Sure, lets do that. Where are your numbers? Do you have a graph, or are you just talking out your ass because you don't like looking at real data?
Where were your real numbers? You posted a meaningless graph, with no citations or sources, that was even out of context of the article in which is was embedded. And further, you actively ignored my critique of it in order to flame a reasonable statement that measuring how well we are doing requires a more complex analysis of multiple factors instead of your one factor (which you claim is better than the GPs one single factor).
I also never made a claim whether, or whether not we are doing better. I just stated that your single axis of information was insufficient to make a conclusion, and was probably subject to the same individual biases (picking a single bit of information to prove your point) that you accused the GP of.
Hell, your point may be correct; but it will take much more than a single graph on a single metric, to prove it.
I don't see why your getting so emotional about it.
Uh, where do you come up with this stuff? Did you take a class called "Economics for retards?" Probably not because you actually would have learned something there. This is so braindead a drunk monkey could come up with something more realistic.
And at this point I stop having this conversation with you, since you seem completely incapable of rational debate, or at least debate which wold question even the surface of your pre-existing ideals. In other words, there is no point, since your not actually interested in debate; instead you are interested in evangelizing your ideology.
You pretty much illustrate whats wrong with American politics these days, and why we're on a decline.
You don't say? I stated that because the parent stated that is isn't a big deal of 10 million peoples lives are ruined because of market conditions, because that 10 million people is ONLY 4% of the population. The reality of that statement is a bit sickening to me. Basically it is fine and dandy if 10 million people are rendered homeless so their bosses can make more money, and a limited set of consumers (definitely not the ten million who just got screwed) can buy a product marginally cheaper.
I am not a Marxist, or anti-capitalist, but I can understand them much more when people bandy about points like that.
Capitalism is fine, as long as it is a slave to human interests. The, largely mythical, freemarket should be balanced with what leads to the greater good of society. The second it starts working against normal people, it needs to be checked, since human good is the only ends that makes any sense. When working from within a society, this means societal good, not individual benefit at the cost of everyone else (that goes against the basic tenets of the social contract on which our society was based).
I am a capitalist, it is the only system that has shown itself to work and probably the default state of natural economies. I am not a "freemarketeer" since that is a bit of ideological dogma that people somehow aspire towards; it is a utopia, it isn't based in reality.
free market is one where the consumers are in charge, and the system is focused on working to satisfy consumer needs.
Sure, I can buy this. But that isn't the definition of "free market" as people use it here. A free market is one completely unfettered, i.e. free. People who espouse it somehow put market forces about human good, the market is its own ends and good. And somehow actions of this market are conflated with the moral or ethical "right". It ignores extra-market forces like coercion, economic inequality, restriction (or misrepresentation) of information, corruption, crony-ism, etc... It presumes that if somehow the Government walked away the market would work itself out, and magically start working towards the societal good. I am not aware of any historical case when this has actually happened, nor does the logic really work itself out.
Any market has to be restricted and regulated to keep things balanced witnin itself, to minimize extra-market forces, and to keep it a slave to the good of the society that it is based in.
A market is not a good in itself, it is only good in its relation to society. When the scale tips to favor the market over everyone else, then something must be done. This is the case currently.
Measuring real compensation is hard of course, but it gives a better measurement of what the average employee is getting [wikipedia.org]. And it's been going up. Look at the graph.
That graph is meaningless. It isn't referenced within the Wikipedia page that contains it, except for a caption saying that "health insurance" is one thing it counts. This is misleading, since insurance rates have been inflating wildly for the last decade, while coverage has been dropping. So yes, you get "more insurance" now than you did costwise, but in reality you get the same amount of less.
Also, to illustrate a point if not make an actual argument: A lot of people talk about compensation in order to deceive you, because it matches the narrative they want to push.
In reality we should be taking compensation, real wages, and cost of living/inflation into account. Paying attention to one of them exclusively screaming "cherry picking to support my initial premise".
But you'd have to be braindead to think this is going to cause 70% of the population to die in the streets when the manufacturing industry only employs around 10million people?
Yes, he exaggerated. Thats bad. But you missed his point, at the same time. If we can eliminate a large portion of our workforce, then that is less money in the system, if there is less money in the system there is less buying power, if there is less buying power there is less demand, if there is less demand we eliminate more of our workforce. Very simple logic, and very accurate logic.
Even if all those people exploded, it would only be ~4% of the population dead.
Yes, it would be around 4%, but it still would be ten million INDIVIDUALS just like you, and hell you could even be one of them (your probably not rich enough to have a significant safety net, and I'm sure your industry is next on the block and you probably aren't indispensable at all.) . I'm sorry, I'll always hold individuals above meaningless economic abstractions and utopian ideals. Even if it is ONLY 10 million people.
Freemarketeers always sound like sociopaths to me.
Also, how do you know its "common" dogma, how many therapists do you know? Have you conducted a fair and accurate poll of them? I've known a fair share, and many of them haven't claimed this. Though there is some interesting brain studies that do show looking at a picture of an act does stimulate the same bits of the brain that are stimulated while conducting an act. That isn't therapy though, that neuroscience... Damn neuroscientists and their progressive agenda.
and progressive feminists.
