> "Seriously, kids don't go out and say "Yippie skippie, > I wanna work in a coal mine for 12 hours a day!"
Ummmmm...
Some of you younger kids may not remember Ultima Online, but you could spend 12 hours a day mining, or logging, among many other things. Not just the later on smithing parts, which a lot of other games have, but tedious "mining" activities.
I wonder how many teens or 10 year olds whined that "Can I take out the trash later, Mom? I'm performing simulated manual labor for hours on end!"
I would have thought you were making a joke, had you not been like the 3rd person to mention that title, and I'm not even halfway scrolled down.
Anyway, statistics about dropping teen crime rates aside, I have no problem with the law either. It's pretty lame to whine about lost profits because you cannot sell ultraviolent bloody games to a 14 year old, then to feign some freedom of speech issue. (Which it may be, but it's a stretch that freedom of speech extends to adults pushing such things on children without the parents' permission, for profit purposes.)
Because that's what these people do for a living. They are power hungry thugs!
Said of electricity by a politician: "What good is it?"
"Sir, in 20 years, you'll be taxing it."
Regulate to control power. Regulate to claim they are bringing you this wonder. Regulate to make the hoi polloi think the hoi polloi is in charge of this new, scary, dangerous power. And in the absence of all that, claim you invented it, "in a manner of speaking".
> Example of free market democracy: 51 out of 100 people > like large bananas. 30 like medium, and 19 like tiny. > Banana growers grow all 3 sizes, selling them at a price > set by the supply of certain sizes and the demand for those sizes.
Then comedic refugee Yakov comes to that country, sees all sorts of bananas with no lines, and makes a joke: "In Soviet Russia, banana grows YOU!"
On the other hand, those of us paying attention in history have learned that governments will pass a law, claiming one reason, then actually mis-use it for other reasons.
This may be seen most recently with the passage of various anti-terrorist laws (with the verbal promise to only use them to root out terrorism) that were immediately put to work in the "war on drugs" via the euphamism that selling drugs was akin to terrorism.
So, puh-leeze, do not be "Shocked, shocked!" to see government mis-using laws.
Reminds me of the early days of EverQuest. I was a level 9 gnome warriorette, and I was hanging out in Greater Faydark at the wood elf city. This was the second biggest trade area after The Tunnel in Freeport (all long prior to 1st expansion, much less the trade zone.)
I had saved up a precious 60p, and was looking to buy a nice weapon or armor or some such (bronze was still way the heck expensive.) An Ogre War Maul came up for auction, and the guy was having a "fire sale" for 40p. He just hadda unload it. I knew this was a good price, very good, so I bought it.
A half hour later, someone else twinking a buddy, with money burning a hole in his pocket, bought it off me for 120p. Like Louis d'Palma, a holy light shone down on me. I began looking for sales of similar items at low prices, and bought them, and sold later at a higher price. Soon I had a full suit of bronze on me, plus some pretty good weapons, the Shiny Brass Shield, and 200p in the bank -- unheard of amounts of cash back then for a lowbie. And all "self earned", not twinked, (though not earned in the field of course!)
One person's sweatshop is another person's bling-bling, locally at least.
I'm sure George Jetson looks back through a time machine and feels bad how people work 40 hours and can only afford one house, two cars, and lots of clothes and big TVs and things. Those poor sweatshop workers, not living in an advanced society like us, where 2 2-hour workdays can buy you a huge apartment, flying car, and robot maid.
Of course, a game where it was tough, skill-wise (instead of iron buttocks-wise) to get the goods, would be nice for people like me, but by definition not for the hoi polloi, and that's where the money is.
Or maybe not. Thresh and B2 running around slaughtering everyone they came in contact with, by skill and not "stuff", didn't put a damper on Quake multiplayer.
Do guys like that even exist anymore? Play Halo or some thing? Is there a site which coordinates this?
