> I heard you can Set Lures to get Pokemon to appear in locations that you want.
No, you can make a pokestop spawn pokemon for half an hour. The locations of pokestops are not something you can pick. You can't just lure a highway or whatever, or your house.
Having 500 pokeballs doesn't let me take a gym, though. Pokestops hand those things out like candy. This is a hard game to call pay to win, man. Unless your definition of "pay to win" is "any power or convenience for sale at all, ever". Normally a pay to win game will actually sell you power directly in some fashion.
The closest to pay to win is, IMO, the lucky eggs. Increasing XP gain maximizes the gain you get from spending time with the game.
Revives are not available for pokecoins either though. Neither are potions.
Pokecoins (which you get from holding gyms or spending money) can buy pokeballs (which you also get at pokestops), incense/lures (which lets you encounter pokemon, and only very rarely available without spending), lucky eggs (which increase XP, and are only rarely available), and expand storage. There's stuff to pay money for, assuredly, but none of it is what OP is discussing.
It won't go down to a million. You're correct that no one is really developing in the mmo space right now, and that Blizzard is, err, innovating away a lot of their players. But there's enough lifers to keep it above a megasub. My 3 million is a lowball estimate- when they hit the number of subscribers that they had in vanilla WoW, they stopped releasing numbers. I'm projecting a roughly similar fall of subscribers that they have seen all of WoD. It could be higher than 3 million, and likely is a little.
Interestingly, the raids for hardcores have been pretty seriousface, and still make the best gear. I think they've more lost the formula that kept enough of the players happy. There's a big balkanization of the playerbase activities, which probably has something to do with it to, but not in a really obvious way.
Nintendo haters are so funny. Because luck allows you to be one hundred and twenty fucking seven years old, and the good examples of companies are things that hatched in the last dozen or three years. Ntintendo has cash reserves for miles, refuses to expand out of caution, and has the capital to try their hand at creative innovation.
> . You need to use in game cash, acquired only by real money, to level up pokemon after a certain point
Please be specific. I'm not aware of this system. Pokemon level by a type of candy ("pidgey candy" for pidgey, pidgeotto, and pidgeot) and "stardust". You can buy neither of these items in the game store- stardust is acquired from capturing and hatching pokemon, as well as defending gyms. $TYPENAME candy is only acquired from capturing pokemon.
Do you know something I don't? I think you are full of shit, but I could be missing something that happens later.
What is the equivalent of collecting all the Pokemon in Ingress?
Ingress has no brand recognition. Half the people I've mentioned that the map data come from Ingress are like, what's that? Whereas everyone knows what a Pokemon is.
> the ONLY reason Pokemon is popular is because of the Pokemon name
Wrong.
Pokemon is popular because Pokemon are cool and fun. Ingress is interesting, but Pokemon is great. It's also much more approachable, and the game has user settable goals (collect all of my favorite pokemon, etc), whereas Ingress is much more about raw power.
I played Ingress and didn't like it. I love Pokemon Go, however.
Music? Pokemon Go has pokemon music, which fucking rocks. Ingress is some mood setting noises, but nothing like Pokemon.
Graphics? Over a hundred pokemon, able to be rendered into your backyard. You have a somewhat customizable avatar too. Ingress has a tricorder.
It's not really fair to call what a quantum computer does "computational power", is it? If you factor N by trying all the integers greater than one and smaller than M= floor( square root ( N ) ), you will eventually find the answer, and the more computational power you have, the faster you can race from 2 to M. Using Shor's algorithm on a quantum machine, you don't actually end up doing all of the intervening computation, but you do get the answer. But that doesn't mean you can automatically take any set of problems and "solve them all at once", because that isn't really what is happening. It's not computational power in that sense, right?
> DOS ran just fine on my IBM AT until I retired the system in 1997
The last version of DOS came out in 1994. The IBM AT came out in 1984. That's a ten year difference. Its 2016, and the 2006 laptop still has current versions of Linux with a 32 bit OS on them, and will for years. What's the problem? If you retire the 2006 machine in 2019, you'll still have a current version of Linux even on the timelines discussed in the article.
I mean, I'm with you on that point. The article cracked did ( http://www.cracked.com/blog/tr... ) was pretty informative, but the part that stuck out to me was: "People are not angry at Washington; they are totally over Washington. They don't feel Washington can do anything to make their lives better."
