 |
| Register | Login | |||||
 |
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| ACS
| Commons
| Calendar
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | Color Chart | Photo album | IRC Chat |
|
| | ||
|
| Register | Login | |||||
|
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| ACS
| Commons
| Calendar
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | Color Chart | Photo album | IRC Chat |
|
| | ||
| Acmlm's Board - I2 Archive - - Posts by hhallahh |
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 |
| User | Post | ||
hhallahh Bob-Omb Level: 38  Posts: 410/607 EXP: 365476 For next: 4971 Since: 03-15-04 From: Portland, OR Since last post: 73 days Last activity: 60 days |
| ||
Originally posted by Kratos Aurion  Anyways, well.. maybe not a leveling system.. But it would be interesting to see a system whereby you "learn" moves at various points in the game. Wasn't DahrkDaiz doing something like that with his new Mario 3 hack? It's a good idea.. |
|||
|
hhallahh Bob-Omb Level: 38 Posts: 411/607 EXP: 365476 For next: 4971 Since: 03-15-04 From: Portland, OR Since last post: 73 days Last activity: 60 days |
| ||
Originally posted by Smallhacker *rimshot* Looks pretty good. Although now that Kratos points it out, I can't help thinking of eyes. =\ Unacceptable. |
|||
|
hhallahh Bob-Omb Level: 38 Posts: 412/607 EXP: 365476 For next: 4971 Since: 03-15-04 From: Portland, OR Since last post: 73 days Last activity: 60 days |
| ||
| Yea.. you have to get below 1:01, as pointed out earlier. It takes some practice, and savestate use, but here are a couple of pointers that I remember for shaving crucial seconds. The best tip I have that isn't completely obvious: Before you start the race, get a running start from the left edge of the screen. This will allow you to be in "sprint" mode when you jump over the first barrier, and allow you to clear the second one without trouble. If you're really good, you can duck through the next area and stay in sprint mode, but.. that's not necessary. You don't really get anything for beating the race, though. |
|||
|
hhallahh Bob-Omb Level: 38 Posts: 413/607 EXP: 365476 For next: 4971 Since: 03-15-04 From: Portland, OR Since last post: 73 days Last activity: 60 days |
| ||
The problem with these questions, of course, assumes the existence of a moral reality.  I wouldn't say it's right or wrong... I'd simply say it's "smart" to kill that person, or his child, or whatever. Unless, of course, you stand to benefit from the next Hitler's rule. (edited by hhallahh on 10-29-04 12:12 AM) |
|||
|
hhallahh Bob-Omb Level: 38 Posts: 414/607 EXP: 365476 For next: 4971 Since: 03-15-04 From: Portland, OR Since last post: 73 days Last activity: 60 days |
| ||
| The question is formed as a "If not x, then y"... it's true that there's no such thing as knowing what'll happen in a counterfactual scenario, but it's generally considered in philosophy to simply be nagging to insist on that point. For example, the consequentialist viewpoint demands that one be able to compare the world in which one did X against the modal world in which one didn't do X in order to determine whether doing X was "right". If you say that that comparison can't be made, then.. it's useless. I guess the related question is whether knowing X will occur can somehow affect whether it does, and hence that person doesn't really know X will occur. Obviously, this problem can be solved by tweaking the statement to be "X will occur unless I do Y"... which is of the form of the original question. |
|||
|
hhallahh Bob-Omb Level: 38 Posts: 415/607 EXP: 365476 For next: 4971 Since: 03-15-04 From: Portland, OR Since last post: 73 days Last activity: 60 days |
| ||
| Yea, that might be nice.. Like a lot of other people, I only got 15/21 exits, I guess? Because most of the levels are yellow dots, I don't really see where the secret ones would be.. if they're in the first world, I didn't feel like going back. If they're past the Underground Base... well, that could only mean a secret exit in the Twilight Fort, I guess? But not being able to go back and forth was too much of a bummer. And maybe releasing periodic demos would keep your interest in the hack up. Just as a general thing. |
|||
|
hhallahh Bob-Omb Level: 38 Posts: 416/607 EXP: 365476 For next: 4971 Since: 03-15-04 From: Portland, OR Since last post: 73 days Last activity: 60 days |
| ||
Originally posted by Ziffski I believe that this is incorrect. Cheney, to the best of my knowledge, has never endorsed the FMA with anything more than an "I support the President" type logic. He refused to support it at the debates, even. |
|||
|
hhallahh Bob-Omb Level: 38 Posts: 417/607 EXP: 365476 For next: 4971 Since: 03-15-04 From: Portland, OR Since last post: 73 days Last activity: 60 days |
| ||
| You should carry some form of I.D., though, cause they might need it to identify your body. | |||
|
hhallahh Bob-Omb Level: 38 Posts: 418/607 EXP: 365476 For next: 4971 Since: 03-15-04 From: Portland, OR Since last post: 73 days Last activity: 60 days |
| ||
| It catches a lot of flak, but why shouldn't we have it, really? The only semi-legitimate argument is that it could be used for political purposes, but that's probably way too cynical. | |||
|
hhallahh Bob-Omb Level: 38 Posts: 419/607 EXP: 365476 For next: 4971 Since: 03-15-04 From: Portland, OR Since last post: 73 days Last activity: 60 days |
| ||
| That's a remarkably blocky cave. =\ | |||
|
hhallahh Bob-Omb Level: 38 Posts: 420/607 EXP: 365476 For next: 4971 Since: 03-15-04 From: Portland, OR Since last post: 73 days Last activity: 60 days |
| ||
| It's my opinion that having a President rather than a Prime Minister is a good thing, because it allows for divided government, which has always put restraints on one-party dominance. Also, having a Prime Minister system isn't a sufficient condition for a multiparty system, since the key to a multiparty system is proportional representation, which is a completely different issue.. the fact that the President of the United States is stronger than a Prime Minister in another country isn't due to the President / Prime Minister system, but rather just due to the way that the insititutions evolved over time.. it's been my impression that in general, Prime Ministers tend to be more powerful than Presidents, because they'll always have the Legislature on their side. The EC is an artifact. Originally, the President was not directly elected by the people, and so the EC kinda made sense. But obviously that's no longer the case. |