All things considered I could probably be classified as a "feminist", and probably "progressive" to boot (as opposed to being a regressive feminist, I suppose). Seeing a picture isn't the same as the act. But that doesn't mean that wanting to see the picture is inductive of a healthy person. Or that seeking out the picture my not constitute demand for the production of more picture.
In other words I will whole-heartedly dismiss your point as a strawman.
I rather doubt this. There would still be money involved, and there still would be a legal vacuum in certain countries that would produce cartels and violence. Sure, even if you could get homegrown, or local, pot for $x, there will be a market for cartel pot being sold for $x-1.
There will be less violence, perhaps, but there will always be violence. Even with alcohol being legal, I'm sure some moonshiner got shot in the face by another moonshiner lately.
Another thing, if the US completely legalized all drugs, the cartels have proper supply chains, proper ways of mass production, etc... Meaning for a long period of time they will still be more efficient than locally grown products. This means they will be competitive with U.S. grown and produced product for a long time. Think of it as narcotic outsourcing.
And yet the vast majority of this stuff gets posted for free.
I wouldn't know...
But, there is such a thing as non-monetary rewards, such as fame and respect within your community. Look at the various "warez" and piracy scenes for an analogue. Scenesters aren't being paid for their work, but they sure as hell are working under market incentives still.
One problem is that some of the people who produce it aren't pedophiles, their just immoral capitalists exploiting a deranged market. Think people who pimp out children in third world countries (or even first world ones), they might not piddle children, but as long as someone is willing to pay for it they have no problem facilitating.
...they're arguing that the demand for it isn't causing supply.
So basically it is completely like any other market in existence?
If there is a large quantity of x, who want y then someone will make y. If there is a large quantity of x who wants, and is willing to pay for, y, then there will be a huge amount of people willing to do anything it takes to manufacture y.
I'm willing to give you $10 for a picture of your cat. Are you telling me this won't help give some incentive to produce and distribute kitty pictures that you otherwise wouldn't have taken?
Yes, I'm sure a lot of kitty porn was produced gratis, and consumed for free. But there are non-monetary rewards involved as well, such as esteem within your cat photography circles. Think of the piracy "scene", these people aren't making money, but are creating things for a non-monetary reward that roughly follows normal market logic. The higher demand for the free product, the more esteem and "cred" you get for creating it.
I'm not saying that things haven't gotten overboard on the enforcement end; but there is an argument for enforcement.
And when it all comes down to it, I have around zero sympathy for people who produce or consume kiddy porn. To me it is ONLY a rights and cost of enforcement issue. They really, for the most part, get exactly what they deserve. Hell, in the end, they know it is illegal and still consume it, so they really can't complain about the consequences of their actions. If somehow every person who knowingly views kiddy porn was magically castrated, I wouldn't shed a tear.
It annoys the hell out of me too, as does the term "organic"... How, my corn chips have carbon atoms?! Wow! Actually, my bag of cheetos is made with "natural oils"... which could mean crude, or mineral oil.
Sadly this is how language works though. When someone rails against "chemicals" my brain fills in "man-made chemicals and stabilizers. The happiness I gain from this translation is much better than sitting around getting pissy every-time someone doesn't use language with the exactitude I expect. We all know what they mean when they rant about chemicals, and it hasn't degraded the actual, technical, meaning of the word one bit.
That said, I do get angsty when people use the word "philosophy" in the colloquial sense, but that might be because I'm still paying off vast amounts of college debt because of that word.
I've been out of the game for a bit, as I said, so I'm going off the the GBA. I still remember its complete and total lack of backlight, and how idiotic that seemed (and still does). It is big, though. Very big, and very ugly. But its better than the GBAlite, or whatever it was called, I couldn't hit the shoulder buttons without some pain and dislocation.
So if i can see 3D, and depth with one eye, how can showing my eyes alternate views "allow" me to see depth that isn't there?
Wait... you really have never head of stereoscopic vision? One eye can get clues about depth via things like perspective and parallax, but it doesn't get as strong clues as having two eyes interpolate the relative differences between their inputs (via things like perspective shift). This isn't a terribly hard thing to understand, even conceptually, and beyond that there is TONS of data out there.
Also, in pure objective terms, humans don't directly experience depth. Light coming into the eye is projected onto the flat surface at the back of the eye. We only, really, see in two dimensions, the rest is "post processing" (if you will). All experience of depth is subjective, really.
There also is natural variation in the ability within the population. I have rather crappy depth perception, even with both eyes. I recently had an accident hampering the abilities of my right eye (resulting in a decently sized blind-spot), and now my depth perception is even worse.
We really don't understand how the brain processes images
Not 100%, but we do know a fair bit. Its not a completely un-understood field, and is actually pretty comprehensive as far as neurosciences go. It actually is a fascinating field of study.
stop spouting theories that are being proven to only be correct in certain situations as facts for the entire concept.
Binocular vision isn't something that is correct in certain situations. Projecting a different image to each eye is the only way to force 3D, and, indeed, it is the basis of most of our natural depth perception. We see 3D on the 3DS in pretty much the same way as we process it in real life, sans some of the single eye clues (which are ignored by having a fixed focal distance, and some basic graphical tricks (simulated parallax, etc...)