This level of distrust, derision and populist hatred was earned over the years. It did not come instantly, it did not come from Rush Limbaugh, it was not a top-down phenomena. To get candidate Trump, you have to EARN candidate Trump, with years of bullshit, weakness, and pandering. If you spend years promising some group that you are opposed or in favor of something, and you never actually press for the change you promised, you'll eventually lose that group. It doesn't even matter if the thing you promised is idiotic and impossible, if you keep promising it, you'll eventually be branded a panderer, whatever the word chosen to brand you is. To get president Trump, it is mostly the same formula, just expanded over more voters, and we'll see if only the Republicans feel this way soon enough.
I am worried that if Trump wins, the take-home message to most of the politicians will be "be bold and brash, appear independent". That's just one of the things Trump is doing to appeal to people, and I think he is doing it because Trump is inherently bold, brash, and independent- it isn't some poser bullshit, but nor is it relevant. The fact that people who feel disenfranchised are swarming to Trump is VERY IMPORTANT, and all the attempts to break his campaign down into tiny bite sized tactics that future operatives can employ on the field is doomed to failure. Trump will succeed or fail based on how much faith America has lost in its highly educated oligarchic leader-class (that it pretends doesn't exist, because class doesn't exist and everyone is equal). If Americans feel that only Donald Trump has their best interests in mind, that is not because Donald Trump is a High Wizard Of Illusion (though he appears to be!), it's because they stopped believing that their leaders are leading in the correct direction. That's not just a communication failure, it's also a failure of direction.
At this point, you are on to the fundamental differences between consoles and PCs. You could also bring up that the console games often become impossible to play online (and usually will), that the console will advertise to you endlessly, that the PC games will be supported or playable for decades instead of years, that way less games will be available for the console than the PC, etc.
The core point is that talking about power and carefully choosing which bargain PC card you compare yourself to is just garbage marketing.
Lol, not disputing that you are correctly referencing a sentiment. I said why the sentiment was incorrect.
> Not really.
I think it's too early to say. If Trump had been smashed in the primary then we wouldn't be having this conversation. I didn't see a lot of Trump haters in, say, November, saying "Trump will dominate in the primaries, force everyone out of the race by early May, easily reach the 1237 bound delegates needed, get more primary votes than any Republican in history, but then lose to any Democrat because $REASON_ARRAY".
That's not to say he can't lose, or that $REASON_ARRAY isn't solid. But it IS to say that everyone talking about him getting blown generally has a totally shit record this election thus far. All the political prediction guys I normally follow got fucking SHRILL man. They all were predicting him getting blown out, then him having a ceiling, then a larger ceiling, then a contested convention, then some fucking arcane bullshit about secret Republican councils, and then they started talking about how he's gonna lose the general. Well, he could lose the general. But so far, taking anything out of their mouths and immediately betting on the opposite state would have been mad profit.
> get an idea of why people are saying he can't win > I doubt he's going to win unless not many people turn up to vote for Clinton
See, these are two different things. The top one is wrong. Trump can win. Anyone saying Trump can't win should have a lot of money on Hillary in the prediction markets- free money!
The bottom one is a much more reasonable statement. Certainly, Trump is not favored to win. But his odds aren't terrible. Personally, I find the "Trump has alienated a lot of Republicans" point to not be very compelling, because the Republican party has been casting Hillary as an archdemoness for over two decades. I think this will guarantee an above-average Republican turnout in ANY election she runs in. Meanwhile, Trump has record unpopularity (Clinton WOULD be the least unpopular candidate ever measured, except that Trump is in this same election), and that could motivate some normally unmotivated Democrats.
My real point is simple: this is an unprecedented election, so claiming that one candidate is totally fucked based on X Y Z doesn't seem very predictive.
If I had to put money on it, I'd put money on Trump. He's demonstrated a political resilience unseen, and seems to have a whole new rulebook he's playing by. But I don't have to put money on it, so I don't. My one personal belief is that the election *will not be close*. That is to say, I think either Trump OR Clinton will have a solid margin of victory. I think both are telling stories that make the other one out to be Very Scary, and while THAT is nothing new, people are putting a lot of faith in those narratives this year, and I think one will be a reasonably clear victor.
