Terraria is a pretty fun digging sim, though not 3D.
Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).
Two ways that I can think of off the bat:
1. Rigged dice
2. Dice roller using slight of hand
For rigged dice it should be simple enough to roll the dice a few times before hand to verify that they work properly. Use a single pair of dice, one representing 10's the other 1's, roll both together once for each number in the lottery. I suppose you could use an electric magnet with rigged dice to get them to roll how you want but I'm not sure you could do anything other than cause the same number to be rolled each time, which would be blatantly obvious as cheating.
For a non-random person, and yes I realize that picking a random person is just as error prone as anything else, you could get your own ringer. The trouble then is what could that ringer accomplish? Are their people that can actually roll dice consistently enough to roll the numbers they want? Barring that possibility they could use slight of hand to substitute rigged dice for each roll. The problem with slight of hand is that it only looks magical and convincing when you aren't looking for it. Pick people wearing short sleeves and keep multiple cameras trained on them at all times and you've ruled out that threat entirely.
For me the biggest reason to go with something simple like dice is that the ways to cheat it are pretty obvious and easily detectable if you are looking, corrupting it would require multiple people to be involved in the cheating. The output from a computer for random numbers in such a system is far easier to cheat because it is so complex that most people involved may not even know what they are looking for and it only requires a single person that is passably sly to pull it off.
I can't speak for Buddhism, but in the LDS (Mormon) faith the stated reason for not discussing such sacred (secret) things outside of a Temple and/or with someone who doesn't have a current Temple Recommend (official documented approval for participating in aforementioned sacred ceremonies), is that if they end up mocking them then they could bring down the wrath of god on themselves. There is no implication that I've ever heard that it is up to the church or members to act on behalf of god and his wrath, but I wouldn't doubt that someone might think that or take that upon themselves.
Having participated in modern ceremonies I can attest to them being entirely benign and unsurprising. I've heard salacious rumors before about what happens in temples but the most intimate things get is holding hands. I have heard that there used to be multiple blood oaths as part of the ceremonies in regards to maintaining the sacred (secret) nature of those ceremonies, but apparently that was phased out some decades ago and I've only ever heard it mentioned once, so haven't substantiated it at all.
Anyways in order to obtain a Temple Recommend you need to have declared your status as a full tithe payer to two seperate authority figures. That declaration is just part of the interview process and I've never heard of anyone being called out for being dishonest in that regard. A Full Tithe is 10% of your increase, which leaves a good bit of ambiguity for defining what your incease is. Of course if you don't have an increase, don't make/earn/receive any money, then you don't have a tithe to pay. So obtaining a Temple Recommend could be perceived as having a price tag in dollars of anywhere from $0 to $ billions.
Charity deductions are kind of hard to use as a casual tax dodge. are at least make little to no sense to use in that way. People who run mega churches are dedicating much of their working life to doing it and I don't disagree that they should be prosecuted when appropriate. For the normal tax payer though donating to charity isn't saving you any money because it's a deduction not a credit. That means that you simply don't owe any income tax on the dollars donated to charity. That is very different from a credit which is essentially income tax that you don't have to pay, and in some cases can receive cash back for if it excedes your tax bill. You still have to pay social security, medicare and whatever taxes on charitable donations.
The issue isn't so much about whether it is a religion. The whole point of the tax exempt status is to advantage groups that are beneficial to society. Now I realize that there are very valid arguements for pretty much all religions being harmful to society and so not warranting tax exempt status. In the case of Hubards get rich quick scheme though it is more obvious that it is not beneficial to society at large. The same is likely also true for the West Boro Baptist Church which appears to be more about a family of lawyers trolling for cases where they can sue for infringements against their rights.
Grain fed meat is pretty much an artifact of our affluence and over production of corn. If I had to go to subsistence farming I sure wouldn't be wasting time producing grain for livestock. Pasturing and hay would have to suffice, and even then I'd probably skip the really large livestock that are less efficient and more labor intensive. Go with chickens, sheep, goats, and maybe pigs. You could possibly do fish in an aquaponics system if you've got a way to keep their water warm enough through the winter, and a way to keep them fed.
There is some really neat stuff you can do with fish in tanks and growing vegetables and such in the water. I believe it's called aquaponics, a mix of hydroponics and fish where the fish provide the amonia for bacteria to breakdown into nitrogen for the plants. You have to feed the fish but they can usually be fed duckweed or something else that is easily produced in very large quantities in what amounts to wading pools. The only water that leaves the system is whatever evaporates and is part of the harvested vegetable or meat.