What was wrong with it? I'm rather new to the handheld console market (my last one being a launch-era GBA), but recently bought a first-gen DS so I could tap the vast market of used GBA games (mostly so I could play Final Fantasy I-VI on the patio while smoking and drinking coffee, to be honest), and so far have no complaints. I was going to get a used DS Lite, but for some reason people want $100 for them used, still, while the clunky old (it might be the ugliest bit of hardware I own now) DS was only $35, which is worth it. I have no complaints about it, outside of aesthetics; its everything I expect from a handheld.
The DSi (and its 7,000 variations) is nice and all, but I don't understand why I'd want to spend almost $100 more for the ability to play the same games, in the same way, as the original DS (there is only like 4 games that are only for the DSi), and completely lose the ability to play GBA games.
Yes, the DSi is beefier, but what the hell does it matter if it is pretty much restricted to DS games?
Also, I kind of liked the 3DS, it, oddly, didn't give me a headache. I can't watching most 3D movies because I get a splitting migraine afterwards, but the 3DS didn't bother me. Granted I only played it for around 15 minutes at a game store. The killer to me is the price, and the fact that the battery is worse than any previous handheld I can think of (including the Lynx).
If you do too, then that's because Apple cultivated that word usage via the App Store.
So what? I'm going to quickly rebrand the word "coffee" to mean "only the products I make from beans of the genus Coffea that I make and serve in my cups", and then sue every "coffee shop" to oblivion. Obviously I spent some dollars on the term, so I should get paid.
But how is "App Store" a generic term to describe a software repository or a package management system?
Well, its a store selling apps, perhaps? Any store selling applications is an "app store", since "app" is (and has been for a long time) a common slang for "applications"
It wouldn't be generic for any package management system, or repository, just for ones that are predominantly "stores".
"App" had been used, however, it was not in wide use until Apple revealed the App Store.
Huh? I've been calling applications "apps" for some time, at least since 2005, if not earlier. I remember this because, ironically, it was rather common in the Apple community, and that is when I was still trying Macs. Actually, come to think of it the application section on one of my old warez BBSs (in the early 90's) called is application section "apps". "Apps" has been short for "applications" for some time, long before Apple glommed onto it... Actually, why did Apple pick the term "app" in the first place, if no one ever knew what it meant?
As for "app store", they might have a case, but they probably shouldn't. "App" is a generic term and preexists, and has nothing to do with, Apple. "Store" is also a completely generic term. Its like trademarking "book store", basically.
I'm not terribly invested, Amazon or Apple winning really doesn't benefit me as a consumer either way, and I really don't care about either company enough to care. I don't mind Amazon's App Store, but I don't understand the point of its existence. On the otherhand, I can't stand Apple's App Store, but thats mostly because Apple wants to be my nanny. I trust neither, and neither has earned my loyalty. Let them sue each other to oblivion for all I care.
I'm a huge fan of Tome4 (Tales of the something-something).
I'm sure a lot of die-hard fans will get annoyed though, since it predominately tiled graphics and not text. And has a somewhat fixed map/structure with large randomly generated dungeons. There are different death options too, with hardcore being the most roguelike of them (perma-death, barring some hard to get items), but you can also have limited lives. I like it since it bring lots of modern conventions to the genre, and makes them a bit less opaque. Its also very nice because the stats say that most characters never clear the first boss.
I have nothing against upgrading the genre, personally.
Stonesoup is pretty damn good as well. As is Desktop Dungeons, though I'm not sure if thats actually a roguelike, I think it is, but I'm sure the hardcore among us will disagree.
Someone should really make an RTS ruleset for Chess now.
I remember, as a kid, me and a friend tried to combine Monopoly with Risk just so we could have "troops in the Baltic". It eventually spanned a full notebook, and got so convoluted that even we couldn't keep track of the rules.
Everytime you passed Go, you could collect up to 5 troops, or collect $200. When landing on a space you own you could place up to 5 troops, and you could have only 5 troops follow your piece. On landing on an occupied space (one with troops on it), you could either pay the price, or attack using Risk rules, if you win and kill all the troops there the owning player cedes the place and it remains "scorched earth" for a turn, and is available for purchase the next turn. Railroads can be used to move to any other owned railroad. It got complicated when we added supply lines and attrition. If you had a space with an army, but occupied no other tiles within a certain range you lost troops per turn due to supply lines, unless your within x tiles of an owned railroad.
Someone should totally give Chess the same treatment... "I'm not moving this pawn, it needs more lumber to I can built another rook (which, in turn, can spawn more pawns)"
The good news is, the smart kids will - given the opportunity - teach themselves.
Sadly, many times that opportunity isn't provided. I've only had a handful of teachers who realized that I was crushingly bored with the curriculum, and reached out to give me further knowledge. When I asked for deeper knowledge on a subject, most teachers dismissed me since they had no knowledge of the topics they were teaching beyond the precise information they were presenting. Worse, many teachers reprimanded me for reading in class, or doing my own things (non-disruptively), while the class was learning things, or doing work, that I already finished earlier.