What if there were a server that totally skipped any trading whatsoever, so that you owned what you earned in the field, and nothing else? And yes, this implies no crafting of armor and weapons and whatnot, at least unless you were to use it for yourself alone. And what you earned in the field was due to skill, not to an iron-clad ass that can sit still for days on end, and there was no "ninja looting", in that you got a unique set of "drops" from a killed monster, and everyone else got their own random pot.
Wouldn't you make a beeline for that game? Yes you would. Yet it doesn't exist. No one's figured it out, yet.
> who buy all of their equip off of ebay and the like. > SOE even opened a market system for trading in-game > items for money. That's when I quit EQ2. I think this > kind of thing is degrading to the gameplay and fun
Exactly. Everyone wants the good stuff -- that's part of the seductive fun nature of these games. However, allowing people to just "get" it via twinking/eBay does indeed ruin the accomplishement.
I recall when the original EQ came out -- and I was a level 16 ogre standing on the shores of Oasis of Marr. I had a two minotaur axes in my hands, and a full suit of banded armor, which I bought from a PC smith for the hellacious sum of 60p and my almost complete set of store-bought chain, easily another 60p of investment.
A group of high levels ran by, including an ogre decked out in full bronze armor. Gods, the power of that guy!
Junk, all junk now. And that's fine, but no one's going to go "earn it in the field at the appropriate level", because by the time they get to the appropriate level, they're decked out in formerly first generation level 50 gear. If not 2nd or 3rd generation. Heck, with the 10th expansion pack, it wouldn't surprise me if 8th generation level 50, sorry, 60, sorry 65, sorry is it 70 now? generagion gear was 5p a piece at the trade zone.
> There are a lot of struggling newbies, however, > who haven't a prayer of getting that dagger for a long time yet.
Note that EverQuest itself has been completely smashed for the last three or four years. With rare exceptions, there is basically nothing you can earn in the field that is better than what you can buy in the trade zone. Forget twinking, this applies to newbies.
Hence there is really no point to the game because "drops" are for no purpose other than to sell so you can go buy that formerly level 50 weapon for 5p when you are only level 5. Newb, not twink.
> Last but not least (I am breaking the 'no spoilers in > the posting' rule, I know), ironically, 'LnxAddct' is > 8 characters long, a well-known filename length > (excluding extension) limitation in some decidedly > non-Linux operating systems.
Too bad he misspelled it "Lnxaddct", and the Linux guy lost the file and never found it again.
Nah, the best way to think about it is with 100 doors instead of 3.
You pick one. Obviously you have only a tiny chance in Hell. Almost certainly it is behind one of the other doors. He opens 98 of the remaining 99. Do you switch? Of course you do. Note: They do have to add in the little fact that he knows which doors to open. Since he can open at least 98 without showing the prize, the one remaining closed door inherits that full 99% probability. So you should switch. The principle is the same with 3 doors as it is with 100.
But if he doesn't know which doors it's behind, then you do have a 50% chance. (In 98 parallel worlds, he goofed and opened one with the prize. In the 99th and 100th, he didn't. Those represent the worlds with the prize behind the 99th door, and the prize behind the 100th door, which you chose.)
Just imagine there are 100 doors. You pick one. Monte closes 98 of the remaining 99. He can do this because he knows which door the thing is behind. Do you switch? Of course you do.
Now imagine only 50 doors. Or 20. Or 3. Same principle.
You are making cupcakes for a party at which there will be 40 people. Half of them will be teenagers, a quarter of them will be adults, and the rest will be babies.
= 20 teens, 10 adults, and 10 babies
Half of the babies don't like cupcakes
So 5 don't like cupcakes. Hence you only need 35.
I.e. 2 are too young to eat cupcakes. We will assume for now this does not overlap those who don't like cupcakes (how could you know they don't like them if they can't eat them?)
So 7 babies will not be consuming cupcakes. Hence we only need 33.
