A proposal from a Dutch party is to fund education by having people with a university education pay 1% more tax. If that's really all it takes, then I'm all for it.
Many, if not most, fail to fully consider the implications of the world they design.
Some certainly do, but I wouldn't say most, and few are anywhere near as bad as D&D. The further they get from the extreme gamism of D&D, the better game publishers seem to think things through. GURPS and Traveller tend to be very good in that regard, IMO. Many smaller games possibly even more so. It's just the D&D look-a-likes that you need to watch out for.
You can't heal or revive him for the same reason you can't simply use Phoenix Down on Aeris, or why using nuke-level summoning magic in the middle of a city doesn't leave it a smoking ruin: you are acting out a pre-scripted story.
And once you realise that, suspension of disbelief is completely gone. It's a bad way to force a story down someone's throat.
The more degrees of freedom you have, the harder it becomes to keep the story from breaking; and judging by the "how to make the players do what you want" -sections in some tabletop DM guides I've read, it seems that this phenomenom is not limited to the realm of computer RPGs.
I think most tabletop RPGs nowadays say: "let the players do what they want". Giving them freedom and taking it away whenever they actually want to use it is a bad idea. Think before you throw an ill-thought-out story at them.
The messenger/last survivor of the massacre with his last gasp, says a bunch of nonsensical stuff, right before he dies. WTF? There's two fucking clerics in the party that can cast Heal in the middle of a battle. And now that the dude's dead, why can't my guys cast Raise Dead on him? Total crap.
That's because D&D doesn't consider the logical implications of their design choices. If magic is common, it will have a dramatic impact on every aspect of life. No famine, no disease, etc.
Of course you can have a messenger die with some meaningful last words, but not in a setting where magical healing or resurrection is common (or even available). If you want to have lots of healing magic, your stories need to take into account that important people will almost never die.
So if I can set paper alight, I should be able to do the same with sand? If I can bite an apple, I should be able to chew a rock?
If I can put an apple in my mouth, shouldn't I be able to do the same with a rock? I expect to break a tooth, though (which should be visible if I ever look in a mirror in the game).
Not true. If you play multiplayer and defeat a real actual live human, you prove that you're a superior human being. That's got to count for something, right?
Its obvious from that why 25% will have two boys, etc. But If you already know one is a boy, regardless of order, its 1 in two chance the other child is a boy as well...
Only if you know which one is the boy. If you don't, then there's two options that have a boy and a girl, and one that has two boys, therefore 1/3 chance that the other is a boy.
Maybe Einstein fathered it in a crazy, drunken night of passion, but other people with completely different ideas raised and educated it (or put crazy ideas in its head, at least).
Relativity was the legitimate child, QM the bastard.
To take the logical extension, mcvos' argument appears not to be that new knowledge can build on previous knowledge, but that new knowledge must build on all previous references to knowledge.
No, it's that new knowledge generally builds on some previous knowledge. You don't have to stand on the shoulders of all giants simultaneously, but there aren't so many completely new, completely unexplored areas that there aren't usually some giants nearby.
This is dangerous since references to knowledge are not generally themselves knowledge,
Why not?
and because requiring new thinking to be limited to the assumptions set out in previous theories would systematically prevent the emergence of new ideas (not in or derived from the previous theory).
I'm not requiring it to be limited, I'm only requiring it to be new, rather than duplicating what was already known. It's perfectly fine to overthrow the status quo, and introduce a completely new paradigm. But you can do that much more effectively when you know the old paradigm and can explain what's wrong with it. If you've never even heard of the old paradigm, you're just stumbling about in the dark.
Android has a superior notification system. On the other hand, Before Android 2.1, the iPhone had more home screens.
I also like the standard Android email clients more. And in fact, if I didn't, there'd be a good chance I could install a better email app from the marketplace. No such chance with the iPhone.
My iPhone 3G had little or no reception in lots of places (in supermarkets, in the middle nowhere, etc). I thought it was because of the crappy network, but then my iPhone got stolen and I bought a Milestone, which I use with the exact same subscription, and suddenly I do have excellent reception in all those places where I didn't have it before.
