Street marches have the data content of an Atari 2600. You get about 20 signs, 5 leaders who know their stuff, and a whole lot of extraneous violence which requires real police to break up. Then that day's rally is over, and no one cares *any more*.
A sharp, accurate protest blog backed by just a little luck and money can take down titans. Sony is one example. Don Imus is another.
Of course you're right. It wasn't objectively easier. But it's not even "familiarity".
Members of this forum are used to being called over to "Fix X." This involves User wringing hands in defeat, calling for help, glancing on in a partial attempt to learn about 20% of the fix, and then going back to work with the incident forgotten as long as it doesn't happen again.
There's a Deep-FUD effect going on with switching. If you have Windows, and get stuck, User shrugs and calls ComputerGuy over. But like playing a game in the away field, Linux is held to a higher standard, where User MUST NOT get stuck AT ALL, or suddenly lose the fragile will to switch. Then User will go back to Windows, which by now is Vista and Office 07, which wasn't the XP/Office 2003... and get stuck.
Suppose that this is not *about* security - it could be about the very deepest concept of computing. If some pivotal series of events occurs, and the world flips to Linux/BSD/other, then the very deepest root of computing will never again be fully captured by a proprietary company.
On the other side, if China decides to lock into Windows, with MS feeding them free versions FOREVER, MS could use that as a rim shot to continue to drag inter-OS compatibility down. ($3? That's not a software price, that's a shipping fee.)
Tell me that Cordwainer Smith didn't beat you to the idea 50 years ago:
"He did not use his voice again. Instead he pulled his tablet up from where it hung against his chest. He wrote on it using the pointed fingernail of his right forefinger-the talking nail of a scanner - in quick cleancut script: Pls, drlng, whrs crnching wire..."
"As he dies, Snape gives up his memories to Harry, who uses the Pensieve to find out that Snape was on Dumbledore's side all along,..Snape has been acting to protect Harry all the while..." - from Wikipedia.
I caught something all the way back from the first entry in the series (though I think it appears only in the book and not the movie as much.) There was some kind of ridiculous commotion going on, but Snape realizes that Harry himself is somewhere else, and slips away to quietly deal with real problems.
Though Harry doesn't catch on right away (if ever), once I knew from book 1 that Snape's nastiness was all an act, I started looking for extra showy nastiness to please Draco Malfoy, but carefully orchestrated not to actually cause Harry any actual serious damage. I think the actor did a completely glorious handling of the double-agent gig.
This type of proof is not the same as "your checkers set comes with a handheld database reader to show you the solution of the position you are in" - because it's NOT about 'average players making mistakes'.
They went for the proof of the math behind the game. This article will also be a good flash answer against the wailers who say "but there are 500 billion billion *possible* positions in the game..."
The answer: only a small portion of them *matter*.
Here's the basic chain logic.
"All endgames of 8 pieces or less with a 2 checker advantage are wins except the following known cases... (see appendix.)"
Therefore, any time you can reach that conclusive endgame table, *all further deviations fail to matter*. It matters not that you are an 'average player who played something else'. The remainder of your game became theoretically irrelevant.
What Schafer and team banked on (and Drew) was that the quantity of Theoretically Critical Positions is far smaller than the Possible Positions. At the Master level of both checkers and chess, the results of games after mistakes are actually less important. Someone else also mentioned that it is even harder to turn a checkers game around than a chess game.
I'll chime in as part of the slowly growing class of transition-ripe users. I smiled knowingly at the Word/Excel 95-97-2000-2003 routine. Most of my documents survived the transitions intact. The key was that MS had announced its worldwide ownership of the.doc extension, the.xls extension, and that was fine by me.
On the slow side of suddenly, Open Office came around to being a 75% solution, which is good enough to start the discussion. (Yea, bloated, a little sludgy, so what.) The only factor stemming the tide was InertiaFUD. "Well, my brother's friend told me about that, but I *already have* Office 2003, so there's no reason to switch out of spite and risk my workflow."
Then MS made what I see as the key error. After pulverizing any company who didn't follow MS's 15-year-old recommended software layout design, MS... ditched it themselves. Pure corporate CalvinBall. We all know that major decisions occur when there are TWO choices on the table, not Challenger-vs-Incumbent. So now, the decision became: "Bang head on Office 2007... or use the window of opportunity to develop a non-MS alternative."
The tip-off came when they had to add a LETTER to the extenson..docx and.xlsx??! (Since when do extensions become 4 characters?) Cue the Half-Hour-Discussion with everyone you send a file to. Nope.