> I'm more likely to stay home than vote for Trump or Clinton
That just means you don't give a fuck. If you skip the section that says "President of the United States" but vote the REST of the ballot, then that sends a message. Staying home just means you were high that day or whatever.
> But essentially they both play for the same team
I think Trump is enough of an outsider that he may not be able to have any say in legislation. I don't feel they are that similar. Most years I'd agree though.
> How in the world can you object to that statement or think its propaganda?
Logical Fallacy: Strawman. The statement " tools that only exist to injure and kill may cause deaths" is not what is being disputed.
The propaganda is when they cherry pick bullshit to try to support the conclusion that guns should be banned in some fashion. When you ignore studies that show otherwise and otherwise do what you can to control the flow of information to manufacture a nonexistent consensus.
> Americans are hilarious on this issue!
Wait, you're not even FROM here? Why the fuck do you give such a fuck then? Go try to ban guns in Venezuala. Oh, wait, they DID ban guns, and gun violence increased. Ok, why not go complain to any of the countries with way higher gun deaths per capita than the USA? If you're not from here, what's the obsession? Go try to get laws changed somewhere where gun deaths are a serious problem.
Always fucking strange how you guys just can't stand that the USA has a second amendment. Spooky.
> Sometimes an outside party has to get involved when people are being irrational.
Them's fightin words. And you know it. Now you not only question our fundamental right of self defense, but also self determination? I'm just glad you don't get a fucking vote in the USA.
> A hospital is for healing the sick.
That's the point. If your statistical analysis is so blind that it would encourage you to ban hospitals, it obviously isn't very good at the statistics. Guns are to defend lives and guarantee self defense. Obviously, they can be misused.
> Compare the US murder rate to any other 1st world country.
Or you could use any of several other metrics.
> You cant say its not a problem that the government shouldn't be trying to address
The murder rate? Yes, that's a problem that the government should be trying to address. Doing so by attacking fundamental rights? No, that is not what they should be doing.
And it is sure as FUCK not something that the CDC should be doing. They weren't trying to prevent disease, they were playing political games. Play political games, win political prizes.
There are several candidates, but a vote for a non-Democrat or non-Republican must be cast from a position of protest, principle, or pragmatism. Protest says that you are not ok with any either of the mainstream candidates, principle says that you are seeking a mostly-perfect solution and will not compromise, and pragmatism says something like "be more like this guy, and you'll have my vote".
A third party candidate cannot currently win. If you are voting based on the idea of "if my vote was the deciding one, who should it be?", you must choose one of the two major parties. I believe that most people vote this way, based on the "I have only two choices" meme I see pretty much everywhere.
Our system is built to be terrible with three parties. First, we have a plurality system at almost every state, so that a candidate with 15% of the vote everywhere will round those out and deliver effectively zero electoral votes. Second, everyone is afraid of a popular conservative candidate spoiling for Democrats, and a popular liberal candidate spoiling for Republicans- this is the exact opposite of what voting SHOULD do. Instant runoff, multiple choice, and Condorcet all seek to address this second point, but the two groups with power have no motivation to change this, as it will only hurt them as organizations. Thirdly and finally, should a third party candidate be popular enough to carry a couple key states (or say Jill Stein turns some blue states green, and simultaneously Gary Johnson turns some red states yellow), then no candidate will have a majority of electoral votes. In this case, the House of Representatives just chooses a candidate. A third party candidate with 49% of the electoral votes could be passed over by a Congress that installs the third place dude.
Any of these rules could be changed to fix the electoral system and allow meaningful third party choice. But until then, a vote for a third party candidate is protest, principle, or pragmatism, and it will never be a vote for a winning candidate.
Slashdot Mirror
> I heard you can Set Lures to get Pokemon to appear in locations that you want.
No, you can make a pokestop spawn pokemon for half an hour. The locations of pokestops are not something you can pick. You can't just lure a highway or whatever, or your house.
You just talk to them. Why are grown men afraid of talking with children? What a bunch of social wimps.
> Until the pokemon comes out of hiding you can't tell where they are
No, *YOU* can't tell where they are. If I've been watching the "nearby" screen I have a good idea where they are.
This is exactly what they did.