The network is still crappy (dropped calls or calls not arriving at all), but at least I now have a phone that works.
We're talking breakthrough here. You're not going to make a breakthrough in physics if you've never heard of Newton or Einstein. I doubt you can make any meaningful breakthrough in biology if you've never heard of Darwin.
If you've never heard of the giants on whose shoulders you could stand, the very best you can hope for is to duplicate their work, and it'd be pretty arrogant to assume you can do even that.
From these stories, those ASCAP guys really come across as mobsters. I'd be afraid to have my fingers broken.
However, the idiotic rule that you have to pay licensing costs to play your own original music is unfortunately not restricted to the US. I've heard that if I give a private party, assemble a band and we play our own, original music, we'd still have to pay licensing fees to Buma/Stemra (the Dutch RIAA), of which we'd get nothing back, because we're not registered with them.
It's a protection racket that really needs to be illegal, and those mobsters need to be thrown in jail.
Yes, I discovered this distinction somewhere else in this discussion. It matters whether you select a family first, before randomly selecting a boy from that family (leads to a chance of 1/3), compared to directly selecting a boy from a variety of families that have at least one boy (leads to a chance of 1/2, because families with 2 boys are twice as likely to be selected).
The way the problem is presented, however, I believe the family is selected first.
Don't forget to read up on the Monty Hall problem. It's very much related to what you're saying.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't really see how education paid for by taxes automatically leads to waiting lists and red tape.
(The higher taxes are obvious, but you need to compare it to the alternative: debt.)
A proposal from a Dutch party is to fund education by having people with a university education pay 1% more tax. If that's really all it takes, then I'm all for it.
Or the advantage.
Many, if not most, fail to fully consider the implications of the world they design.
Some certainly do, but I wouldn't say most, and few are anywhere near as bad as D&D. The further they get from the extreme gamism of D&D, the better game publishers seem to think things through. GURPS and Traveller tend to be very good in that regard, IMO. Many smaller games possibly even more so. It's just the D&D look-a-likes that you need to watch out for.
You can't heal or revive him for the same reason you can't simply use Phoenix Down on Aeris, or why using nuke-level summoning magic in the middle of a city doesn't leave it a smoking ruin: you are acting out a pre-scripted story.
And once you realise that, suspension of disbelief is completely gone. It's a bad way to force a story down someone's throat.
The more degrees of freedom you have, the harder it becomes to keep the story from breaking; and judging by the "how to make the players do what you want" -sections in some tabletop DM guides I've read, it seems that this phenomenom is not limited to the realm of computer RPGs.
I think most tabletop RPGs nowadays say: "let the players do what they want". Giving them freedom and taking it away whenever they actually want to use it is a bad idea. Think before you throw an ill-thought-out story at them.
The messenger/last survivor of the massacre with his last gasp, says a bunch of nonsensical stuff, right before he dies. WTF? There's two fucking clerics in the party that can cast Heal in the middle of a battle. And now that the dude's dead, why can't my guys cast Raise Dead on him? Total crap.
That's because D&D doesn't consider the logical implications of their design choices. If magic is common, it will have a dramatic impact on every aspect of life. No famine, no disease, etc.
Of course you can have a messenger die with some meaningful last words, but not in a setting where magical healing or resurrection is common (or even available). If you want to have lots of healing magic, your stories need to take into account that important people will almost never die.
So if I can set paper alight, I should be able to do the same with sand? If I can bite an apple, I should be able to chew a rock?
If I can put an apple in my mouth, shouldn't I be able to do the same with a rock? I expect to break a tooth, though (which should be visible if I ever look in a mirror in the game).
There's no "WIN IN THE REAL WORLD" achievement.
Not true. If you play multiplayer and defeat a real actual live human, you prove that you're a superior human being. That's got to count for something, right?
I hear it's already been rejected from the App store.
It must be good, then.