Half of the adults and three-quarters of the teenagers like chocolate cupcakes,
I.e. 5 adults and 15 teens like chocolate, leaving 5 adults with sprinkles and 5 teens with sprinkles (again, assuming no chocolates with sprinkles.) Hence 20 want chocolate, 10 want sprinkles, and 3 babies want a cupcake, but with no preference specified.
So to ensure everyone has what they want, we make 23 with chocolate, and 13 with sprinkles, because we have no way of knowing what the 3 cupcake-eating babies will prefer. Or 20 chocolate and 13 sprinkles and you just make sure the babies get the sprinkles ones.
And in the reality check, people will not get what they prefer anyway because some people will pick up the wrong ones. Or you made 45 cupcakes anyway because that's 3 full muffin pans full and cake mixes are sized to a loaf of bread or one muffin pan, and who the hell doesn't wanna have some cupcakes left over after all the yahoos go home?
> It's more productive to impart knowledge than to accuse one who lacks it of being a fool.
Hint to those who resort to namecalling: When you namecall, you are angry. You are angry because, subconsciously, you recognize the truth in your opponent's argument, and cannot come up with a legitimate response, and you know it.
So when calling someone a "fool", think to yourself: "He may very well be right, and I have no real response." Now there may be one, you just don't know it yet. And your argument is now on thin ice.
What's that saying from that idiotic "make yourself more erudite" commercial? Ah, yes. "Better to reinforce your argument than raise your voice." (Ok, granted, that attempt at alliteration was somewhat strained...)
Slashdot Mirror
Too late! You fubar'd your clever comment. :(
I also note it's only illegal to tell a dirty joke in front of adult women in the workplace, not in front of children at the mall.
> "Seriously, kids don't go out and say "Yippie skippie,
> I wanna work in a coal mine for 12 hours a day!"
Ummmmm...
Some of you younger kids may not remember Ultima Online, but you could spend 12 hours a day mining, or logging, among many other things. Not just the later on smithing parts, which a lot of other games have, but tedious "mining" activities.
I wonder how many teens or 10 year olds whined that "Can I take out the trash later, Mom? I'm performing simulated manual labor for hours on end!"
I would have thought you were making a joke, had you not been like the 3rd person to mention that title, and I'm not even halfway scrolled down.
Anyway, statistics about dropping teen crime rates aside, I have no problem with the law either. It's pretty lame to whine about lost profits because you cannot sell ultraviolent bloody games to a 14 year old, then to feign some freedom of speech issue. (Which it may be, but it's a stretch that freedom of speech extends to adults pushing such things on children without the parents' permission, for profit purposes.)
Because that's what these people do for a living. They are power hungry thugs!
Said of electricity by a politician: "What good is it?"
"Sir, in 20 years, you'll be taxing it."
Regulate to control power. Regulate to claim they are bringing you this wonder. Regulate to make the hoi polloi think the hoi polloi is in charge of this new, scary, dangerous power. And in the absence of all that, claim you invented it, "in a manner of speaking".
> Example of free market democracy: 51 out of 100 people
> like large bananas. 30 like medium, and 19 like tiny.
> Banana growers grow all 3 sizes, selling them at a price
> set by the supply of certain sizes and the demand for those sizes.
Then comedic refugee Yakov comes to that country, sees all sorts of bananas with no lines, and makes a joke: "In Soviet Russia, banana grows YOU!"
Because politicians like to lord over people, and people like you like to vote for them.
As long as the lording rules don't crush your own groove, of course.
On the other hand, those of us paying attention in history have learned that governments will pass a law, claiming one reason, then actually mis-use it for other reasons.
This may be seen most recently with the passage of various anti-terrorist laws (with the verbal promise to only use them to root out terrorism) that were immediately put to work in the "war on drugs" via the euphamism that selling drugs was akin to terrorism.
So, puh-leeze, do not be "Shocked, shocked!" to see government mis-using laws.
I concur. The first Romana was irritating, but was definitely some of the finest eye candy to ever stride the Earth. (Did she ever stride the Earth?)