Actually switching the full OS is harder to convince the boss with; they're ready to pounce should something go wrong. (Guys ever notice that? It's okay to be a Newbie on "computers" (MS), but NOT okay to be a newbie trying to introduce Linux?) The only solution I see at this point is to practice-sandbox at home until I'm ready. Sadly, I'm a little clumsy on the uptake, so it could be a while. But if there ever was an opening, this is it.
Some of you out there are *really sharp*. "9 math courses, pfft, piece of cake". However, of the million+ registered users I am positive a large segment are looking at that remark thinking, "Kudos to you too sir, but what can *I* do?" It's not a zero sum "Everest or Bust" proposition. I'd say 2007 is a good marquee year to declare that every growing company in the world has *some* kind of computer system; no one relegates that to the "nerd" department anymore.
However, there are scores of smaller companies who don't need a full time high end DB manager, etc. There's a much under-rated next step down which involves deploying routine software on the company laptop fleet, managing data accuracy, and doing help-desk stuff. The trick is to view this as a value-add to some *other* line function. I graduated 10 years too early for today's OS stability to be the driver. (I refused to waste my time studying cutting edge details of... Windows 3.11!)
I looked around, and discovered that Accounting has one of the most stable knowledge-sets in the world. Yea, this or that new rule shows up, but generally I have never regretted my core skills going obsolete. We've all seen the rumblings about "Managers don't want to pay for IT". But they will pay for line functions, and then take it as a colossal bonus that you can spend 10 hours a week keeping the IT out of their hair, so they DON'T have to hire the full time Sys-Admin.
You were doing okay until this part. I find advertising concerns are driving space usage, because the advertiser offers more money per square-cm of ad space. Then they blink and play literal flash games onMouseOver, and worse. It's like complaining about Faulkner vs. Hemingway when your other two choices are a magazine model and a bar fight.
The odd thing is that when I *shrink* my screen window - the text stays but the ad sometimes vanishes.
This might be a good thing to ask Mr. Beckerman if he's around.
In my one business law class, I seem to recall a series of cases describing something called a "De Minimis Fringe", whereupon an exployee uses a company resource, but the pure cost of that usage is so small that it results in laughable fianncial effect. "Ten Minutes of time plus whatever CPU power plus electricity" is right in that category. (Some of the original cases dealt with machines like copiers & faxes.)
Everyone take a crisp look at your working lives. De Minimis Fringe effects exist because people DO have lives, and corporate management carried to absurdity eventually crosses the line of oppression. So we know that this guy DIDN'T get slammed for the "costs" of his minimal use; he got slammed because of the semi-fallacies of employmer endorsement blown to political extremes.
Execs like to save time, and email is ASynchronous Communication, whereupon the message is still there 6 hours later after your eleven meetings. Even if he has an army of bees to assist, it's still his email.
Given the way the 2000 election went, what are the three branches now? "Exec Branch, Appointed by Exec Branch, and Elected by Exec Branch's friends?"
Though the 10th grade books wouldn't call them "branches", let's try the other answers. "NeoConservative, Hillary&Obama, and Traumatized".
Or the other one: "Federal = Fights Wars Forever, States breed CongressCritters, and Local can't survive a $100,000 budget shortfall."
I recall what civics is "supposed" to be. However, the current administration is immune. It's not worth the energy to "fight" them. Instead, I'm looking ahead into the next election, where we have a shot at someone a little more toned down.
I have an idea! Let's merge AT&T, Qwest, and Verizon, so they can "better leverage economies of scale!" Then the sons of the lawyers of the early '80's breakup can do it all over again.
The 21st century might be the Age of the Oligopoly. 3-5 competitors = just enough to avoid pure monopoly considerations in name, but a little collusion keeps them all the same.
The tricky part is figuring out the playoffs between the chunk of "telephone" companies and "cable" companies. Comcast is pretty big too. So a consumer's choice is only "one member of each of two oligopolies".
You can get a humble little MP3 player for $25 or less. You can get a cut rate laptop for $200 that can at least look at a couple web pages and post a blog, and swap tunes from your $25 MP3 player.
If you want a PDA, get one. I have zero use for them, but Your Gadget Enjoyment May Vary. (YGEMV).
The personal cost to being poor is being humble. Take an hour to realize you won't win a SINGLE "your gadget vs. mine" discussion. Then you can just relax and still share the *activities* related to gadget. You can bemoan your latest baseball team's woes... and it doesn't matter what your laptop speed is. Want to collect a little music? Gather 100 tunes off the web, make a couple of playlists, and alternate two batches on your player.
