I guess what I was getting at is that exit poll discrepancies can suggest where there MAY be a problem, but they are not a reliable indicator that there IS a problem. They are not infallible for a variety of reasons, lying just being the first one I thought of.
Sure they know, but will they be honest about it?
One factor in 2008 exit polling was that a lot of people didn't want to admit to having voted against Obama. One reason was that anyone with anything against him was cast as a racist, and people didn't want to be seen as such. Personally, I've never been exit polled, but I would lie my ass off. My district is just about politically homogeneous, and I'd just rather not declare in possible earshot of my neighbors that I'd voted against them. There's a name for these tendencies for people to lie in exit polls
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shy_Tory_Factor
Since when is the system builder's license new? Am I missing something, because I could swear I have two of these (XP and 7)? They're usually about half the price of the full retail.
Plenty of charter and private schools provide better education at the same class sizes and half the cost of public schools.
I think one component of that is that students whose families just want to dump them into a free day care wind up in public school, and families who are engaged in the student's education try to get them out of public school. These play a role in the educational outcomes, but there's still no good reason that the lesser option should cost so much more.
And as for the "poor teachers" spiel, save it. It got old decades ago. There aren't a lot of 4 year programs you can walk out of starting at 30k/year with full state benefits and working 9 months out of the year. A friend's sister just retired from public teaching making 6 figures, and now has a pension in the mid-80's. Yeah, when they work they do work hard, it's not an easy job (if they're any good at it - I'm sure it's a cake walk if you don't really care), but they aren't on food stamps.
You mean it might not be best to subordinate independent analysis to broad stroked prescribed remedies? Hmm. I'll have to look for someone who's thought about that for a minute.
It doesn't have anything to do with the ACLU, but no, the ACLU wouldn't protect the student's right to design whatever they want. They promote themselves as constitutional watchdogs, but the ACLU does not offer blanket protections for civil liberties - in fact, it has a fairly narrow view of what does or doesn't warrant their protection.
Bear in mind that the ACLU was established as a means to constitutionally shoehorn communism in. As its founder, Robert Baldwin, stated "Therefore, I am for Socialism, disarmament and ultimately, for the abolishing of the State itself. I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class and sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal." To that end, the ACLU took an interest only in those cases which could either bring about things like social ownership of property, or might set useful precedent towards those goals.
I don't really think the ACLU has its eye on communism anymore, but neither are they supportive of civil rights, or defenders of the constitution. For instance, they have an unreserved hatred of the 2nd amendment, try to establish prior restraints on the first wherever it's convenient, and really don't relish the rights provided under the ninth. Frequently I've considered the ends sought cases they represent to be described as subversive at best, and not really in anyone's best interest, and that has numerous times included their clients best interest as well. If constitutional communism was the goal years ago, then today the goal is simply undermining whatever cultural traditions and selected rights we have in the name of civil rights. They practice a sort of legal nihilism.
So a kid who gets arrested for making an FPS map of his school doesn't really have their interest unless he has a gun. They'll defend his right to have the gun in school if he hasn't used it, and if he has used it, all the better - then they can accrue campaign fodder for the next 2nd amendment challenge. They don't care a whit for his creative rights, unless perhaps he's creating something socially destructive. Clearly, this kid wasn't masterminding the next high school massacre - if he was, they'd probably already be representing his defense.
Sorry for getting so far off topic. Just not sorry enough not to post this.
I think what we need to do is research that does work to gauge how well chimps could cope in human society when raised in that society and how intelligent they can then become. Then compare that with the lowest human being and work your way up through the human being scale (if the chimp is better then the lowest human beings we have) until we find a type of human (most likely suffering some form of mental retardation) that is comparable with your average chimp.
So we should assign them Slashdot ID's?
Free my brethren!
I think what he's getting on about is that an RPG might have a very long and detailed story, but seriously...how many stories take 40+ hours to tell?
It's not precisely an RPG, but how about Deus Ex (the original, not the blasphemy)? The story drove the game, and I was disappointed to see it end after 50+ hours. That gave the game serious value to me, and is probably why it's still high on my all-time top 5. Making a good story 40+ hours long doesn't seem easy, and honestly I probably couldn't do it, but I'm glad some designers at least try.
I can agree that a bad story 10-12 hours long can seem longer than 40 hours, though... I like to think I'm pretty persistent, but I'll give up on a game if I can't answer "Why am I doing this?"
As regards the grind, it just needs to have purpose, or be otherwise engaging. Grind isn't automatically bad. IIRC, there were a couple people that actually liked Diablo.
Maybe the problem with some RPG's is that they are setting one set of expectations and delivering something different. The old, Satisfaction = Expectations - Reality equation.
So if reality = expectations, then satisfaction is zero?
Satisfaction = expectations - (reality * i)
Sorry, but this is Slashdot. Pedantry is required.