I'm shallow. I only want one sidekick, and it has to be eye candy like Peri or Romanas I and II or Billie Piper.
Reminds me of the early days of EverQuest. I was a level 9 gnome warriorette, and I was hanging out in Greater Faydark at the wood elf city. This was the second biggest trade area after The Tunnel in Freeport (all long prior to 1st expansion, much less the trade zone.)
I had saved up a precious 60p, and was looking to buy a nice weapon or armor or some such (bronze was still way the heck expensive.) An Ogre War Maul came up for auction, and the guy was having a "fire sale" for 40p. He just hadda unload it. I knew this was a good price, very good, so I bought it.
A half hour later, someone else twinking a buddy, with money burning a hole in his pocket, bought it off me for 120p. Like Louis d'Palma, a holy light shone down on me. I began looking for sales of similar items at low prices, and bought them, and sold later at a higher price. Soon I had a full suit of bronze on me, plus some pretty good weapons, the Shiny Brass Shield, and 200p in the bank -- unheard of amounts of cash back then for a lowbie. And all "self earned", not twinked, (though not earned in the field of course!)
Actually, I'd rather remove Hayden Christensen.
> that featured RL sweatshop labor in game
One person's sweatshop is another person's bling-bling, locally at least.
I'm sure George Jetson looks back through a time machine and feels bad how people work 40 hours and can only afford one house, two cars, and lots of clothes and big TVs and things. Those poor sweatshop workers, not living in an advanced society like us, where 2 2-hour workdays can buy you a huge apartment, flying car, and robot maid.
Of course, a game where it was tough, skill-wise (instead of iron buttocks-wise) to get the goods, would be nice for people like me, but by definition not for the hoi polloi, and that's where the money is.
Or maybe not. Thresh and B2 running around slaughtering everyone they came in contact with, by skill and not "stuff", didn't put a damper on Quake multiplayer.
Do guys like that even exist anymore? Play Halo or some thing? Is there a site which coordinates this?
The butler did it.
Kirk dies.
Data dies, but in a way where he can be resurrected.
She's a lesbian.
So's she.
Vader is a whiney teenager.
What if there were a server that totally skipped any trading whatsoever, so that you owned what you earned in the field, and nothing else? And yes, this implies no crafting of armor and weapons and whatnot, at least unless you were to use it for yourself alone. And what you earned in the field was due to skill, not to an iron-clad ass that can sit still for days on end, and there was no "ninja looting", in that you got a unique set of "drops" from a killed monster, and everyone else got their own random pot.
Wouldn't you make a beeline for that game? Yes you would. Yet it doesn't exist. No one's figured it out, yet.
> who buy all of their equip off of ebay and the like.
> SOE even opened a market system for trading in-game
> items for money. That's when I quit EQ2. I think this
> kind of thing is degrading to the gameplay and fun
Exactly. Everyone wants the good stuff -- that's part of the seductive fun nature of these games. However, allowing people to just "get" it via twinking/eBay does indeed ruin the accomplishement.
I recall when the original EQ came out -- and I was a level 16 ogre standing on the shores of Oasis of Marr. I had a two minotaur axes in my hands, and a full suit of banded armor, which I bought from a PC smith for the hellacious sum of 60p and my almost complete set of store-bought chain, easily another 60p of investment.
A group of high levels ran by, including an ogre decked out in full bronze armor. Gods, the power of that guy!
Junk, all junk now. And that's fine, but no one's going to go "earn it in the field at the appropriate level", because by the time they get to the appropriate level, they're decked out in formerly first generation level 50 gear. If not 2nd or 3rd generation. Heck, with the 10th expansion pack, it wouldn't surprise me if 8th generation level 50, sorry, 60, sorry 65, sorry is it 70 now? generagion gear was 5p a piece at the trade zone.
> There are a lot of struggling newbies, however,
> who haven't a prayer of getting that dagger for a long time yet.
Note that EverQuest itself has been completely smashed for the last three or four years. With rare exceptions, there is basically nothing you can earn in the field that is better than what you can buy in the trade zone. Forget twinking, this applies to newbies.