This isn't always true. I remember an English teacher I had at some point in high school who, when I finished our reading was skeptical since I finished it around a day (it was a two week assignment). He grilled me, I answered correctly. So he gave me another book. I finished it in about two days. He grilled me, and then allowed me to tear apart his library for thing to read. I was the only kid in that class who ended up writing three reports, one on the required reading, one another book he assigned, and one of James Gleick's book on chaos theory. I loved that teacher, and he was the only shining light throughout high school (out side of the psychology teacher who loved the fact that I experimented with hallucinogens).
I still hang around with the 'bad crowd' because I need excitement in my life. I still risk arrest daily (never happened though 'cus I iz clevar).
I'm well into my 30's and my parents still ponder why I hang out with some of the people I do. I keep two segregated groups of friends, one of which is average and fun, the other of is intellectually stimulating and boring. But my parents think I should be happy sitting around with smart people discussing philosophy (my vice) all day. When, in my experience, true happiness requires plenty of beer, billiards, and mutual trash-talk on occasion.
I should add here that I think software developers have a bit of an advantage in doing these tests as they're generally more practiced at solving this sort of problem.
Its a good thing most IQ tests are administered early on, then. Really there is no point in IQ tests past a certain developmental age.
Also, I could think of many other careers that would also be better at them, but this might be because people who score decently on IQ test gravitate towards those fields (playing their strengths, the strengths the IQ test tests).
I'm not the person your replying to, but I'm frightened and intrigued by your proposal.
That said, I think its a rather common experience among "smart folks". When I was a kid both my and my neighbor were flagged as problem kids, and we both tested with higher IQs. He got sullen and moody when bored, and got into accelerated programs; I made my own amusement and got into tons of trouble. Later I dropped out of school completely and found better pursuits to waste my time on until I hit 18 and could enroll in community college (and use that as a springboard to enter university, passing my abysmal high-school GPA). Ignoring my voracious reading habits and geeky hobbies I would have been easily confused for your average hooligan, where my neighbor was the image of the "troubled gifted kid".
My girlfriend is currently about a month or two from her masters in education, and pretty much confirms that schools still aren't equipped to handle gifted kids, and for the most part have no desire to do so. Aiming for the slowest kid seems to be the thing to do, even if you let the intelligent (and average) kids languish. Hell, you don't even have to help the slow kids excel, you just have to let them feel good about mediocrity.
Yes, I'm a cynic, but sadly there hasn't been any evidence to prove I'm wrong.
That said, and to veer dangerously on-topic, I'm not sure if IQ is really all that meaningful. IQ, in my somewhat educated opinion, sets potential, but a whole bunch of other factors contribute to how well you live up to that potential. I've meet my fair share of druggies, morons, and homeless people who have high IQs. And some of the people I know with lower IQs are far happier than many people with high ones, and happiness is probably a much more important and meaningful metric than IQ ever will be.
There is also something extremely annoying about people talking about how high their IQ is, its like they don't have any actual achievements to be proud of and must cling to some silly statistic that was attached to them in grade school, a statistic they probably have absolutely no control over whatsoever. A high IQ doesn't make you special, actions makes you special. Hell, a high IQ doesn't even make you intelligent, hard work and motivation makes you intelligent. These disclaimers aren't aimed at you, their aimed at the baseless elitists who I'm sure are hopping up and down like excited puppies right now since they have a chance to brag about how IQ-y they are, and how inferior everyone else who isn't is.
Where did you find a lefty-version? I scoured their site and didn't find any reference. I'd love to replace my aging wired Copperhead, it still works fine but the scroll wheel is a getting a bit sticky, but I hate mouse shopping since decent mice with any functionality are largely only right-handed, and most ambi models kind of suck.
For me, that's just over 10 feet away, like I sit right now from my monitor.
I doubt that many people sit that far away, and I doubt that many people would find that "reasonable" because that fact. Right now I'm about 3 feet from my 24" display, when I'm typing I'm less, when I'm watching a movie I'm a bit farther. But I'm never 10' (in my den its only 10' from my monitor to the back wall). Sure, on my HTPC I sit back a bit (as far as 7'-8'), but I don't think a television is considered a monitor, even when connected to a PC.
To me a reasonable distance would 3'-4'. For a console it would be 8'-10', since people sit further from them.
That said, I really doubt I'd buy anything like this. Even on the Wii motion controls often just become annoying after a short period of time, and most of the time is nothing but a cheap gimmick. Also, if I really cared, I'd just wait until people work out the kinks in connecting a Kinect. The Kinect is the only "motion" gimmick I think has any long-term potential. It still didn't get me to want a 360, but I respect them for trying.
But that doesn't point to exceptionalism. It just points to the fact that people hate change, and are, on the whole, irrational.
Also, it could be argued converse to you point, from my example, that metric training is wasting time and resources since the same measurements could be made, just as accurately, via imperial units.
I'm not actually endorsing the above argument, I'm just playing a bit of devil's advocacy.
Slashdot Mirror
Sure, lets do that. Where are your numbers? Do you have a graph, or are you just talking out your ass because you don't like looking at real data?
