It's not a BS scenario. It's based on sound principals which when applied to a large population should generally hold true. The anecdote was just there to explain it to you since the OP was thoughtful enough not to assume you're an economics or psychology student.
The used game market means that the game is presented at multiple price points concurrently. This means that individuals with less disposable income will enter the market. People with more disposable income might buy less new games if there are used games available, and this should be accounted for when selected a product price, but someone has to buy it new to get the ball rolling. Generally it seems people won't resell a game for at least a few weeks, and a large part of paying the premium for a new game is being able to play it on or near the release date.
Game companies will eventually offer the product at a lower price, to reach those with less disposable income, but not immediately. The used market makes this price available sooner. Whether or not this is a good thing would be a matter of debate that would require some numbers, but this does mean that more people experience the game, develop brand loyalty, perform word-of-mouth marketing services, and so on. I wouldn't reject the OP's hypothesis without consideration.
I find it ironic that you criticized his use of a BS scenario to explain his hypothesis by making up a BS scenario. For an example of a "BS scenario" that actually describes a constraint (or rather a phenomenon) that does exist in real life, check out some of the standard two-good, two-country models used to describe the benefits of international trade and division of labor. Also, for the record, Bob's mom doesn't have all the money in the world and not everybody has a mom they can steal from. Scarcity is a constraint that exists in real life and there is an opportunity cost associated with every expenditure, monetary or otherwise.
I use iTunes based solely on the strength of it's self-organizing library. That thing has saved me so much time. If you can point me to another program or media player which can do the same thing then maybe I would switch.
So, you don't see how causing a bunch of tech employees to waste time fixing a malfunctioning, flawed or trolled blacklist is a huge opportunity cost? You also don't see how e-mail can be important and used productively? You must work for the government.
I don't see how increasing the realism through the use of dynamic physics-based bulletholes is a "waste" of graphics. It might not be how you want to see graphics used but there is certainly a reason for doing it.
If you seriously think that freedom of speech gives you a right to lie about and harass people, then I'm afraid you have a rather naive idea of how the world works and you may just find that a lot of people with disagree with you.
If you seriously think that people always lie purposefully, that they are never simply mislead or mistaken, and that the government is competent and objective enough to be the supreme and all-knowing fact finder and establish beyond a doubt what the real "truth" of the world is, then I'm afraid you have a rather naive idea of how the world works.
You'll probably be happier, healthier and wealthier if you can just overcome the insecurities that led to your unhealthy compulsion in the first place. Eat right, not light!
If the law says that prostitutes are illegal, does the mere fact of the law stop you from going to one? Or does your moral conscience?
How does your moral conscience let you sleep at night, letting all of those poor prostitutes who can't find another form of gainful employment go without any customers and be harassed and jailed by the police? Aren't you contributing to their starvation and poverty by not allowing them to run their business?
This satire brought to you by the morality-is-relative department.
So you were thinking of scientist in the sense of a literal job description, instead of in the sense of being a rational and prudent person. I get you.
How does one become a "former" scientist? By rejecting the scientific method, maybe? I'm not sure I like the sound of this. Hume would be disappointed.
I could never play without the dice. It just takes all the chance and uncertainty out of everything. At least with dice you can critically fail a skill check by rolling a natural 1, without that anybody of a high enough level to have 20 or 30 ranks in a skill would never fail any check. Also if combat is reduced to a "you always hit or always miss and always deal the same damage" situation I think a lot of the excitement would be removed. You're right though that P&P is wonderful for customizing the rules to fit your groups play style, so more power to you.
OK, so if you assume it takes 10 or more to effectively destoy a major city*, then that's 70 cities saved.
OK, so if you assume it takes 1000 to effectively destroy every major city, then that's 0 cities saved.
The reality is that all we can do is assume until we know better. Or, you know, we could decide not to assume and be prudent and scientific in our beliefs and assertions.
If you can't see that 1400 fewer 100kT+ nuclear weapons is a significant reduction, then you're being blinded by something and need to think about it a bit more
I don't think he's being blinded by anything. Without knowing how much damage each nuke can cause, or how many nukes it would take to wipe out the earth's population, it's perfectly reasonable to assume that 700 nukes may not be a "significant" reduction. It's a step in a good direction, sure, but I think the OP wanted details about how much destruction was literally prevented. Saying we're "700 nukes safer" is like telling me how many libraries of congress your hard drive can store.
So what happens when there is a violent dispute? Do the LARPers just beat the tar out of each other in a fistfight until one of them submits? lol. And what about rules or representations for vitae-based powers?
I would go look this up myself but I have about zero interest in LARPs. Thanks for the clarification, though.
That language barrier was one of my favorite things about WoW, mostly because it forced you to communicate with the other faction using hand-gestures. Successfully making a friend or declaring a truce in this way could be quite rewarding.
Actually World of Darkness does use die rolls. You roll a set of d10's for certain actions. Succeeding at the action requires a certain number of the dice to roll a sufficiently high number, and having a high skill level lets you roll more dice.
Usually that is my main talking point. Thanks for illustrating it.
Because good and evil are purely subjective and meaningless value judgments there's really no point in calling anything good or evil. After all I'm sure that the executives at Apple love their mothers and love their children even if they don't love open source. So how "evil" could they be?
Slashdot Mirror
It's not a BS scenario. It's based on sound principals which when applied to a large population should generally hold true. The anecdote was just there to explain it to you since the OP was thoughtful enough not to assume you're an economics or psychology student.