As for the "Most RPGs start you off unimaginatively at the absolute lowest level" statement, that's really not fair, and I don't think it's true. One reason, assuming that a game involves gaining levels, you have to start at some level. Regardless of what that level is, it's the absolute lowest level. I mean, you can't start at a higher level or else that would be the new absolute lowest level.
How do you advocate Linux to people who are more comfortable using Windows?
Give them a live CD (or at least a link to one). It worked on me. If it doesn't work on them, you're wasting your time advocating, because it's not right for them anyway.
In the U.S., the legal right of a person not to be owned by another didn't exist until 140 years ago, and a woman's legal right to vote didn't exist until 80 years ago. This has no bearing on a matter of principle, however; we regard those rights as having always existed as natural rights that were in violation until recognized by abolition and suffrage. The natural right to own your intellectual property also existed long before 250 years ago; it existed before law. It's the legal recognition of that right which came into existence.
A person has a natural right to own themselves. There is no precedent to this right; it is the first human right. The natural right to own the fruit of one's own labor derives naturally from the first (as do most others).
The argument for creating it is that it will increase the number of works created
The argument for creating it can range from simple self-expression, to fulfilling a need, to keeping oneself and one's family fed under some sort of roof (thanks to having a right to do so). Naming exactly what argument compelled creation is up to the creator, and not to whoever would like to benefit from their act of creation. Even in the event that increasing the stock of whatever they're creating actually is the impetus of creation, this fact does not negate the right of ownership. That requires the consent of the owner.
The fruits of your labor generally apply to being able to sell what you create
The fruits of your labor are what you create. You can choose to keep, sell, or give it away as you please (excepting collaborative efforts). When you write music, what you've created isn't a compact disc or papers covered in notation - you've created a song. That song is yours no matter who performs or sells it, being the product of your efforts.
The same applies to a book; it's your arrangement of information that you own, not the print-covered pages. It applies to invention; your creation isn't a gizmo that somehow improves someone's life - it's the design that didn't exist until you worked to bring it into being. The world's legal systems may invent limitless ways to complicate and screw this up, but laws aren't principles; they're derived from principles, and all too often imperfectly. Copyright law may be riddled with such imperfections, but the natural right to duplications of your own work still exists prior to law.
If only we had a long running control sample of people where we could have a high ratio of guns to people to see what happened to the crime rate.
There's a more relevant, and somewhat famous, example for comparing guns and crime rates - Morton Grove, Illinois and Kennesaw, Georgia. Morton Grove passed an ordinance in the 80's banning handgun ownership. This made some news, so Kennesaw mandated gun ownership in the spirit of a publicity stunt. They're both American towns, which had at the time roughly similar demographics.
I've seen advocates of both camps claim vindication in the results, and the results aren't readily understood without looking at the changes that took place in each over whatever span of time you're looking at (which I don't claim a full grasp of). I last saw actual numbers in 2000 (and couldn't quickly find anything suitable just now), and my impression was that the predictions that gun advocates would make were closer to being accurate, but probably not as dramatic as they'd expect. Morton Grove may have seen a very mild increase in certain types of crimes (near statistical insignificance, if memory serves), while Kennesaw saw a rate reduction in some types of crime that could fairly be called "notable".
More data is available though in places that have enacted strict gun control, like Great Britain. I don't know the full story on their crime rates, but their reported crime rates now apparently exceed the U.S. in everything but rape and murder, and their reporting methods exclude crimes that ours would include. I also don't know how much of a change there has been from pre- to post-ban, or what else might be contributing to any changes. I think Australia has enacted some restrictions in recent years as well.
Re:freaking me out
on
Who won?
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Oh, and not to mention the fact that it was the Supreme Court that handed Bush the win in 2000, stopping a recount that we now know would have resulted in a Gore win.
Most of that sounded about right, but "we now know"? In the first place, there wasn't just one recount, there were individual recounts in numerous precincts and counties, and in the second place none of the recounting changed the outcome for the entire month of November (sparkly graph).
Subsequent to the Supreme Court ruling, there were numerous independent recounts by news organizations and other interested parties. I think it was in 2002 that I saw a summary of 17 such efforts, most of which used different rules and methods for counting the votes. 15 placed Bush as the winner, and one of the two that favored Gore had done so by discarding absentee votes (including overseas military) as Gore had sought to do in the actual recounts. I don't recall the methods of the other being as questionable, just outweighed by the results of perhaps a dozen other methods.
So maybe you can see how I'm at a loss to understand how "we now know" that the recounts would have given Gore a win. Was there another final, ultimate, and authoritative recount that I maybe missed, or perhaps just yet another method of counting the votes that resulted in putting Gore ahead?
Slashdot Mirror
I guess what I was getting at is that exit poll discrepancies can suggest where there MAY be a problem, but they are not a reliable indicator that there IS a problem. They are not infallible for a variety of reasons, lying just being the first one I thought of.