Having 500 pokeballs doesn't let me take a gym, though. Pokestops hand those things out like candy. This is a hard game to call pay to win, man. Unless your definition of "pay to win" is "any power or convenience for sale at all, ever". Normally a pay to win game will actually sell you power directly in some fashion.
The closest to pay to win is, IMO, the lucky eggs. Increasing XP gain maximizes the gain you get from spending time with the game.
Revives are not available for pokecoins either though. Neither are potions.
Pokecoins (which you get from holding gyms or spending money) can buy pokeballs (which you also get at pokestops), incense/lures (which lets you encounter pokemon, and only very rarely available without spending), lucky eggs (which increase XP, and are only rarely available), and expand storage. There's stuff to pay money for, assuredly, but none of it is what OP is discussing.
> People said the Wii was cool and had staying power too.
It did? The Wii had a successful lifespan. It came out in 2006. The comparable consoles are the PS3 and the Xbox 360.
> Yet where you find it now is mainly in attics and basements.
Right next to the PS3s and Xbox 360s, statistically.
It won't go down to a million. You're correct that no one is really developing in the mmo space right now, and that Blizzard is, err, innovating away a lot of their players. But there's enough lifers to keep it above a megasub. My 3 million is a lowball estimate- when they hit the number of subscribers that they had in vanilla WoW, they stopped releasing numbers. I'm projecting a roughly similar fall of subscribers that they have seen all of WoD. It could be higher than 3 million, and likely is a little.
Interestingly, the raids for hardcores have been pretty seriousface, and still make the best gear. I think they've more lost the formula that kept enough of the players happy. There's a big balkanization of the playerbase activities, which probably has something to do with it to, but not in a really obvious way.
> maybe the pokemon leading a kid ... into the yard of the local registered sex offender
Don't worry, the local registered sex offender won't be home, he'll be out chasing Pokemon.
Nintendo haters are so funny. Because luck allows you to be one hundred and twenty fucking seven years old, and the good examples of companies are things that hatched in the last dozen or three years. Ntintendo has cash reserves for miles, refuses to expand out of caution, and has the capital to try their hand at creative innovation.
> . You need to use in game cash, acquired only by real money, to level up pokemon after a certain point
Please be specific. I'm not aware of this system. Pokemon level by a type of candy ("pidgey candy" for pidgey, pidgeotto, and pidgeot) and "stardust". You can buy neither of these items in the game store- stardust is acquired from capturing and hatching pokemon, as well as defending gyms. $TYPENAME candy is only acquired from capturing pokemon.
Do you know something I don't? I think you are full of shit, but I could be missing something that happens later.
What is the equivalent of collecting all the Pokemon in Ingress?
Ingress has no brand recognition. Half the people I've mentioned that the map data come from Ingress are like, what's that? Whereas everyone knows what a Pokemon is.
WoW is down from its 10 million peak, but it is at least at 3 million players still. That's certainly nontrivial.
> just what the hell are they going to do with the massive trove of location data
I'd appreciate a high combat point Dragonite spawn, personally.
> the ONLY reason Pokemon is popular is because of the Pokemon name
Wrong.
Pokemon is popular because Pokemon are cool and fun. Ingress is interesting, but Pokemon is great. It's also much more approachable, and the game has user settable goals (collect all of my favorite pokemon, etc), whereas Ingress is much more about raw power.
I played Ingress and didn't like it. I love Pokemon Go, however.
Music? Pokemon Go has pokemon music, which fucking rocks. Ingress is some mood setting noises, but nothing like Pokemon.
Graphics? Over a hundred pokemon, able to be rendered into your backyard. You have a somewhat customizable avatar too. Ingress has a tricorder.
Brand name, lol.
It's not really fair to call what a quantum computer does "computational power", is it? If you factor N by trying all the integers greater than one and smaller than M= floor( square root ( N ) ), you will eventually find the answer, and the more computational power you have, the faster you can race from 2 to M. Using Shor's algorithm on a quantum machine, you don't actually end up doing all of the intervening computation, but you do get the answer. But that doesn't mean you can automatically take any set of problems and "solve them all at once", because that isn't really what is happening. It's not computational power in that sense, right?
> DOS ran just fine on my IBM AT until I retired the system in 1997
The last version of DOS came out in 1994. The IBM AT came out in 1984. That's a ten year difference. Its 2016, and the 2006 laptop still has current versions of Linux with a 32 bit OS on them, and will for years. What's the problem? If you retire the 2006 machine in 2019, you'll still have a current version of Linux even on the timelines discussed in the article.