Where were your real numbers? You posted a meaningless graph, with no citations or sources, that was even out of context of the article in which is was embedded. And further, you actively ignored my critique of it in order to flame a reasonable statement that measuring how well we are doing requires a more complex analysis of multiple factors instead of your one factor (which you claim is better than the GPs one single factor).
I also never made a claim whether, or whether not we are doing better. I just stated that your single axis of information was insufficient to make a conclusion, and was probably subject to the same individual biases (picking a single bit of information to prove your point) that you accused the GP of.
Hell, your point may be correct; but it will take much more than a single graph on a single metric, to prove it.
I don't see why your getting so emotional about it.
Uh, where do you come up with this stuff? Did you take a class called "Economics for retards?" Probably not because you actually would have learned something there. This is so braindead a drunk monkey could come up with something more realistic.
And at this point I stop having this conversation with you, since you seem completely incapable of rational debate, or at least debate which wold question even the surface of your pre-existing ideals. In other words, there is no point, since your not actually interested in debate; instead you are interested in evangelizing your ideology.
You pretty much illustrate whats wrong with American politics these days, and why we're on a decline.
Because you can't face reality
You don't say? I stated that because the parent stated that is isn't a big deal of 10 million peoples lives are ruined because of market conditions, because that 10 million people is ONLY 4% of the population. The reality of that statement is a bit sickening to me. Basically it is fine and dandy if 10 million people are rendered homeless so their bosses can make more money, and a limited set of consumers (definitely not the ten million who just got screwed) can buy a product marginally cheaper.
I am not a Marxist, or anti-capitalist, but I can understand them much more when people bandy about points like that.
Capitalism is fine, as long as it is a slave to human interests. The, largely mythical, freemarket should be balanced with what leads to the greater good of society. The second it starts working against normal people, it needs to be checked, since human good is the only ends that makes any sense. When working from within a society, this means societal good, not individual benefit at the cost of everyone else (that goes against the basic tenets of the social contract on which our society was based).
I am a capitalist, it is the only system that has shown itself to work and probably the default state of natural economies. I am not a "freemarketeer" since that is a bit of ideological dogma that people somehow aspire towards; it is a utopia, it isn't based in reality.
free market is one where the consumers are in charge, and the system is focused on working to satisfy consumer needs.
Sure, I can buy this. But that isn't the definition of "free market" as people use it here. A free market is one completely unfettered, i.e. free. People who espouse it somehow put market forces about human good, the market is its own ends and good. And somehow actions of this market are conflated with the moral or ethical "right". It ignores extra-market forces like coercion, economic inequality, restriction (or misrepresentation) of information, corruption, crony-ism, etc... It presumes that if somehow the Government walked away the market would work itself out, and magically start working towards the societal good. I am not aware of any historical case when this has actually happened, nor does the logic really work itself out.
Any market has to be restricted and regulated to keep things balanced witnin itself, to minimize extra-market forces, and to keep it a slave to the good of the society that it is based in.
A market is not a good in itself, it is only good in its relation to society. When the scale tips to favor the market over everyone else, then something must be done. This is the case currently.
Measuring real compensation is hard of course, but it gives a better measurement of what the average employee is getting [wikipedia.org]. And it's been going up. Look at the graph.
That graph is meaningless. It isn't referenced within the Wikipedia page that contains it, except for a caption saying that "health insurance" is one thing it counts. This is misleading, since insurance rates have been inflating wildly for the last decade, while coverage has been dropping. So yes, you get "more insurance" now than you did costwise, but in reality you get the same amount of less.
Also, to illustrate a point if not make an actual argument: A lot of people talk about compensation in order to deceive you, because it matches the narrative they want to push.
In reality we should be taking compensation, real wages, and cost of living/inflation into account. Paying attention to one of them exclusively screaming "cherry picking to support my initial premise".
But you'd have to be braindead to think this is going to cause 70% of the population to die in the streets when the manufacturing industry only employs around 10million people?
Yes, he exaggerated. Thats bad. But you missed his point, at the same time. If we can eliminate a large portion of our workforce, then that is less money in the system, if there is less money in the system there is less buying power, if there is less buying power there is less demand, if there is less demand we eliminate more of our workforce. Very simple logic, and very accurate logic.
Even if all those people exploded, it would only be ~4% of the population dead.
Yes, it would be around 4%, but it still would be ten million INDIVIDUALS just like you, and hell you could even be one of them (your probably not rich enough to have a significant safety net, and I'm sure your industry is next on the block and you probably aren't indispensable at all.) . I'm sorry, I'll always hold individuals above meaningless economic abstractions and utopian ideals. Even if it is ONLY 10 million people.
Freemarketeers always sound like sociopaths to me.
this is standard dogma among therapists...
Are you a scientologist?
Also, how do you know its "common" dogma, how many therapists do you know? Have you conducted a fair and accurate poll of them? I've known a fair share, and many of them haven't claimed this. Though there is some interesting brain studies that do show looking at a picture of an act does stimulate the same bits of the brain that are stimulated while conducting an act. That isn't therapy though, that neuroscience... Damn neuroscientists and their progressive agenda.
and progressive feminists.
