Forgot your password?

typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Quick Summary (Score 1) 177

by argStyopa (#40128115) Attached to: <em>Dungeons &amp; Dragons Next</em> Playtest Released

"...Unfortunately WotC seems content to just re-release the game every five years and clean up on the sourcebooks. It's vile...."

Well, investing money in actually improving it would make this an ACTUAL improvement, and less of a slutty cash grab (credits for that phrase above).

D&D: the invention
AD&D: an improvement on the invention
AD&D extra crap starting with UA: slutty cash grab
AD&D2nd Ed: pure slutty cash grab
3rd Ed: I think this was a conscientious effort to really pull the system into a consistent set of mechanics and a rules set that was (by now) more exceptions than rules.
3.5 slutty cash grab
4.0 something between 3rd E and a slutty cash grab, but at least it was a serious effort to rewrite the rules to be more appealing to video gamers familiar with cooldowns, etc. IMO it's actually not a bad system; it's not D&D but it's not a bad system intrinsically.
4.5 slutty cash grab
D&D Next: looking like slutty cash grab.

Comment: Re:The Fish Bowl Effect... (Score 3, Insightful) 185

by argStyopa (#40128069) Attached to: Pollution From Asia Affects US Climate

I'd love to see a link to that "strong evidence".
The only thing I've seen suggesting this are CSIRO "reports" whose basis is essentially "laws were put in place in the west to reduce aerosol pollution in the 1990s, and the drought in the Sahel ended at the same time".

By that level of intellectual rigor, a decrease in world ninja populations directly caused WW2.

The idea that pollution in one area of the globe effects others isn't novel or even particularly new; the 'tragedy of the commons' has been a long-term issue for anyone concerned about the environment. However to look at the coincidental end of a drought event (roughly 1970-1985) and the passage of legislation at the same time is specious at best, or politically-motivated mendacity at worst.

Two very simple questions that the study chose not to answer:
- Passage of the laws was neither geographically nor chronologically homogeneous as the studies' authors would like to imply; to suppose that a 15-year drought 'suddenly' stopped because of their passage would require postulating a 'tipping point'. Tipping points are generally a sign of poorly-understood systems. Sure, TPs exist in nature, but more frequently they're just a sign of sophomoric science and failed interpretation; they are the scientific equivalent of hand-waving.
- If Western industrial pollution was the cause of the Sahel droughts, why did they START in 1970 when by every measure western industrialization was DECREASING? Remember, you've already posited a nearly-instant connection between turning off the pollution and the end of the drought.

It's absolutely logical to expect that an input (pollution) into a complex system has an impact somewhere else, but to believe this specific assertion would require some basis of faith in the first place - faith that the West is evil, white-guilt, whatever you want to call it.

Comment: Re:Passing the blame (Score 0) 185

by argStyopa (#40127997) Attached to: Pollution From Asia Affects US Climate

At best useless, at worst a deliberately tendentious metric. Might as well measure it by hair length.

Sure, the PER PERSON pollutant output of countries like India and China is low; they have BILLION(s) of people living essentially like pre-industrial primitives.

Let's use CO2, since you like that metric, but instead of using raw population numbers, let's take at OUTPUT: PPP.

US CO2 5.7 bill (tons/yr), China CO2 3.4
US PPP: $11 trillion. China PPP $7 trillion
On that basis they're basically the same.

If we compare per-capita income - since you want to consider that whole population figure more proportionally: US citizens have a PPP income of $43K. China's is $7K. At that same proportion, China's pollution output should be barely 1 bill ton/yr - or in other words, they are putting out more than 3.5 TIMES more pollution per $1 that goes into their citizen's pockets, than the US.

What were you saying again about the US being the "worst in the world"?

Comment: Re:Its not just "Private Good - Government Bad" (Score 1) 215

by argStyopa (#40120415) Attached to: ISS Captures SpaceX Dragon Capsule

"...how did we survive these things in the past?"
We seem to be in a different place, psychologically speaking.

In our world of 2012, every single human life is deemed to be precious. (I don't think it necessarily IS, even to the people stating that, but that's the public line.)

It seems that as we have made our world ever-safer, and insulated most people from the random vagaries that could harm/kill us, we have become ever more sensitive to the loss of a single person.

For much of human history, the bulk of a person's siblings (and there were often many) would have died before age 2. Today, a simple (natural) miscarriage is enough to send a woman into years of counseling for her loss.

For centuries, the penalty for piracy was death, pure and simple. If you weren't killed in being taken, you were promptly hung or thrown overboard. Now the world's navies operate on catch-and-release basis, giving pirates in Somalia medical treatment, food, air-conditioned comfort before returning them gently to shore.

Today we'll spend tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars to save a single life - even if that life is 75+ yrs old and doesn't have much left to go anyway.

I'm reminded also of a public television documentary on the building of the Hoover Dam. This was a difficult, low paid job during harsh economic times. 112 men died in work conditions that were dirty and dangerous out of a workforce of approx 5000. This wasn't seen to be a scandal at the time, it just "was". (And in fact a casualty rate of 2% over that 5 year project would be comparable to the US fatality rate in Iraq over the past 5 years.)

The test pilots of the original space program were, as far as I recall, all combat veterans. All of them had a keen understanding both of risk, and the necessity of running it to make progress. I suspect there are many, many similar personalities today, but the political will to employ them - or even recognize the risks publicly - has simply vanished.

Does this mean we're more pussified, or does this mean that we're more thoughtful, sensitive, and compassionate? The problem is that we've got no absolute yardstick that says "past this point you're going too far", and there's always political value in appearing more caring, more concerned for the welfare of any/everyone.

Again, I don't know if this is really how people feel, or how people believe they should publicly appear to feel. In my experience, when engaged individually, people are lot more measured in their concern for their fellow man (which is, I suspect, more like our ancestors). Locally there was a recent news story about a baby dying, and the public clamor was the absolute tragedy of the thing - when in fact the undercurrent from people with firsthand knowledge recognized that the mom was an habitual meth user who was probably so wasted at the time she couldn't help her child at all.

I suspect 50+ years ago, there wouldn't have been such a need to provide this veneer of compassion.

Comment: Re:Isn't everything GMO though? (Score 1) 324

by geekoid (#40115781) Attached to: Battle Brewing Over Labeling of Genetically Modified Food

"1. There are many things they are doing that is not even close to possible via selective breeding."
Name one. You are aware the DNA parts from animal get inserted into flowers in nature, don't you? whats that? you didn't know that? STFU

"and can be tracked, studied and mitigated."
same with GMOs.

The appreciation of the average visual graphisticator alone is worth the whole suaveness and decadence which abounds!!

Working...