American society includes some social cues that can make it tricky to observe others with money decking themselves out in the best. Just enjoy watching them as "someone showing what can be done". I specialized in books because I was poor for many years. Total cost of an O. Henry/Maupassant/Saki discussion: $25 or less. Total entertainment hours: 25. (If you read each volume twice to compare some details. O. Henry is the most upbeat of the three. The other two might bite.)
I haven't yet seen the perspective I worked out in any of this, including the original article. The poster above has made one of the more detailed efforts, so I shall answer his.
First, let's go to my take on the original concept, and this will include a demonstration of why the original article is flawed.
Men worked out most of the game theories, and many of them fail spectacularly when applied to domestic relationships. Finally, one of the Scientific American adjunct magazines began to notice, "if 80% of people refuse to follow the 'optimal' game theory recommended action, then it *might NOT be optimal!*.
That's what is going on here. *Between two men* such as college dorm mates, this type of article makes sense. (One Partyer(P) needs the seat down to hold onto while spilling can #11 of Rolling Rock, one Regular(R) has no such need.) Those guys could use a Nash type conclusion.
***
All bets are off between man-woman relationships, and I'll leave the Modern Relationship angle to those more qualified. The poster elsewhere who stacked cannonballs had part, but not all of the correct concept. The cannonballs are secondary, however. First is:
The Principe Of Token Favors
Ask any woman about the Big Issues, and she'll thunder about Women's Rights. (If she's careful, she will *not* ask for *equality!*.)
But in a domestic relationship, something else occurs. The woman lists for herself what she perceives as her contribution to the relationship, and creates for herself a currently unmet Net Effort Expended. Through social collaboration across the country, part of the man's total contribution to repay this Net Effort Expended and repair equilibrium, is some set of Minor Graces. Toilet Seat Position is a subset of the Minor Graces; others include the Opening/Holding of Doors, and Walking Not= InFront.
Therefore, if a man fails to perform his particular woman's desired set of Minor Graces, she will add that to any otherwise existing reasons to separate as a capstone. Since the man has failed to perform these graces, he "would clearly prefer to live alone."
In Summary, the game grid must be recalculated to include a Relationship Ending component for failure to perform. The "ultimate penalty" times an undocumented Small Percentage remains to be worked out, but this at least gets this in the right direction.
I'll submit James Earl Jones as carrying the movie. The actor voicing MCP tried hard, and came up with a close second. Together they created the "Voice of Evil" sound.
However, Star Wars was also full of flashy exploding stuff... which all science fans know wouldn't actually make any of those sounds. Would it have carried so well if all those battles were silent? Also, I think the storyline of Tron, however clunkily rendered, was far more advanced for its time and the audience simply didn't have the tech background to understand.
I don't have the Chapter & Verse lined up yet, but you have to be really careful here sir.
The most powerful decision you have to make regarding your faith is whether to go "pure literal" all the way, and hang on tight for the ride, or agree right at the outset to adopt one of the "Parable-Symbolic" type interpretations.
If you have chosen the crisp literal style of belief, you do not believe in classical evolution. If you say you did, "I'm sorry, I didn't hear you. Can you repeat that?"
On the other side, if you tag onto a couple of crucial hints that "Jesus spoke in parables", then you can freely interpret "days" as broad as the revelations phrase "end of days". (Clearly, the world will not end on July 7 after holidays sales are posted. Christ will reappear whenever He wants to... for large values of whenever.)
Then "God created the world in six *epochs*"... almost makes sense. (I think you have to combine a couple of portions of development, but you could find a six part division there somewhere.)
Slashdot Mirror
Nope.
Street marches have the data content of an Atari 2600. You get about 20 signs, 5 leaders who know their stuff, and a whole lot of extraneous violence which requires real police to break up. Then that day's rally is over, and no one cares *any more*.
A sharp, accurate protest blog backed by just a little luck and money can take down titans. Sony is one example. Don Imus is another.
Of course you're right. It wasn't objectively easier. But it's not even "familiarity".
Members of this forum are used to being called over to "Fix X." This involves User wringing hands in defeat, calling for help, glancing on in a partial attempt to learn about 20% of the fix, and then going back to work with the incident forgotten as long as it doesn't happen again.