I mean, I'm with you on that point. The article cracked did ( http://www.cracked.com/blog/tr... ) was pretty informative, but the part that stuck out to me was: "People are not angry at Washington; they are totally over Washington. They don't feel Washington can do anything to make their lives better."
This level of distrust, derision and populist hatred was earned over the years. It did not come instantly, it did not come from Rush Limbaugh, it was not a top-down phenomena. To get candidate Trump, you have to EARN candidate Trump, with years of bullshit, weakness, and pandering. If you spend years promising some group that you are opposed or in favor of something, and you never actually press for the change you promised, you'll eventually lose that group. It doesn't even matter if the thing you promised is idiotic and impossible, if you keep promising it, you'll eventually be branded a panderer, whatever the word chosen to brand you is. To get president Trump, it is mostly the same formula, just expanded over more voters, and we'll see if only the Republicans feel this way soon enough.
I am worried that if Trump wins, the take-home message to most of the politicians will be "be bold and brash, appear independent". That's just one of the things Trump is doing to appeal to people, and I think he is doing it because Trump is inherently bold, brash, and independent- it isn't some poser bullshit, but nor is it relevant. The fact that people who feel disenfranchised are swarming to Trump is VERY IMPORTANT, and all the attempts to break his campaign down into tiny bite sized tactics that future operatives can employ on the field is doomed to failure. Trump will succeed or fail based on how much faith America has lost in its highly educated oligarchic leader-class (that it pretends doesn't exist, because class doesn't exist and everyone is equal). If Americans feel that only Donald Trump has their best interests in mind, that is not because Donald Trump is a High Wizard Of Illusion (though he appears to be!), it's because they stopped believing that their leaders are leading in the correct direction. That's not just a communication failure, it's also a failure of direction.
At this point, you are on to the fundamental differences between consoles and PCs. You could also bring up that the console games often become impossible to play online (and usually will), that the console will advertise to you endlessly, that the PC games will be supported or playable for decades instead of years, that way less games will be available for the console than the PC, etc.
The core point is that talking about power and carefully choosing which bargain PC card you compare yourself to is just garbage marketing.
Lol, not disputing that you are correctly referencing a sentiment. I said why the sentiment was incorrect.
> Not really.
I think it's too early to say. If Trump had been smashed in the primary then we wouldn't be having this conversation. I didn't see a lot of Trump haters in, say, November, saying "Trump will dominate in the primaries, force everyone out of the race by early May, easily reach the 1237 bound delegates needed, get more primary votes than any Republican in history, but then lose to any Democrat because $REASON_ARRAY".
That's not to say he can't lose, or that $REASON_ARRAY isn't solid. But it IS to say that everyone talking about him getting blown generally has a totally shit record this election thus far. All the political prediction guys I normally follow got fucking SHRILL man. They all were predicting him getting blown out, then him having a ceiling, then a larger ceiling, then a contested convention, then some fucking arcane bullshit about secret Republican councils, and then they started talking about how he's gonna lose the general. Well, he could lose the general. But so far, taking anything out of their mouths and immediately betting on the opposite state would have been mad profit.
> get an idea of why people are saying he can't win
> I doubt he's going to win unless not many people turn up to vote for Clinton
See, these are two different things. The top one is wrong. Trump can win. Anyone saying Trump can't win should have a lot of money on Hillary in the prediction markets- free money!
The bottom one is a much more reasonable statement. Certainly, Trump is not favored to win. But his odds aren't terrible. Personally, I find the "Trump has alienated a lot of Republicans" point to not be very compelling, because the Republican party has been casting Hillary as an archdemoness for over two decades. I think this will guarantee an above-average Republican turnout in ANY election she runs in. Meanwhile, Trump has record unpopularity (Clinton WOULD be the least unpopular candidate ever measured, except that Trump is in this same election), and that could motivate some normally unmotivated Democrats.
My real point is simple: this is an unprecedented election, so claiming that one candidate is totally fucked based on X Y Z doesn't seem very predictive.