All things considered I could probably be classified as a "feminist", and probably "progressive" to boot (as opposed to being a regressive feminist, I suppose). Seeing a picture isn't the same as the act. But that doesn't mean that wanting to see the picture is inductive of a healthy person. Or that seeking out the picture my not constitute demand for the production of more picture.
In other words I will whole-heartedly dismiss your point as a strawman.
I rather doubt this. There would still be money involved, and there still would be a legal vacuum in certain countries that would produce cartels and violence. Sure, even if you could get homegrown, or local, pot for $x, there will be a market for cartel pot being sold for $x-1.
There will be less violence, perhaps, but there will always be violence. Even with alcohol being legal, I'm sure some moonshiner got shot in the face by another moonshiner lately.
Another thing, if the US completely legalized all drugs, the cartels have proper supply chains, proper ways of mass production, etc... Meaning for a long period of time they will still be more efficient than locally grown products. This means they will be competitive with U.S. grown and produced product for a long time. Think of it as narcotic outsourcing.
And yet the vast majority of this stuff gets posted for free.
I wouldn't know...
But, there is such a thing as non-monetary rewards, such as fame and respect within your community. Look at the various "warez" and piracy scenes for an analogue. Scenesters aren't being paid for their work, but they sure as hell are working under market incentives still.
One problem is that some of the people who produce it aren't pedophiles, their just immoral capitalists exploiting a deranged market. Think people who pimp out children in third world countries (or even first world ones), they might not piddle children, but as long as someone is willing to pay for it they have no problem facilitating.
...they're arguing that the demand for it isn't causing supply.
So basically it is completely like any other market in existence?
If there is a large quantity of x, who want y then someone will make y. If there is a large quantity of x who wants, and is willing to pay for, y, then there will be a huge amount of people willing to do anything it takes to manufacture y.
I'm willing to give you $10 for a picture of your cat. Are you telling me this won't help give some incentive to produce and distribute kitty pictures that you otherwise wouldn't have taken?
Yes, I'm sure a lot of kitty porn was produced gratis, and consumed for free. But there are non-monetary rewards involved as well, such as esteem within your cat photography circles. Think of the piracy "scene", these people aren't making money, but are creating things for a non-monetary reward that roughly follows normal market logic. The higher demand for the free product, the more esteem and "cred" you get for creating it.
I'm not saying that things haven't gotten overboard on the enforcement end; but there is an argument for enforcement.
And when it all comes down to it, I have around zero sympathy for people who produce or consume kiddy porn. To me it is ONLY a rights and cost of enforcement issue. They really, for the most part, get exactly what they deserve. Hell, in the end, they know it is illegal and still consume it, so they really can't complain about the consequences of their actions. If somehow every person who knowingly views kiddy porn was magically castrated, I wouldn't shed a tear.
It annoys the hell out of me too, as does the term "organic"... How, my corn chips have carbon atoms?! Wow! Actually, my bag of cheetos is made with "natural oils"... which could mean crude, or mineral oil.
Sadly this is how language works though. When someone rails against "chemicals" my brain fills in "man-made chemicals and stabilizers. The happiness I gain from this translation is much better than sitting around getting pissy every-time someone doesn't use language with the exactitude I expect. We all know what they mean when they rant about chemicals, and it hasn't degraded the actual, technical, meaning of the word one bit.
That said, I do get angsty when people use the word "philosophy" in the colloquial sense, but that might be because I'm still paying off vast amounts of college debt because of that word.
Giant, dark, less battery life.
I've been out of the game for a bit, as I said, so I'm going off the the GBA. I still remember its complete and total lack of backlight, and how idiotic that seemed (and still does). It is big, though. Very big, and very ugly. But its better than the GBAlite, or whatever it was called, I couldn't hit the shoulder buttons without some pain and dislocation.
So if i can see 3D, and depth with one eye, how can showing my eyes alternate views "allow" me to see depth that isn't there?
Wait... you really have never head of stereoscopic vision? One eye can get clues about depth via things like perspective and parallax, but it doesn't get as strong clues as having two eyes interpolate the relative differences between their inputs (via things like perspective shift). This isn't a terribly hard thing to understand, even conceptually, and beyond that there is TONS of data out there.
Hell, Wikipedia even has info on it..
Also, in pure objective terms, humans don't directly experience depth. Light coming into the eye is projected onto the flat surface at the back of the eye. We only, really, see in two dimensions, the rest is "post processing" (if you will). All experience of depth is subjective, really.
There also is natural variation in the ability within the population. I have rather crappy depth perception, even with both eyes. I recently had an accident hampering the abilities of my right eye (resulting in a decently sized blind-spot), and now my depth perception is even worse.
We really don't understand how the brain processes images
Not 100%, but we do know a fair bit. Its not a completely un-understood field, and is actually pretty comprehensive as far as neurosciences go. It actually is a fascinating field of study.
stop spouting theories that are being proven to only be correct in certain situations as facts for the entire concept.
Binocular vision isn't something that is correct in certain situations. Projecting a different image to each eye is the only way to force 3D, and, indeed, it is the basis of most of our natural depth perception. We see 3D on the 3DS in pretty much the same way as we process it in real life, sans some of the single eye clues (which are ignored by having a fixed focal distance, and some basic graphical tricks (simulated parallax, etc...)