That does seem to be very random, although not actually perfectly random as you noted with a miniscule variance. I'm not trying to claim that using new dice with different people rolling the dice will be more random, it could quite possibly be less random. My main points though are:
Would rolling dice be sufficiently random such that guessing the most likely numbers is impractical?
Would rolling dice be an easier system to corrupt, as apparently happened in this case?
Last I heard we weren't anywhere close to running out of coal, there is literally mountains of the stuff still around and relatively easily available. And more than a thousand years ago people were producing coke from coal, so it shouldn't be an issue. Steel and iron production would probably happen on a smaller scale but you'd have huge quantities of it still sitting around waiting to be recycled. Landfills would be great sources of harder to find resources like copper. The one thing that I can think of that could be problematic would be making plastics in a world with less available oil.
Neither is the computer though. I wonder what the difference is and if it actually is significant enough to matter. I'd just go with a set of dice, buy new dice for every drawing and pick some random person on the street to roll the dice each time.
I think it's more a function of them having access to those tools and being about to act out on all those fantasies and wishes. I knew lots of people growing up that would have loved to have access to this stuff to do the same. Most of them don't, even now that the tools are available to them. I suspect that it has more to do with them having matured and getting a better view of the reality surrounding them.
Most of these kids streaming and whatever will eventually give up on it when they realize it's not getting them anywhere. Some of them with stick with it just because they find they honestly enjoy it as a hobby even if it ends up being a net financial loss. And some select few will manage to make a career of it. We'll likely continue to see this happen as younger generations try to emulate the successes that they've seen come before them. Just look at how many people turn out for those televised talent show auditions. I'll bet they have hundres or thousands of applications to every act that they actually even put before the judges, let alone show on air for 15 seconds or less.
Honestly I could care less what those people are doing for the most part, or even that they are doing it and possibly making a living. It doesn't affect me by and large, I watch a couple youtubers because their stuff entertains me. I could just as easily watch some TV, read a book, or practice my own incredibly bad singing or something. If someone wants to put themselves out there for everyone to critique and fawn over that's their deal and it's no skin off my back.
I'm not sure what you mean by, extort honesty. I'm guessing you mean that the demand from the person holding evidence is that the other person come clean and reveal what they have done, thus negating the evidence? If that is what you mean, I don't know if it'd be considered blackmail or not, though I suspect it still would be. If the evidence being witheld is not directly related to whatever they want the other person to reveal then it would definitely be blackmail.
Examples of the above in order:
A. I catch a friend's spouse cheating and threaten to reveal their discretion to their spouse unless they do so on their own.
B. I catch a friend's spouse cheating and threaten to reveal their discretion to their spouse unless they admit to something else that they have done wrong.
I'm not sure that B makes any sense outside of a movie plot. For A I'm not entirely sure it would be called blackmail, but I suppose it still could as the outcomes of being outed for something, and coming out on your own terms for the same thing, usually bear very different consequences for the individual involved. Generally the judicial system looks very poorly on blackmail, even if it's done with good intentions, because keeping evidence of wrongdoing secret from it prevents the system from doing its job properly, or at all.
No, blackmail is when one person of group has evidence of another person or group having done something either illegal or otherwise embarrassing that they would prefer to keep private, the person with the evidence has to threaten to release that information unless their demands are met, usually some personal profit is the demand.
In this case the person holding the evidence passed it along to other parties for use in legal procedings and possibly to the media. They did not try to use it to extort anything out of the person who was the subject of the video.
Sealed bids is still haggling, you just only get to make the one offer instead of constantly going back an forth.
In the case of London real estate you're still negotiating, you're just on the other side where you need to offer better terms to out compete other offers. In markets that are slower people will very often take less than the asking price because they are under various pressures to sell. A house is a very large and unweildy asset, typically when people are selling a house they are still making mortgage payments on it, so the faster they can sell it the less money they lose to mortgage interest. If the house is unoccupied the risk of it being vandalized goes up considerably, which will end up devaluing the property as well as adding costs to repair it. Houses are definitely one of the purchases that you should negotiate.
Some of the indigenous people of South America did a remarkable job of building structures out of stone which are very earthquake safe. Not that it's a very cost effective method of construction. Although, with modern technology perhaps we could produce generic blocks with enough precision cheaply.