The used game market means that the game is presented at multiple price points concurrently. This means that individuals with less disposable income will enter the market. People with more disposable income might buy less new games if there are used games available, and this should be accounted for when selected a product price, but someone has to buy it new to get the ball rolling. Generally it seems people won't resell a game for at least a few weeks, and a large part of paying the premium for a new game is being able to play it on or near the release date.
Game companies will eventually offer the product at a lower price, to reach those with less disposable income, but not immediately. The used market makes this price available sooner. Whether or not this is a good thing would be a matter of debate that would require some numbers, but this does mean that more people experience the game, develop brand loyalty, perform word-of-mouth marketing services, and so on. I wouldn't reject the OP's hypothesis without consideration.
I find it ironic that you criticized his use of a BS scenario to explain his hypothesis by making up a BS scenario. For an example of a "BS scenario" that actually describes a constraint (or rather a phenomenon) that does exist in real life, check out some of the standard two-good, two-country models used to describe the benefits of international trade and division of labor. Also, for the record, Bob's mom doesn't have all the money in the world and not everybody has a mom they can steal from. Scarcity is a constraint that exists in real life and there is an opportunity cost associated with every expenditure, monetary or otherwise.
The average user doesn't seed.
I use iTunes based solely on the strength of it's self-organizing library. That thing has saved me so much time. If you can point me to another program or media player which can do the same thing then maybe I would switch.
So, you don't see how causing a bunch of tech employees to waste time fixing a malfunctioning, flawed or trolled blacklist is a huge opportunity cost? You also don't see how e-mail can be important and used productively? You must work for the government.
That is sad. Sometimes it seems like the mental health field is out of control.
I don't see how increasing the realism through the use of dynamic physics-based bulletholes is a "waste" of graphics. It might not be how you want to see graphics used but there is certainly a reason for doing it.
What could possibly go wrong?
and most doctors who specialise in Obesity make money by encouraging you to pay for their treatment
Fixed.
It says it has Maelstrom "in" the name. It doesn't say the name "is" Maelstrom. Big difference.
If you seriously think that freedom of speech gives you a right to lie about and harass people, then I'm afraid you have a rather naive idea of how the world works and you may just find that a lot of people with disagree with you.
If you seriously think that people always lie purposefully, that they are never simply mislead or mistaken, and that the government is competent and objective enough to be the supreme and all-knowing fact finder and establish beyond a doubt what the real "truth" of the world is, then I'm afraid you have a rather naive idea of how the world works.
You'll probably be happier, healthier and wealthier if you can just overcome the insecurities that led to your unhealthy compulsion in the first place. Eat right, not light!
If the law says that prostitutes are illegal, does the mere fact of the law stop you from going to one? Or does your moral conscience?
How does your moral conscience let you sleep at night, letting all of those poor prostitutes who can't find another form of gainful employment go without any customers and be harassed and jailed by the police? Aren't you contributing to their starvation and poverty by not allowing them to run their business?
This satire brought to you by the morality-is-relative department.
So you were thinking of scientist in the sense of a literal job description, instead of in the sense of being a rational and prudent person. I get you.
How does one become a "former" scientist? By rejecting the scientific method, maybe? I'm not sure I like the sound of this. Hume would be disappointed.
I could never play without the dice. It just takes all the chance and uncertainty out of everything. At least with dice you can critically fail a skill check by rolling a natural 1, without that anybody of a high enough level to have 20 or 30 ranks in a skill would never fail any check. Also if combat is reduced to a "you always hit or always miss and always deal the same damage" situation I think a lot of the excitement would be removed. You're right though that P&P is wonderful for customizing the rules to fit your groups play style, so more power to you.
OK, so if you assume it takes 10 or more to effectively destoy a major city*, then that's 70 cities saved.
OK, so if you assume it takes 1000 to effectively destroy every major city, then that's 0 cities saved.
The reality is that all we can do is assume until we know better. Or, you know, we could decide not to assume and be prudent and scientific in our beliefs and assertions.
The editor understood as he began his commentary with the word "relatedly," meaning similar but different.
P.S. But of course as we all know WoW sucks just like every other hamster-wheel MMO in existence.
If you can't see that 1400 fewer 100kT+ nuclear weapons is a significant reduction, then you're being blinded by something and need to think about it a bit more
I don't think he's being blinded by anything. Without knowing how much damage each nuke can cause, or how many nukes it would take to wipe out the earth's population, it's perfectly reasonable to assume that 700 nukes may not be a "significant" reduction. It's a step in a good direction, sure, but I think the OP wanted details about how much destruction was literally prevented. Saying we're "700 nukes safer" is like telling me how many libraries of congress your hard drive can store.
Yeah man, the first amendment's days are numbered! Nobody likes freedom of speech!
Wait, what?
You don't lick your wounds over a $1.92 million verdict unless maybe you're Microsoft. You either file bankruptcy or put a bullet in your head.
So what happens when there is a violent dispute? Do the LARPers just beat the tar out of each other in a fistfight until one of them submits? lol. And what about rules or representations for vitae-based powers?
I would go look this up myself but I have about zero interest in LARPs. Thanks for the clarification, though.
That language barrier was one of my favorite things about WoW, mostly because it forced you to communicate with the other faction using hand-gestures. Successfully making a friend or declaring a truce in this way could be quite rewarding.
Actually World of Darkness does use die rolls. You roll a set of d10's for certain actions. Succeeding at the action requires a certain number of the dice to roll a sufficiently high number, and having a high skill level lets you roll more dice.
Good and evil are purely subjective
Usually that is my main talking point. Thanks for illustrating it.
Because good and evil are purely subjective and meaningless value judgments there's really no point in calling anything good or evil. After all I'm sure that the executives at Apple love their mothers and love their children even if they don't love open source. So how "evil" could they be?