There's a Deep-FUD effect going on with switching. If you have Windows, and get stuck, User shrugs and calls ComputerGuy over. But like playing a game in the away field, Linux is held to a higher standard, where User MUST NOT get stuck AT ALL, or suddenly lose the fragile will to switch. Then User will go back to Windows, which by now is Vista and Office 07, which wasn't the XP/Office 2003... and get stuck.
Suppose that this is not *about* security - it could be about the very deepest concept of computing. If some pivotal series of events occurs, and the world flips to Linux/BSD/other, then the very deepest root of computing will never again be fully captured by a proprietary company.
On the other side, if China decides to lock into Windows, with MS feeding them free versions FOREVER, MS could use that as a rim shot to continue to drag inter-OS compatibility down. ($3? That's not a software price, that's a shipping fee.)
Please Sir,
Tell me that Cordwainer Smith didn't beat you to the idea 50 years ago:
"He did not use his voice again. Instead he pulled his tablet up from where it hung against his chest. He wrote on it using the pointed fingernail of his right forefinger-the talking nail of a scanner - in quick cleancut script: Pls, drlng, whrs crnching wire..."
"As he dies, Snape gives up his memories to Harry, who uses the Pensieve to find out that Snape was on Dumbledore's side all along,..Snape has been acting to protect Harry all the while..." - from Wikipedia.
I caught something all the way back from the first entry in the series (though I think it appears only in the book and not the movie as much.) There was some kind of ridiculous commotion going on, but Snape realizes that Harry himself is somewhere else, and slips away to quietly deal with real problems.
Though Harry doesn't catch on right away (if ever), once I knew from book 1 that Snape's nastiness was all an act, I started looking for extra showy nastiness to please Draco Malfoy, but carefully orchestrated not to actually cause Harry any actual serious damage. I think the actor did a completely glorious handling of the double-agent gig.
This type of proof is not the same as "your checkers set comes with a handheld database reader to show you the solution of the position you are in" - because it's NOT about 'average players making mistakes'.
They went for the proof of the math behind the game. This article will also be a good flash answer against the wailers who say "but there are 500 billion billion *possible* positions in the game..."
The answer: only a small portion of them *matter*.
Here's the basic chain logic.
"All endgames of 8 pieces or less with a 2 checker advantage are wins except the following known cases... (see appendix.)"
Therefore, any time you can reach that conclusive endgame table, *all further deviations fail to matter*. It matters not that you are an 'average player who played something else'. The remainder of your game became theoretically irrelevant.
What Schafer and team banked on (and Drew) was that the quantity of Theoretically Critical Positions is far smaller than the Possible Positions. At the Master level of both checkers and chess, the results of games after mistakes are actually less important. Someone else also mentioned that it is even harder to turn a checkers game around than a chess game.
I'll chime in as part of the slowly growing class of transition-ripe users. I smiled knowingly at the Word/Excel 95-97-2000-2003 routine. Most of my documents survived the transitions intact. The key was that MS had announced its worldwide ownership of the .doc extension, the .xls extension, and that was fine by me.
... ditched it themselves. Pure corporate CalvinBall. We all know that major decisions occur when there are TWO choices on the table, not Challenger-vs-Incumbent. So now, the decision became: "Bang head on Office 2007... or use the window of opportunity to develop a non-MS alternative."
.docx and .xlsx??! (Since when do extensions become 4 characters?) Cue the Half-Hour-Discussion with everyone you send a file to. Nope.
On the slow side of suddenly, Open Office came around to being a 75% solution, which is good enough to start the discussion. (Yea, bloated, a little sludgy, so what.) The only factor stemming the tide was InertiaFUD. "Well, my brother's friend told me about that, but I *already have* Office 2003, so there's no reason to switch out of spite and risk my workflow."
Then MS made what I see as the key error. After pulverizing any company who didn't follow MS's 15-year-old recommended software layout design, MS
The tip-off came when they had to add a LETTER to the extenson.
Actually switching the full OS is harder to convince the boss with; they're ready to pounce should something go wrong. (Guys ever notice that? It's okay to be a Newbie on "computers" (MS), but NOT okay to be a newbie trying to introduce Linux?) The only solution I see at this point is to practice-sandbox at home until I'm ready. Sadly, I'm a little clumsy on the uptake, so it could be a while. But if there ever was an opening, this is it.
This is the result I actually ended up with.
... Windows 3.11!)
