Most of that could be "junk" DNA. It's not unreasonable for someone to ask the question the GP asked -- and the probability of random duplication of a given virus' genes is low enough to wonder (not-withstanding our ignorance of how exactly ALL our genes work).
What irks me is that someone asked an honest question in what appears to be an attempt to grasp the subject. And in this thread, instead of ANSWERING the question courteously, he gets attacked.
If I found a really big scroll in a cave that contained billions and billions of apparently random letters -- but somewhere in the middle of all that was the text of the book of John (or "The Three Little Pigs" or whatever), I MIGHT suspect it came from a different source, yes.
The point of terrorism is not putting people in danger, but rather making people believe they are in danger, regardless of whether they actually are.
I've attempted to look it up, but I cannot find where you got that definition of terrorism. Could this just be your opinion and you forgot to say "In my opinion"? Doing so made your statement appear like a stone cold fact.
It's just military costs. It's not an apples-to-apples comparison.
No, it's not. But that 'whoosh' sound you hear is the point of the argument going over your head. 900 billion over 8+ years (which can be calculated to the penny) vs. an estimated total loss of 1-3 trillion from a single event.
Yes, you cannot account for every penny -- because it's not a single entity that was lost or suffered losses, but literally thousands. Example. The report notes that Canada ALONE suffered 3.5 billion in losses from tourism as a result of 911. Read the entire report. It's on the global hotel and tourism industry. You cannot get exact numbers on this. You can get well researched estimates.
It is not a valid argument you make by dismissing the 911 cost estimates by saying they are not calculated the same as the war costs.
You seem to be arguing against someone who said that the cost of the war exceeds the cost of health care.
Am I? Let's see. You:
Ironically, the cost of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars is doing more to cause us to starve than the loss from 9/11
I then argue that the cost of the Iraq and Afgan war had a fraction of the impact of 911 -- and is spread out over 8+ years. I further put the cost of the war in economic perspective of JUST NHE spending (also just a fraction).
So... I cannot see how you can honestly make the claim you appear to make. I am directly countering your argument that the cost of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan are "more to cause us to starve than the loss from 9/11".
I await your correction and/or admission of fault. thank you.
Most of a city being destroyed was a fraction of the cost of a few buildings being destroyed?
Look at the numbers and impact each event had -- we're talking total economic impact and NOT just the buldings in and surrounding World Trade Center Plaza . "Facts are stubborn things" -- John Adams. Katrina didn't cause the entire US airspace to be shut down for days at a cost of billions of dollars alone -- not counting lost wages and tax revenue from JUST the airspace shutdown. Katrina didn't cripple and almost bankrupt dozens of insurance companies.
An airplane cras (sic) is an airplane crash, whether pilot error or terrorism. The cost is the same.
Ok. You're just a liar. I don't believe you actually can't see how how ridicules that argument is so you must be deliberately trying deceive. Most planes DO NOT crash in to multi-billion dollar high-rises housing multiples of businesses and corporations which employ 10s of thousands of people. The cost IS NOT the same.
That was 2 trillion dollars, not billion. How many of those disasters caused even that much money?
Since you brought up the cost of Katrina, What about it? It was a fraction the cost of 911. And these are natural disasters -- and effect generally effect a narrow group or location specific economy.
The wildfires may displace home owners, but rarely do any significant infrastructure damage. And certainly not even in the league of a 911 type attack.
It's disingenuous of you to suggest that because airline crashes are "part of an airline's operating expense" is justification to ignore the economic impact of 4 being deliberately turned in to smart bombs. On what day where there two or more airliners then went down? And on what single day did even ONE of them bring down a few buildings? When did any of those other crashes down the entire air space for even HOURS, let alone days? That's a HUGE impact and you're either being deliberately obtuse, ignorant, or flat out lying to distort the truth.
Your fears are unfounded and irrational.
I would suggest your rose colored glasses are a bit fogged and that you are being irrational by deliberately ignoring facts. This country just cannot absorb more than a handful of 911 type disasters. It's simple arithmetic.
That terrorist attack did NOT bring the economy down
Again, who said it did? Are you suggesting with your statement that it had no economic impact what so ever? I'm suggesting it was a huge impact -- and contributed significantly to an economy already going down after the dot-com bust. I welcome any citation stating otherwise.