Hence there is really no point to the game because "drops" are for no purpose other than to sell so you can go buy that formerly level 50 weapon for 5p when you are only level 5. Newb, not twink.
> For the sake of trying to save money on production costs,
> why not ship off art production to Romania?
And unionization will slow this instead of actually accelerate it because why again?
> Last but not least (I am breaking the 'no spoilers in
> the posting' rule, I know), ironically, 'LnxAddct' is
> 8 characters long, a well-known filename length
> (excluding extension) limitation in some decidedly
> non-Linux operating systems.
Too bad he misspelled it "Lnxaddct", and the Linux guy lost the file and never found it again.
Yes, but it also sounds like the gambler's fallacy. However, the reason it is not is that in all pairs with at least one boy, fully 2/3 are boy/girl.
Nah, the best way to think about it is with 100 doors instead of 3.
You pick one. Obviously you have only a tiny chance in Hell. Almost certainly it is behind one of the other doors. He opens 98 of the remaining 99. Do you switch? Of course you do. Note: They do have to add in the little fact that he knows which doors to open. Since he can open at least 98 without showing the prize, the one remaining closed door inherits that full 99% probability. So you should switch. The principle is the same with 3 doors as it is with 100.
But if he doesn't know which doors it's behind, then you do have a 50% chance. (In 98 parallel worlds, he goofed and opened one with the prize. In the 99th and 100th, he didn't. Those represent the worlds with the prize behind the 99th door, and the prize behind the 100th door, which you chose.)
The parent poster said it best.
Just imagine there are 100 doors. You pick one. Monte closes 98 of the remaining 99. He can do this because he knows which door the thing is behind. Do you switch? Of course you do.
Now imagine only 50 doors. Or 20. Or 3. Same principle.
> if the 'teenager' is 18 or 19, does that also count as an adult?
And if the adults or teenagers throw a tantrum because only the wrong cupcake type is left when they get to choose, do they count as babies?
> and one fifth of the babies left are too young to eat cupcakes
I.e. 1/5 of 5 = 1. Well done! I missed that. 34 cupcakes needed.
= 20 teens, 10 adults, and 10 babies
So 5 don't like cupcakes. Hence you only need 35.
I.e. 2 are too young to eat cupcakes. We will assume for now this does not overlap those who don't like cupcakes (how could you know they don't like them if they can't eat them?)
So 7 babies will not be consuming cupcakes. Hence we only need 33.
I.e. 5 adults and 15 teens like chocolate, leaving 5 adults with sprinkles and 5 teens with sprinkles (again, assuming no chocolates with sprinkles.) Hence 20 want chocolate, 10 want sprinkles, and 3 babies want a cupcake, but with no preference specified.
So to ensure everyone has what they want, we make 23 with chocolate, and 13 with sprinkles, because we have no way of knowing what the 3 cupcake-eating babies will prefer. Or 20 chocolate and 13 sprinkles and you just make sure the babies get the sprinkles ones.
And in the reality check, people will not get what they prefer anyway because some people will pick up the wrong ones. Or you made 45 cupcakes anyway because that's 3 full muffin pans full and cake mixes are sized to a loaf of bread or one muffin pan, and who the hell doesn't wanna have some cupcakes left over after all the yahoos go home?
> It's more productive to impart knowledge than to accuse one who lacks it of being a fool.
Hint to those who resort to namecalling: When you namecall, you are angry. You are angry because, subconsciously, you recognize the truth in your opponent's argument, and cannot come up with a legitimate response, and you know it.
So when calling someone a "fool", think to yourself: "He may very well be right, and I have no real response." Now there may be one, you just don't know it yet. And your argument is now on thin ice.
What's that saying from that idiotic "make yourself more erudite" commercial? Ah, yes. "Better to reinforce your argument than raise your voice." (Ok, granted, that attempt at alliteration was somewhat strained...)