Some of you out there are *really sharp*. "9 math courses, pfft, piece of cake". However, of the million+ registered users I am positive a large segment are looking at that remark thinking, "Kudos to you too sir, but what can *I* do?" It's not a zero sum "Everest or Bust" proposition. I'd say 2007 is a good marquee year to declare that every growing company in the world has *some* kind of computer system; no one relegates that to the "nerd" department anymore.
However, there are scores of smaller companies who don't need a full time high end DB manager, etc. There's a much under-rated next step down which involves deploying routine software on the company laptop fleet, managing data accuracy, and doing help-desk stuff. The trick is to view this as a value-add to some *other* line function. I graduated 10 years too early for today's OS stability to be the driver. (I refused to waste my time studying cutting edge details of
I looked around, and discovered that Accounting has one of the most stable knowledge-sets in the world. Yea, this or that new rule shows up, but generally I have never regretted my core skills going obsolete. We've all seen the rumblings about "Managers don't want to pay for IT". But they will pay for line functions, and then take it as a colossal bonus that you can spend 10 hours a week keeping the IT out of their hair, so they DON'T have to hire the full time Sys-Admin.
I will add:
Smog Cloud!
Methane Cloud!
ThunderStorm Cloud!
What a great way to sell services. Every single instance of a cloud is bad news.
Really!!?
I was just about to drop Sprint because their net work routing has been so poor lately. (Plus, the iPhone is now the Meta-Game of the phone world.)
I did already drop TMobile for poor coverage... so your post is interesting. Maybe I'll stay.
You were doing okay until this part. I find advertising concerns are driving space usage, because the advertiser offers more money per square-cm of ad space. Then they blink and play literal flash games onMouseOver, and worse. It's like complaining about Faulkner vs. Hemingway when your other two choices are a magazine model and a bar fight.
The odd thing is that when I *shrink* my screen window - the text stays but the ad sometimes vanishes.
This might be a good thing to ask Mr. Beckerman if he's around.
In my one business law class, I seem to recall a series of cases describing something called a "De Minimis Fringe", whereupon an exployee uses a company resource, but the pure cost of that usage is so small that it results in laughable fianncial effect.
"Ten Minutes of time plus whatever CPU power plus electricity" is right in that category. (Some of the original cases dealt with machines like copiers & faxes.)
Everyone take a crisp look at your working lives. De Minimis Fringe effects exist because people DO have lives, and corporate management carried to absurdity eventually crosses the line of oppression. So we know that this guy DIDN'T get slammed for the "costs" of his minimal use; he got slammed because of the semi-fallacies of employmer endorsement blown to political extremes.
They first have to sign everyone up to a Calls-For-Sure plans, then ditch their suppliers.
Or is that Good++, followed by Good#?
I don't buy that.
Execs like to save time, and email is ASynchronous Communication, whereupon the message is still there 6 hours later after your eleven meetings. Even if he has an army of bees to assist, it's still his email.
This one is interesting.
Given the way the 2000 election went, what are the three branches now?
"Exec Branch, Appointed by Exec Branch, and Elected by Exec Branch's friends?"
Though the 10th grade books wouldn't call them "branches", let's try the other answers. "NeoConservative, Hillary&Obama, and Traumatized".
Or the other one: "Federal = Fights Wars Forever, States breed CongressCritters, and Local can't survive a $100,000 budget shortfall."
I recall what civics is "supposed" to be. However, the current administration is immune. It's not worth the energy to "fight" them. Instead, I'm looking ahead into the next election, where we have a shot at someone a little more toned down.
Hooray for Maps!
I have an idea! Let's merge AT&T, Qwest, and Verizon, so they can "better leverage economies of scale!" Then the sons of the lawyers of the early '80's breakup can do it all over again.
The 21st century might be the Age of the Oligopoly. 3-5 competitors = just enough to avoid pure monopoly considerations in name, but a little collusion keeps them all the same.
The tricky part is figuring out the playoffs between the chunk of "telephone" companies and "cable" companies. Comcast is pretty big too. So a consumer's choice is only "one member of each of two oligopolies".
You can get a humble little MP3 player for $25 or less. You can get a cut rate laptop for $200 that can at least look at a couple web pages and post a blog, and swap tunes from your $25 MP3 player.
If you want a PDA, get one. I have zero use for them, but Your Gadget Enjoyment May Vary. (YGEMV).