(remember the first gen DS? ugh)
What was wrong with it? I'm rather new to the handheld console market (my last one being a launch-era GBA), but recently bought a first-gen DS so I could tap the vast market of used GBA games (mostly so I could play Final Fantasy I-VI on the patio while smoking and drinking coffee, to be honest), and so far have no complaints. I was going to get a used DS Lite, but for some reason people want $100 for them used, still, while the clunky old (it might be the ugliest bit of hardware I own now) DS was only $35, which is worth it. I have no complaints about it, outside of aesthetics; its everything I expect from a handheld.
The DSi (and its 7,000 variations) is nice and all, but I don't understand why I'd want to spend almost $100 more for the ability to play the same games, in the same way, as the original DS (there is only like 4 games that are only for the DSi), and completely lose the ability to play GBA games.
Yes, the DSi is beefier, but what the hell does it matter if it is pretty much restricted to DS games?
Also, I kind of liked the 3DS, it, oddly, didn't give me a headache. I can't watching most 3D movies because I get a splitting migraine afterwards, but the 3DS didn't bother me. Granted I only played it for around 15 minutes at a game store. The killer to me is the price, and the fact that the battery is worse than any previous handheld I can think of (including the Lynx).
If you do too, then that's because Apple cultivated that word usage via the App Store.
So what? I'm going to quickly rebrand the word "coffee" to mean "only the products I make from beans of the genus Coffea that I make and serve in my cups", and then sue every "coffee shop" to oblivion. Obviously I spent some dollars on the term, so I should get paid.
But how is "App Store" a generic term to describe a software repository or a package management system?
Well, its a store selling apps, perhaps? Any store selling applications is an "app store", since "app" is (and has been for a long time) a common slang for "applications"
It wouldn't be generic for any package management system, or repository, just for ones that are predominantly "stores".
"App" had been used, however, it was not in wide use until Apple revealed the App Store.
Huh? I've been calling applications "apps" for some time, at least since 2005, if not earlier. I remember this because, ironically, it was rather common in the Apple community, and that is when I was still trying Macs. Actually, come to think of it the application section on one of my old warez BBSs (in the early 90's) called is application section "apps". "Apps" has been short for "applications" for some time, long before Apple glommed onto it... Actually, why did Apple pick the term "app" in the first place, if no one ever knew what it meant?
As for "app store", they might have a case, but they probably shouldn't. "App" is a generic term and preexists, and has nothing to do with, Apple. "Store" is also a completely generic term. Its like trademarking "book store", basically.
I'm not terribly invested, Amazon or Apple winning really doesn't benefit me as a consumer either way, and I really don't care about either company enough to care. I don't mind Amazon's App Store, but I don't understand the point of its existence. On the otherhand, I can't stand Apple's App Store, but thats mostly because Apple wants to be my nanny. I trust neither, and neither has earned my loyalty. Let them sue each other to oblivion for all I care.
Know any farmers or people who keep chickens?
Why yes! They keep them safe and warm and happy.
Farmers love them chickens.
I'm a huge fan of Tome4 (Tales of the something-something).
I'm sure a lot of die-hard fans will get annoyed though, since it predominately tiled graphics and not text. And has a somewhat fixed map/structure with large randomly generated dungeons. There are different death options too, with hardcore being the most roguelike of them (perma-death, barring some hard to get items), but you can also have limited lives. I like it since it bring lots of modern conventions to the genre, and makes them a bit less opaque. Its also very nice because the stats say that most characters never clear the first boss.
I have nothing against upgrading the genre, personally.
Stonesoup is pretty damn good as well. As is Desktop Dungeons, though I'm not sure if thats actually a roguelike, I think it is, but I'm sure the hardcore among us will disagree.
Someone should really make an RTS ruleset for Chess now.
I remember, as a kid, me and a friend tried to combine Monopoly with Risk just so we could have "troops in the Baltic". It eventually spanned a full notebook, and got so convoluted that even we couldn't keep track of the rules.
Everytime you passed Go, you could collect up to 5 troops, or collect $200. When landing on a space you own you could place up to 5 troops, and you could have only 5 troops follow your piece. On landing on an occupied space (one with troops on it), you could either pay the price, or attack using Risk rules, if you win and kill all the troops there the owning player cedes the place and it remains "scorched earth" for a turn, and is available for purchase the next turn. Railroads can be used to move to any other owned railroad. It got complicated when we added supply lines and attrition. If you had a space with an army, but occupied no other tiles within a certain range you lost troops per turn due to supply lines, unless your within x tiles of an owned railroad.
Someone should totally give Chess the same treatment... "I'm not moving this pawn, it needs more lumber to I can built another rook (which, in turn, can spawn more pawns)"
The good news is, the smart kids will - given the opportunity - teach themselves.
Sadly, many times that opportunity isn't provided. I've only had a handful of teachers who realized that I was crushingly bored with the curriculum, and reached out to give me further knowledge. When I asked for deeper knowledge on a subject, most teachers dismissed me since they had no knowledge of the topics they were teaching beyond the precise information they were presenting. Worse, many teachers reprimanded me for reading in class, or doing my own things (non-disruptively), while the class was learning things, or doing work, that I already finished earlier.