I'm guessing you wont cede the point as you appear to be to emotionally invested in your position. To the point of constantly putting words in my mouth. That said, I can only add: "Best of luck to you!"
The attacks didn't harm the economy, our reaction to them did.
How did our reaction to them harm the economy? Our reaction of flaming aircraft ($300 million dollars)? Our reaction by not PAYING the dead or PAYING people who lost their jobs (and our reaction by not collecting TAXES on such incomes) ~$17 billion)? Our reaction paying the cleanup of 911 (~$100 billion)? Our reaction by having our insurance companies shell out $40 billion? Our reaction of shutting down air travel for a few days costing ~$10 billion?
Reactions like that? Totaling over $2 billion for a SINGLE day by a handful of people?
Our our reaction of spending less than half that over 9 years in arguably ineffectual wars (Iraq/Afghanistan combined currently running $950 billion since 2001)? Is that the reaction you are talking about?
NHE has a budget of over $2 trillion a year. The war expenses are a fraction of that.
If a SINGLE DAY event can pull close to a YEAR of revenue out of our economy, it won't take many to break us.
I posit that the economy was on its way down anyway.
Can you cite where I said it wasn't? Or even implied it? Or do you have a reading comprehension problem? Posit all you like -- it doesn't argue against my point that we cannot afford many of these events without destroying our society.
Did they? Or was it our government regulations which forced them to make loans to people who even 10 years ago wouldn't have qualified? They really couldn't afford to pay it back and never should have been allowed the loans to begin with.
Cost of both wars since 2001: $950 Billion (about ~$100+ billion per year Cost of JUST Medicare in JUST 2007: $431 Billion Cost of JUST Medicaid in JUST 2007: $329 Billion
The NHE is over $2 trillion a year!
NEVER MIND all the OTHER government entitlement programs -- we will spend more than DOUBLE in a SINGLE year on NHE expenditures (estimate for 2009) than the ENTIRE war budget to date.
ronically, the cost of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars is doing more to cause us to starve than the loss from 9/11. If we starve, it will be our own fault, not the terrorists.
Really? Check out costofwar.com
The cost of the Afgan war is around $235 billion so far. Over 8 some odd years. The total cost of BOTH wars over that time span is around $900 billion dollars. In just a single day, the terrorists inflected between $1 trillion and $3 trillion.
How many times do you think a "success" like 9-11 need happen before we can't recover economically? Not many.
Exactly HOW do you support your conclusion?
There are countries with faaar worse terrorism than we have, and they can feed their people.
Many of them import food. From where? Industrialized nations. Many of those countries didn't (and don't) receive the economic blows that terrorism can do on industrialized nations. Destroy those providing the food economically, severe the food-transportation chain and see how well they eat...
So you value the worth of the buildings and their contents more than the people? Sorry, but reasoning like this makes me sick.
Are you whacked? Or do you deliberately put stuff in peoples mouths?
The origin of the thread implied terrorism wasn't that big of a threat -- since the amount of deaths is far below the amount of even murders. Read my post! It's "NOT JUST" a dead-numbers game. Of course lives are important! To ONLY focus on the body count is willfully walking around with blinders on or being deliberately obtuse. And your lack of "reasoning like this makes me sick".
Question: What good is lamenting over 3000 lost lives if society crumbles around you such that you, your family and neighbors end up starving as lines of transportation break down and no food supply major cities and 100k to several million die? Just how many of those "3000 deaths" type attacks would be necessary to break the world economy, never mind the US? Not many.
Slashdot Mirror
iWish iCould iFford iOne.
Access to the "electronic" version is included with the "dead wood" subscription price. RTA. It enlightening. The "35 subscribers" is kind of misleading. It's more like 90k subscribers when you include paper subscribers and the local cable company.
Lets be fair. Subscribers to the "print" edition also have access to the electronic edition as well as subscribers to the local cable company (I'm sure they get some money generated from that one, too).
Actually, I am insane. And wearing this little thing in my ear makes me appear normal!
Not only that, but some guys PAY me money now to look busy and sit in an office!
Can I review your financials and decide what to do with your money? What did those dorks like Locke, Madison, Adams and Hamilton know about liberty anyway, right?
Another question to ask is exactly how much time/effort/money Nintendo went through to get this controller FDA approved. What? It's not FDA approved?