Where is the "+1 Freaking scary" mod?
I've handled this issue in several other comments. Read this one, for example.
Its obvious from that why 25% will have two boys, etc. But If you already know one is a boy, regardless of order, its 1 in two chance the other child is a boy as well...
Only if you know which one is the boy. If you don't, then there's two options that have a boy and a girl, and one that has two boys, therefore 1/3 chance that the other is a boy.
Maybe Einstein fathered it in a crazy, drunken night of passion, but other people with completely different ideas raised and educated it (or put crazy ideas in its head, at least).
Relativity was the legitimate child, QM the bastard.
To take the logical extension, mcvos' argument appears not to be that new knowledge can build on previous knowledge, but that new knowledge must build on all previous references to knowledge.
No, it's that new knowledge generally builds on some previous knowledge. You don't have to stand on the shoulders of all giants simultaneously, but there aren't so many completely new, completely unexplored areas that there aren't usually some giants nearby.
This is dangerous since references to knowledge are not generally themselves knowledge,
Why not?
and because requiring new thinking to be limited to the assumptions set out in previous theories would systematically prevent the emergence of new ideas (not in or derived from the previous theory).
I'm not requiring it to be limited, I'm only requiring it to be new, rather than duplicating what was already known. It's perfectly fine to overthrow the status quo, and introduce a completely new paradigm. But you can do that much more effectively when you know the old paradigm and can explain what's wrong with it. If you've never even heard of the old paradigm, you're just stumbling about in the dark.
Android has a superior notification system. On the other hand, Before Android 2.1, the iPhone had more home screens.
I also like the standard Android email clients more. And in fact, if I didn't, there'd be a good chance I could install a better email app from the marketplace. No such chance with the iPhone.
My iPhone 3G had little or no reception in lots of places (in supermarkets, in the middle nowhere, etc). I thought it was because of the crappy network, but then my iPhone got stolen and I bought a Milestone, which I use with the exact same subscription, and suddenly I do have excellent reception in all those places where I didn't have it before.
The network is still crappy (dropped calls or calls not arriving at all), but at least I now have a phone that works.
We're talking breakthrough here. You're not going to make a breakthrough in physics if you've never heard of Newton or Einstein. I doubt you can make any meaningful breakthrough in biology if you've never heard of Darwin.
If you've never heard of the giants on whose shoulders you could stand, the very best you can hope for is to duplicate their work, and it'd be pretty arrogant to assume you can do even that.
Not all peering points are in the US, though.
He responded that it only takes four chords before we infringe on his artists' songs, and it was simply not possible for us not to infringe.
Just stick to chords that have been used by Bach or Mozart, and you can show them prior art in court.
From these stories, those ASCAP guys really come across as mobsters. I'd be afraid to have my fingers broken.
However, the idiotic rule that you have to pay licensing costs to play your own original music is unfortunately not restricted to the US. I've heard that if I give a private party, assemble a band and we play our own, original music, we'd still have to pay licensing fees to Buma/Stemra (the Dutch RIAA), of which we'd get nothing back, because we're not registered with them.
It's a protection racket that really needs to be illegal, and those mobsters need to be thrown in jail.
Good point. They see art as a product that is to be industrially exploited, rather than as actual unique art.
Who says that artists have God-given rights to their works for a start?
That's what I thought too. I don't think God gives people rights. He may give people mercy, but in the face of God, we have no rights whatsoever.
Just because the US is stuck in 16th century thinking with respect to copyrights
There was no copyright in the 16th century. It's a pretty recent invention.
If there were actual aliens on Venus, we'd have found them by now.
Yes, I discovered this distinction somewhere else in this discussion. It matters whether you select a family first, before randomly selecting a boy from that family (leads to a chance of 1/3), compared to directly selecting a boy from a variety of families that have at least one boy (leads to a chance of 1/2, because families with 2 boys are twice as likely to be selected).
The way the problem is presented, however, I believe the family is selected first.
Don't forget to read up on the Monty Hall problem. It's very much related to what you're saying.