This isn't always true. I remember an English teacher I had at some point in high school who, when I finished our reading was skeptical since I finished it around a day (it was a two week assignment). He grilled me, I answered correctly. So he gave me another book. I finished it in about two days. He grilled me, and then allowed me to tear apart his library for thing to read. I was the only kid in that class who ended up writing three reports, one on the required reading, one another book he assigned, and one of James Gleick's book on chaos theory. I loved that teacher, and he was the only shining light throughout high school (out side of the psychology teacher who loved the fact that I experimented with hallucinogens).
I still hang around with the 'bad crowd' because I need excitement in my life. I still risk arrest daily (never happened though 'cus I iz clevar).
I'm well into my 30's and my parents still ponder why I hang out with some of the people I do. I keep two segregated groups of friends, one of which is average and fun, the other of is intellectually stimulating and boring. But my parents think I should be happy sitting around with smart people discussing philosophy (my vice) all day. When, in my experience, true happiness requires plenty of beer, billiards, and mutual trash-talk on occasion.
I should add here that I think software developers have a bit of an advantage in doing these tests as they're generally more practiced at solving this sort of problem.
Its a good thing most IQ tests are administered early on, then. Really there is no point in IQ tests past a certain developmental age.
Also, I could think of many other careers that would also be better at them, but this might be because people who score decently on IQ test gravitate towards those fields (playing their strengths, the strengths the IQ test tests).
...drop me a line and I'll buy you a bear...
I'm not the person your replying to, but I'm frightened and intrigued by your proposal.
That said, I think its a rather common experience among "smart folks". When I was a kid both my and my neighbor were flagged as problem kids, and we both tested with higher IQs. He got sullen and moody when bored, and got into accelerated programs; I made my own amusement and got into tons of trouble. Later I dropped out of school completely and found better pursuits to waste my time on until I hit 18 and could enroll in community college (and use that as a springboard to enter university, passing my abysmal high-school GPA). Ignoring my voracious reading habits and geeky hobbies I would have been easily confused for your average hooligan, where my neighbor was the image of the "troubled gifted kid".
My girlfriend is currently about a month or two from her masters in education, and pretty much confirms that schools still aren't equipped to handle gifted kids, and for the most part have no desire to do so. Aiming for the slowest kid seems to be the thing to do, even if you let the intelligent (and average) kids languish. Hell, you don't even have to help the slow kids excel, you just have to let them feel good about mediocrity.
Yes, I'm a cynic, but sadly there hasn't been any evidence to prove I'm wrong.
That said, and to veer dangerously on-topic, I'm not sure if IQ is really all that meaningful. IQ, in my somewhat educated opinion, sets potential, but a whole bunch of other factors contribute to how well you live up to that potential. I've meet my fair share of druggies, morons, and homeless people who have high IQs. And some of the people I know with lower IQs are far happier than many people with high ones, and happiness is probably a much more important and meaningful metric than IQ ever will be.
There is also something extremely annoying about people talking about how high their IQ is, its like they don't have any actual achievements to be proud of and must cling to some silly statistic that was attached to them in grade school, a statistic they probably have absolutely no control over whatsoever. A high IQ doesn't make you special, actions makes you special. Hell, a high IQ doesn't even make you intelligent, hard work and motivation makes you intelligent. These disclaimers aren't aimed at you, their aimed at the baseless elitists who I'm sure are hopping up and down like excited puppies right now since they have a chance to brag about how IQ-y they are, and how inferior everyone else who isn't is.
Where did you find a lefty-version? I scoured their site and didn't find any reference. I'd love to replace my aging wired Copperhead, it still works fine but the scroll wheel is a getting a bit sticky, but I hate mouse shopping since decent mice with any functionality are largely only right-handed, and most ambi models kind of suck.
I said reasonable distance.
For me, that's just over 10 feet away, like I sit right now from my monitor.
I doubt that many people sit that far away, and I doubt that many people would find that "reasonable" because that fact. Right now I'm about 3 feet from my 24" display, when I'm typing I'm less, when I'm watching a movie I'm a bit farther. But I'm never 10' (in my den its only 10' from my monitor to the back wall). Sure, on my HTPC I sit back a bit (as far as 7'-8'), but I don't think a television is considered a monitor, even when connected to a PC.
To me a reasonable distance would 3'-4'. For a console it would be 8'-10', since people sit further from them.
That said, I really doubt I'd buy anything like this. Even on the Wii motion controls often just become annoying after a short period of time, and most of the time is nothing but a cheap gimmick. Also, if I really cared, I'd just wait until people work out the kinks in connecting a Kinect. The Kinect is the only "motion" gimmick I think has any long-term potential. It still didn't get me to want a 360, but I respect them for trying.
But that doesn't point to exceptionalism. It just points to the fact that people hate change, and are, on the whole, irrational.
Also, it could be argued converse to you point, from my example, that metric training is wasting time and resources since the same measurements could be made, just as accurately, via imperial units.
I'm not actually endorsing the above argument, I'm just playing a bit of devil's advocacy.