And Iraq and Afghanistan expenses are very small compared to NHE expenditures. You could shave a sliver off of that and fund NASA several times over.
There is a small mailbox here
>open mailbox
Opening the mailbox reveals a leaflet.
>read leaflet
You don't have the leaflet!
>take leaflet
leaflet taken.
>read leaflet
"Welcome to ZORK!..."
What fun it was for the impressionable lad of 12 or 13 I was...
Especially with with collusion!
MULE Manual
I can't answer that for you. I've played it fairly consistantly since it's release (I'm 42 now). It's addictive -- and particularly fun against human players.
I think the hardest part you'd have with the game is that it's TURN based -- which means you sit and wait while the 3 other players take their turns (auction not withstanding).
1. I'm not arguing for the GP -- or against the point you make
2. I've read the article and understand quite well
Read the thread. You'll understand.
I'm saying the GP's question wasn't totally without merit -- and certainly not worthy of some of the responses. Just someone trying to grasp/understand the concept.
Yeah? What of it. I'm very familiar with it. We're talking about creating a "work" that has maybe 3000 "letters" or less, but not 26 different letters, just 4! A, C, G and T.
There's what, 3 trillion base pairs in the human genome? Most of that could be "junk" DNA. It's not unreasonable for someone to ask the question the GP asked -- and the probability of random duplication of a given virus' genes is low enough to wonder (not-withstanding our ignorance of how exactly ALL our genes work).
What irks me is that someone asked an honest question in what appears to be an attempt to grasp the subject. And in this thread, instead of ANSWERING the question courteously, he gets attacked.
NOT cool. And NOT helpful.
Read my post. Then take your own advice.
I think the GP is wrong, but certainly not stupid or a jackass -- just an honest GOOD question based on the article.
If I found a really big scroll in a cave that contained billions and billions of apparently random letters -- but somewhere in the middle of all that was the text of the book of John (or "The Three Little Pigs" or whatever), I MIGHT suspect it came from a different source, yes.
Infinite monkeys pounding on keyboards over an infinite span of time would create the combined works of William Shakespeare, and all that...
Certainly not saying that's what happened here -- but the GPs question/point isn't entirely without merit.
I've attempted to look it up, but I cannot find where you got that definition of terrorism. Could this just be your opinion and you forgot to say "In my opinion"? Doing so made your statement appear like a stone cold fact.
And they believe rightly. To believe there could NOT have been would be false.
No, it's not. But that 'whoosh' sound you hear is the point of the argument going over your head. 900 billion over 8+ years (which can be calculated to the penny) vs. an estimated total loss of 1-3 trillion from a single event.
Yes, you cannot account for every penny -- because it's not a single entity that was lost or suffered losses, but literally thousands. Example. The report notes that Canada ALONE suffered 3.5 billion in losses from tourism as a result of 911. Read the entire report. It's on the global hotel and tourism industry. You cannot get exact numbers on this. You can get well researched estimates.
It is not a valid argument you make by dismissing the 911 cost estimates by saying they are not calculated the same as the war costs.
Am I? Let's see. You:
I then argue that the cost of the Iraq and Afgan war had a fraction of the impact of 911 -- and is spread out over 8+ years. I further put the cost of the war in economic perspective of JUST NHE spending (also just a fraction).
So... I cannot see how you can honestly make the claim you appear to make. I am directly countering your argument that the cost of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan are "more to cause us to starve than the loss from 9/11".
I await your correction and/or admission of fault. thank you.
Look at the numbers and impact each event had -- we're talking total economic impact and NOT just the buldings in and surrounding World Trade Center Plaza . "Facts are stubborn things" -- John Adams. Katrina didn't cause the entire US airspace to be shut down for days at a cost of billions of dollars alone -- not counting lost wages and tax revenue from JUST the airspace shutdown. Katrina didn't cripple and almost bankrupt dozens of insurance companies.
Ok. You're just a liar. I don't believe you actually can't see how how ridicules that argument is so you must be deliberately trying deceive. Most planes DO NOT crash in to multi-billion dollar high-rises housing multiples of businesses and corporations which employ 10s of thousands of people. The cost IS NOT the same.
That was 2 trillion dollars, not billion. How many of those disasters caused even that much money?