Sure they know, but will they be honest about it? One factor in 2008 exit polling was that a lot of people didn't want to admit to having voted against Obama. One reason was that anyone with anything against him was cast as a racist, and people didn't want to be seen as such. Personally, I've never been exit polled, but I would lie my ass off. My district is just about politically homogeneous, and I'd just rather not declare in possible earshot of my neighbors that I'd voted against them. There's a name for these tendencies for people to lie in exit polls http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shy_Tory_Factor
Who complains about hardware patents?
They're already regulated under HIPAA, and doubtless other regulations as well.
Ahhh... I had no idea I was so rebellious! Thanks
Since when is the system builder's license new? Am I missing something, because I could swear I have two of these (XP and 7)? They're usually about half the price of the full retail.
Plenty of charter and private schools provide better education at the same class sizes and half the cost of public schools.
I think one component of that is that students whose families just want to dump them into a free day care wind up in public school, and families who are engaged in the student's education try to get them out of public school. These play a role in the educational outcomes, but there's still no good reason that the lesser option should cost so much more.
And as for the "poor teachers" spiel, save it. It got old decades ago. There aren't a lot of 4 year programs you can walk out of starting at 30k/year with full state benefits and working 9 months out of the year. A friend's sister just retired from public teaching making 6 figures, and now has a pension in the mid-80's. Yeah, when they work they do work hard, it's not an easy job (if they're any good at it - I'm sure it's a cake walk if you don't really care), but they aren't on food stamps.
You mean it might not be best to subordinate independent analysis to broad stroked prescribed remedies? Hmm. I'll have to look for someone who's thought about that for a minute.
It doesn't have anything to do with the ACLU, but no, the ACLU wouldn't protect the student's right to design whatever they want. They promote themselves as constitutional watchdogs, but the ACLU does not offer blanket protections for civil liberties - in fact, it has a fairly narrow view of what does or doesn't warrant their protection.
Bear in mind that the ACLU was established as a means to constitutionally shoehorn communism in. As its founder, Robert Baldwin, stated "Therefore, I am for Socialism, disarmament and ultimately, for the abolishing of the State itself. I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class and sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal." To that end, the ACLU took an interest only in those cases which could either bring about things like social ownership of property, or might set useful precedent towards those goals.
I don't really think the ACLU has its eye on communism anymore, but neither are they supportive of civil rights, or defenders of the constitution. For instance, they have an unreserved hatred of the 2nd amendment, try to establish prior restraints on the first wherever it's convenient, and really don't relish the rights provided under the ninth. Frequently I've considered the ends sought cases they represent to be described as subversive at best, and not really in anyone's best interest, and that has numerous times included their clients best interest as well. If constitutional communism was the goal years ago, then today the goal is simply undermining whatever cultural traditions and selected rights we have in the name of civil rights. They practice a sort of legal nihilism.
So a kid who gets arrested for making an FPS map of his school doesn't really have their interest unless he has a gun. They'll defend his right to have the gun in school if he hasn't used it, and if he has used it, all the better - then they can accrue campaign fodder for the next 2nd amendment challenge. They don't care a whit for his creative rights, unless perhaps he's creating something socially destructive. Clearly, this kid wasn't masterminding the next high school massacre - if he was, they'd probably already be representing his defense.
Sorry for getting so far off topic. Just not sorry enough not to post this.
The end of the line. Slashdot has devolved into a tech support forum.
So we should assign them Slashdot ID's? Free my brethren!
I think what he's getting on about is that an RPG might have a very long and detailed story, but seriously...how many stories take 40+ hours to tell?
It's not precisely an RPG, but how about Deus Ex (the original, not the blasphemy)? The story drove the game, and I was disappointed to see it end after 50+ hours. That gave the game serious value to me, and is probably why it's still high on my all-time top 5. Making a good story 40+ hours long doesn't seem easy, and honestly I probably couldn't do it, but I'm glad some designers at least try.
I can agree that a bad story 10-12 hours long can seem longer than 40 hours, though... I like to think I'm pretty persistent, but I'll give up on a game if I can't answer "Why am I doing this?"
As regards the grind, it just needs to have purpose, or be otherwise engaging. Grind isn't automatically bad. IIRC, there were a couple people that actually liked Diablo.
Maybe the problem with some RPG's is that they are setting one set of expectations and delivering something different. The old, Satisfaction = Expectations - Reality equation.
So if reality = expectations, then satisfaction is zero?
Satisfaction = expectations - (reality * i)
Sorry, but this is Slashdot. Pedantry is required.
Start numbering the levels at 4. Problem solved.
How do you advocate Linux to people who are more comfortable using Windows?
Give them a live CD (or at least a link to one). It worked on me. If it doesn't work on them, you're wasting your time advocating, because it's not right for them anyway.