If I had to put money on it, I'd put money on Trump. He's demonstrated a political resilience unseen, and seems to have a whole new rulebook he's playing by. But I don't have to put money on it, so I don't. My one personal belief is that the election *will not be close*. That is to say, I think either Trump OR Clinton will have a solid margin of victory. I think both are telling stories that make the other one out to be Very Scary, and while THAT is nothing new, people are putting a lot of faith in those narratives this year, and I think one will be a reasonably clear victor.
> I'm more likely to stay home than vote for Trump or Clinton
That just means you don't give a fuck. If you skip the section that says "President of the United States" but vote the REST of the ballot, then that sends a message. Staying home just means you were high that day or whatever.
> But essentially they both play for the same team
I think Trump is enough of an outsider that he may not be able to have any say in legislation. I don't feel they are that similar. Most years I'd agree though.
> How in the world can you object to that statement or think its propaganda?
Logical Fallacy: Strawman. The statement " tools that only exist to injure and kill may cause deaths" is not what is being disputed.
The propaganda is when they cherry pick bullshit to try to support the conclusion that guns should be banned in some fashion. When you ignore studies that show otherwise and otherwise do what you can to control the flow of information to manufacture a nonexistent consensus.
> Americans are hilarious on this issue!
Wait, you're not even FROM here? Why the fuck do you give such a fuck then? Go try to ban guns in Venezuala. Oh, wait, they DID ban guns, and gun violence increased. Ok, why not go complain to any of the countries with way higher gun deaths per capita than the USA? If you're not from here, what's the obsession? Go try to get laws changed somewhere where gun deaths are a serious problem.
Always fucking strange how you guys just can't stand that the USA has a second amendment. Spooky.
> Sometimes an outside party has to get involved when people are being irrational.
Them's fightin words. And you know it. Now you not only question our fundamental right of self defense, but also self determination? I'm just glad you don't get a fucking vote in the USA.
> A hospital is for healing the sick.
That's the point. If your statistical analysis is so blind that it would encourage you to ban hospitals, it obviously isn't very good at the statistics. Guns are to defend lives and guarantee self defense. Obviously, they can be misused.
> Compare the US murder rate to any other 1st world country.
Or you could use any of several other metrics.
> You cant say its not a problem that the government shouldn't be trying to address
The murder rate? Yes, that's a problem that the government should be trying to address. Doing so by attacking fundamental rights? No, that is not what they should be doing.
And it is sure as FUCK not something that the CDC should be doing. They weren't trying to prevent disease, they were playing political games. Play political games, win political prizes.
There are several candidates, but a vote for a non-Democrat or non-Republican must be cast from a position of protest, principle, or pragmatism. Protest says that you are not ok with any either of the mainstream candidates, principle says that you are seeking a mostly-perfect solution and will not compromise, and pragmatism says something like "be more like this guy, and you'll have my vote".
A third party candidate cannot currently win. If you are voting based on the idea of "if my vote was the deciding one, who should it be?", you must choose one of the two major parties. I believe that most people vote this way, based on the "I have only two choices" meme I see pretty much everywhere.
Our system is built to be terrible with three parties. First, we have a plurality system at almost every state, so that a candidate with 15% of the vote everywhere will round those out and deliver effectively zero electoral votes. Second, everyone is afraid of a popular conservative candidate spoiling for Democrats, and a popular liberal candidate spoiling for Republicans- this is the exact opposite of what voting SHOULD do. Instant runoff, multiple choice, and Condorcet all seek to address this second point, but the two groups with power have no motivation to change this, as it will only hurt them as organizations. Thirdly and finally, should a third party candidate be popular enough to carry a couple key states (or say Jill Stein turns some blue states green, and simultaneously Gary Johnson turns some red states yellow), then no candidate will have a majority of electoral votes. In this case, the House of Representatives just chooses a candidate. A third party candidate with 49% of the electoral votes could be passed over by a Congress that installs the third place dude.
Any of these rules could be changed to fix the electoral system and allow meaningful third party choice. But until then, a vote for a third party candidate is protest, principle, or pragmatism, and it will never be a vote for a winning candidate.
> *Sigh* that ASSUMES the exploits where there to begin with.
This is a good assumption. It has been true of 100% of operating systems so far, right?
> Something does not become less secure just because of its age.
If it is in the 0% of software with no flaws, this is true. But, it is 0%.