Oh not "your" sorry, and now that I actually read the problem I didn't care about before I see that your response doesn't apply to that either so I'm not sure what subsidies resulting in higher prices has to do with any of them.

I was referring to your second problem, which I thought was clear because the first problem has nothing to do with the proposal in question and hence reading the slightest bit of detail wouldn't have helped with that.

No it wouldn't, which you'd know if you read the slightest bit of detail about the proposal in question. But I guess that would require engaging your brain instead of your default biases which is too difficult for someone of your mental stature.

Sure, if you ignore than under this scheme there is no "price". The college isn't getting to decide a fee and charge the student. The college gets 3% of what the student ends up earning in the 20 years after they graduate. So unless you think that colleges control wages across the board they have no say in what they are charging under this proposal.

It would be a US for a state level tax, since states can't tax your income once you live and work in another state. And since this is in fact a state level proposal it has exactly the same avoidance issue - in fact it's magnified since is is dramatically easier to move states than it is to move countries.

Nuclear fuel will stretch out for 30,000 years if the political/military/terrorist problems of breeder reactors can be worked out. You either have a higher expectation of the span of our civilization than I do, or a higher expectation of how long we'd expect to use todays power sources for.

And at some point the sun runs out of it's nuclear fuel making solar and wind "technically, non-renewable" so what is your point?

Maybe not to the same degree as nuclear fuel is. But solar and wind is NOT unlimited.

Beneath the surface means exactly nothing when picking up a one night stand.

No he isn't. Microsoft's own calculator ( http://www.microsoft.com/inves... ) says that if you invested in MS stock on 1/1/2000 and reinvested all dividends back into them then you've managed a -14.71% return (ignoring inflation).

If you had waited until 1/1/2001 on the other hand you would have managed a 129.18% return (again ignoring inflation).

Of course I'm sure that has nothing to with the dot.com boom and bust or anything...

The topic is 40 year old D&D, no?

And yes 1e and 2e are broken (though less so that 3.5 and 4th). The D&D sweet spot is a just prior to 1e.

Speed chess is like that. Playing it against someone with the "feel" that a grandmaster has would make lasting 9 moves be an achievement...

How are Traveller and Maelstrom (to pick two) blighted by D&D HP system?

No, I'm talking the sweet point of D&D just before the complexity that 1e brought.

You do not do 50 damage, and the next 2 people do not do 150 damage + stun + whatever

A first level character hits with a sword and does 1d6 damage. A 7th level character hits with a sword and does 1d6 damage. One of them might be a fighter and get a bonus for strength if they have a high strength which isn't likely anyway - but that could be the 1st level character.

Now of course the first level character will die faster - which is why they are actually using missile weapons and not making themselves a target. This is balanced by the fact that XP is shared evenly not adjusted by level and thus the lower level character will shoot up levels in a flash anyway removing the "problem" in a handful of sessions.

1. It is fun with a weak character relative to everyone else.
2. Failure is as fun as success - notice that almost all old school D&D players have a favorite story to tell in which usually a character if not the entire party dies.
3. Fudging dice rolls is unnecessary. Yes some DMs want a softer game and so do that - which I guess is fine if that's the game you want to play. There's no need to, just don't get attached to that character...