Since you brought up the cost of Katrina, What about it? It was a fraction the cost of 911. And these are natural disasters -- and effect generally effect a narrow group or location specific economy.
The wildfires may displace home owners, but rarely do any significant infrastructure damage. And certainly not even in the league of a 911 type attack.
It's disingenuous of you to suggest that because airline crashes are "part of an airline's operating expense" is justification to ignore the economic impact of 4 being deliberately turned in to smart bombs. On what day where there two or more airliners then went down? And on what single day did even ONE of them bring down a few buildings? When did any of those other crashes down the entire air space for even HOURS, let alone days? That's a HUGE impact and you're either being deliberately obtuse, ignorant, or flat out lying to distort the truth.
I would suggest your rose colored glasses are a bit fogged and that you are being irrational by deliberately ignoring facts. This country just cannot absorb more than a handful of 911 type disasters. It's simple arithmetic.
Again, who said it did? Are you suggesting with your statement that it had no economic impact what so ever? I'm suggesting it was a huge impact -- and contributed significantly to an economy already going down after the dot-com bust. I welcome any citation stating otherwise.
I'm guessing you wont cede the point as you appear to be to emotionally invested in your position. To the point of constantly putting words in my mouth. That said, I can only add: "Best of luck to you!"
How did our reaction to them harm the economy? Our reaction of flaming aircraft ($300 million dollars)? Our reaction by not PAYING the dead or PAYING people who lost their jobs (and our reaction by not collecting TAXES on such incomes) ~$17 billion)? Our reaction paying the cleanup of 911 (~$100 billion)? Our reaction by having our insurance companies shell out $40 billion? Our reaction of shutting down air travel for a few days costing ~$10 billion?
Reactions like that? Totaling over $2 billion for a SINGLE day by a handful of people?
Our our reaction of spending less than half that over 9 years in arguably ineffectual wars (Iraq/Afghanistan combined currently running $950 billion since 2001)? Is that the reaction you are talking about?
NHE has a budget of over $2 trillion a year. The war expenses are a fraction of that.
If a SINGLE DAY event can pull close to a YEAR of revenue out of our economy, it won't take many to break us.
Can you cite where I said it wasn't? Or even implied it? Or do you have a reading comprehension problem? Posit all you like -- it doesn't argue against my point that we cannot afford many of these events without destroying our society.
Did they? Or was it our government regulations which forced them to make loans to people who even 10 years ago wouldn't have qualified? They really couldn't afford to pay it back and never should have been allowed the loans to begin with.
Oh... and just to compare:
Cost of both wars since 2001: $950 Billion (about ~$100+ billion per year
Cost of JUST Medicare in JUST 2007: $431 Billion
Cost of JUST Medicaid in JUST 2007: $329 Billion
The NHE is over $2 trillion a year!
NEVER MIND all the OTHER government entitlement programs -- we will spend more than DOUBLE in a SINGLE year on NHE expenditures (estimate for 2009) than the ENTIRE war budget to date.
Get your facts before you mouth off.
Really? Check out costofwar.com
The cost of the Afgan war is around $235 billion so far. Over 8 some odd years. The total cost of BOTH wars over that time span is around $900 billion dollars. In just a single day, the terrorists inflected between $1 trillion and $3 trillion.
How many times do you think a "success" like 9-11 need happen before we can't recover economically? Not many.
Exactly HOW do you support your conclusion?
Many of them import food. From where? Industrialized nations. Many of those countries didn't (and don't) receive the economic blows that terrorism can do on industrialized nations. Destroy those providing the food economically, severe the food-transportation chain and see how well they eat...
Are you whacked? Or do you deliberately put stuff in peoples mouths?
The origin of the thread implied terrorism wasn't that big of a threat -- since the amount of deaths is far below the amount of even murders. Read my post! It's "NOT JUST" a dead-numbers game. Of course lives are important! To ONLY focus on the body count is willfully walking around with blinders on or being deliberately obtuse. And your lack of "reasoning like this makes me sick".
Question: What good is lamenting over 3000 lost lives if society crumbles around you such that you, your family and neighbors end up starving as lines of transportation break down and no food supply major cities and 100k to several million die? Just how many of those "3000 deaths" type attacks would be necessary to break the world economy, never mind the US? Not many.