The personal cost to being poor is being humble. Take an hour to realize you won't win a SINGLE "your gadget vs. mine" discussion. Then you can just relax and still share the *activities* related to gadget. You can bemoan your latest baseball team's woes
American society includes some social cues that can make it tricky to observe others with money decking themselves out in the best. Just enjoy watching them as "someone showing what can be done". I specialized in books because I was poor for many years. Total cost of an O. Henry/Maupassant/Saki discussion: $25 or less. Total entertainment hours: 25. (If you read each volume twice to compare some details. O. Henry is the most upbeat of the three. The other two might bite.)
Regards,
TaoPhoenix
Bravo. Unbelievable.
I saved a dated copy of this, because it's the answer to some 1000 SlashDot discussions.
"Your X May Vary"
Wow.
I haven't yet seen the perspective I worked out in any of this, including the original article. The poster above has made one of the more detailed efforts, so I shall answer his.
First, let's go to my take on the original concept, and this will include a demonstration of why the original article is flawed.
Men worked out most of the game theories, and many of them fail spectacularly when applied to domestic relationships. Finally, one of the Scientific American adjunct magazines began to notice, "if 80% of people refuse to follow the 'optimal' game theory recommended action, then it *might NOT be optimal!*.
That's what is going on here. *Between two men* such as college dorm mates, this type of article makes sense. (One Partyer(P) needs the seat down to hold onto while spilling can #11 of Rolling Rock, one Regular(R) has no such need.) Those guys could use a Nash type conclusion.
***
All bets are off between man-woman relationships, and I'll leave the Modern Relationship angle to those more qualified. The poster elsewhere who stacked cannonballs had part, but not all of the correct concept. The cannonballs are secondary, however. First is:
The Principe Of Token Favors
Ask any woman about the Big Issues, and she'll thunder about Women's Rights. (If she's careful, she will *not* ask for *equality!*.)
But in a domestic relationship, something else occurs. The woman lists for herself what she perceives as her contribution to the relationship, and creates for herself a currently unmet Net Effort Expended. Through social collaboration across the country, part of the man's total contribution to repay this Net Effort Expended and repair equilibrium, is some set of Minor Graces. Toilet Seat Position is a subset of the Minor Graces; others include the Opening/Holding of Doors, and Walking Not= InFront.
Therefore, if a man fails to perform his particular woman's desired set of Minor Graces, she will add that to any otherwise existing reasons to separate as a capstone. Since the man has failed to perform these graces, he "would clearly prefer to live alone."
In Summary, the game grid must be recalculated to include a Relationship Ending component for failure to perform. The "ultimate penalty" times an undocumented Small Percentage remains to be worked out, but this at least gets this in the right direction.
Put simpler: "Leave the seat down. End Of Line."
The theme of this Ask /. question is that the marketer is exceeding the bounds of etiquette. It also assumes they have been asked to stop.
Harlan Ellison had a better answer to this type of problem than the one above.
Locate a dead gopher from a highway. Send it to the offending place, with a recipe for Dead Gopher Stew.
I'll submit James Earl Jones as carrying the movie. The actor voicing MCP tried hard, and came up with a close second. Together they created the "Voice of Evil" sound.
However, Star Wars was also full of flashy exploding stuff... which all science fans know wouldn't actually make any of those sounds. Would it have carried so well if all those battles were silent? Also, I think the storyline of Tron, however clunkily rendered, was far more advanced for its time and the audience simply didn't have the tech background to understand.
I don't have the Chapter & Verse lined up yet, but you have to be really careful here sir.
... almost makes sense. (I think you have to combine a couple of portions of development, but you could find a six part division there somewhere.)
The most powerful decision you have to make regarding your faith is whether to go "pure literal" all the way, and hang on tight for the ride, or agree right at the outset to adopt one of the "Parable-Symbolic" type interpretations.
If you have chosen the crisp literal style of belief, you do not believe in classical evolution.
If you say you did, "I'm sorry, I didn't hear you. Can you repeat that?"
On the other side, if you tag onto a couple of crucial hints that "Jesus spoke in parables", then you can freely interpret "days" as broad as the revelations phrase "end of days". (Clearly, the world will not end on July 7 after holidays sales are posted. Christ will reappear whenever He wants to... for large values of whenever.)
Then "God created the world in six *epochs*"
Hmm...
Starting with your title, the usage is "supposed to *teach* you something. You can't learn anyone anything.
What he produced is the Basic Set.
You'd get Sodium Hydroxide in the Acids & Bases expansion, Organic compounds in the Carbon Expansion, etc.
You miscounted.
There's 60 cards in the deck he's playing *at that moment*.
There will of course 10,000 plus cards in the set.