That a female face holds viewers, while graphs and columns of figures chase them away. Or so I'd guess.
Yes, but when you're paid to support anthropogenic climate change, that's called a grant, not a bribe, so that's totally different.
Copyright didn't exist until about 250 years ago
In the U.S., the legal right of a person not to be owned by another didn't exist until 140 years ago, and a woman's legal right to vote didn't exist until 80 years ago. This has no bearing on a matter of principle, however; we regard those rights as having always existed as natural rights that were in violation until recognized by abolition and suffrage. The natural right to own your intellectual property also existed long before 250 years ago; it existed before law. It's the legal recognition of that right which came into existence.
A person has a natural right to own themselves. There is no precedent to this right; it is the first human right. The natural right to own the fruit of one's own labor derives naturally from the first (as do most others).
The argument for creating it is that it will increase the number of works created
The argument for creating it can range from simple self-expression, to fulfilling a need, to keeping oneself and one's family fed under some sort of roof (thanks to having a right to do so). Naming exactly what argument compelled creation is up to the creator, and not to whoever would like to benefit from their act of creation. Even in the event that increasing the stock of whatever they're creating actually is the impetus of creation, this fact does not negate the right of ownership. That requires the consent of the owner.
The fruits of your labor generally apply to being able to sell what you create
The fruits of your labor are what you create. You can choose to keep, sell, or give it away as you please (excepting collaborative efforts). When you write music, what you've created isn't a compact disc or papers covered in notation - you've created a song. That song is yours no matter who performs or sells it, being the product of your efforts.
The same applies to a book; it's your arrangement of information that you own, not the print-covered pages. It applies to invention; your creation isn't a gizmo that somehow improves someone's life - it's the design that didn't exist until you worked to bring it into being. The world's legal systems may invent limitless ways to complicate and screw this up, but laws aren't principles; they're derived from principles, and all too often imperfectly. Copyright law may be riddled with such imperfections, but the natural right to duplications of your own work still exists prior to law.
That's ok - copyright doesn't flow from any first principle either.
Unless you count "being entitled to own the fruit of your labor" as a principle.
If only we had a long running control sample of people where we could have a high ratio of guns to people to see what happened to the crime rate.
There's a more relevant, and somewhat famous, example for comparing guns and crime rates - Morton Grove, Illinois and Kennesaw, Georgia. Morton Grove passed an ordinance in the 80's banning handgun ownership. This made some news, so Kennesaw mandated gun ownership in the spirit of a publicity stunt. They're both American towns, which had at the time roughly similar demographics.
I've seen advocates of both camps claim vindication in the results, and the results aren't readily understood without looking at the changes that took place in each over whatever span of time you're looking at (which I don't claim a full grasp of). I last saw actual numbers in 2000 (and couldn't quickly find anything suitable just now), and my impression was that the predictions that gun advocates would make were closer to being accurate, but probably not as dramatic as they'd expect. Morton Grove may have seen a very mild increase in certain types of crimes (near statistical insignificance, if memory serves), while Kennesaw saw a rate reduction in some types of crime that could fairly be called "notable".
More data is available though in places that have enacted strict gun control, like Great Britain. I don't know the full story on their crime rates, but their reported crime rates now apparently exceed the U.S. in everything but rape and murder, and their reporting methods exclude crimes that ours would include. I also don't know how much of a change there has been from pre- to post-ban, or what else might be contributing to any changes. I think Australia has enacted some restrictions in recent years as well.
Oh, and not to mention the fact that it was the Supreme Court that handed Bush the win in 2000, stopping a recount that we now know would have resulted in a Gore win.
Most of that sounded about right, but "we now know"? In the first place, there wasn't just one recount, there were individual recounts in numerous precincts and counties, and in the second place none of the recounting changed the outcome for the entire month of November (sparkly graph).
Subsequent to the Supreme Court ruling, there were numerous independent recounts by news organizations and other interested parties. I think it was in 2002 that I saw a summary of 17 such efforts, most of which used different rules and methods for counting the votes. 15 placed Bush as the winner, and one of the two that favored Gore had done so by discarding absentee votes (including overseas military) as Gore had sought to do in the actual recounts. I don't recall the methods of the other being as questionable, just outweighed by the results of perhaps a dozen other methods.
So maybe you can see how I'm at a loss to understand how "we now know" that the recounts would have given Gore a win. Was there another final, ultimate, and authoritative recount that I maybe missed, or perhaps just yet another method of counting the votes that resulted in putting Gore ahead?
System Shock 3. Jagged Alliance 3. A real Deus Ex sequel (Ion Storm just had to be kidding with that last one).
So everyone who managed to get raised a buck above minimum is back to making minimum again?
I get the impression the parent poster wouldn't take a leak on Mother Theresa if she were on fire.
You have to be careful. What if it's a grease fire?