|||
|
hhallahh Bob-Omb Level: 38 Posts: 421/607 EXP: 365476 For next: 4971 Since: 03-15-04 From: Portland, OR Since last post: 73 days Last activity: 60 days |
| ||
| A well-taken point. In general, the arguments against the free movement of labor are stronger than the arguments against the free movement of capital, but I doubt that they're so strong as to outweigh the net total benefits free labor would bring. Free labor carries with it negative externalities such as social problems and it tends to destroy existing social capital. However, it can be argued that once an equilibrium is reached when two systems are "mixed", social capital will regenerate... however, there are clearly some very strong vested interests and rational fears about the consequences of free labor, and so it's a much more difficult idea to be open to than free capital. That is to say, there's little doubt that free labor would yield a better economy in the long run, but that there's a current equilibrium which is hostile to it that would have to be upset first. But history has shown that free labor tends to win out... for example, in the United States after the Civil War, many laws were passed which forbade blacks moving north from competing with whites for jobs. This created a non-optimal equilibrium for almost a century (whose residual effects still exist today). However, once this appropriate "shock" to the equilibrium is made, there's no going back.. and most likely it's simply a matter of time. |
|||
|
hhallahh Bob-Omb Level: 38 Posts: 422/607 EXP: 365476 For next: 4971 Since: 03-15-04 From: Portland, OR Since last post: 73 days Last activity: 60 days |
| ||
| A PM can have a great deal of power, our PM's 2-party coalition controls both houses at the moment, but it's a more ephermeral and shifting sort of power... he is also more answerable to things like no confidence motions, losing the support of his own party, dismissal by a president or governor general, and prime ministers are also a lot more exposed to the press and public through "question time" and such, than a president in a system where he's the head of state and government. Also, the need to continually please 70 or 80 MPs and 40-odd senators does tend to keep things fairly moderate. In a president-centric system, however, it's harder to remove an implacable leader even if he's unpopular. Impeachment is hard and difficult, and if push comes to shove the president commands the military. It's a much more "all-or-nothing" system. Most of your facts are merely contingent on the political traditions of various countries, not on the necessary facts created by having a PM or Presidential system. There's no reason a President couldn't have "question time" and whatnot if that's what you like. And a President generally does have to appease Congress, because he can't just do whatever he pleases... and since the President isn't the head of government, often he'll face an opposition-led legislature, which is something you don't see in PM systems. But really, it should be put that each nation has a unique sort of mentality when it comes to politics, their democracy, and most importantly their nation identity. And that is what defines what works best in a nation. So India's caste system was the best system for India? The Taliban in Afghanistan was the best system the Afghanis could hope for? Give me a break. |
|||
|
hhallahh Bob-Omb Level: 38 Posts: 423/607 EXP: 365476 For next: 4971 Since: 03-15-04 From: Portland, OR Since last post: 73 days Last activity: 60 days |
| ||
| Someday, he'll make a good sociopath. Keep your eye on this kid. | |||
|
hhallahh Bob-Omb Level: 38 Posts: 424/607 EXP: 365476 For next: 4971 Since: 03-15-04 From: Portland, OR Since last post: 73 days Last activity: 60 days |
| ||
| When I say PM system, I think of something like Britain, wherein the PM yields a fair amount of power. And are you implying that removing a popularly-elected President would be a legitimate thing to do if there was too much friction between him and Congress? That's a pretty contraversial thing to say. The only power the President has over the legislative branch is his veto. Although Presidents in the United States are often associated with certain legislative agendas, they have no actual power to make these agendas happen... it's their metaphysical mandates which may or may not do so. Although the President does kinda yield some legislative power through the beuracracy, few Presidents create huge amounts of legislative gridlock. And if they did, it's not really a terrible thing, necessarily. I'm not familiar with the Ecuador example, but... different things work to different degrees in different places (and no, I'm not contradicting what I wrote to Ziffski.) I mean, the culture of the United States would probably allow us to have a monarchy that might not work so bad. You say that the unaccountability of the President is a problem, but I wouldn't say it's created a problem here. The President is not some popular hero who can yield power as he sees fit.. he's a public servant who's expected to reflect the interests of his constituency, party, and country. |
|||
|
hhallahh Bob-Omb Level: 38 Posts: 425/607 EXP: 365476 For next: 4971 Since: 03-15-04 From: Portland, OR Since last post: 73 days Last activity: 60 days |
| ||
| Fair trade and free trade are tradeoffs. | |||
|
hhallahh Bob-Omb Level: 38 Posts: 426/607 EXP: 365476 For next: 4971 Since: 03-15-04 From: Portland, OR Since last post: 73 days Last activity: 60 days |
| ||
| Well, I wouldn't deny that our system may not work so well in other countries.. And Reagan subsequently raised taxes, IIRC. And I don't recall any new major social programs in the 80s.. most of the deficiet came from military expenditures, I think. If the electoral vote ties, it goes to the House, and Bush wins, as per the Constitution. There are intermediate possibilities, such as an elector switching his vote, or that some of the states which split their electoral votes somehow shuffling them around to favor a certain canidate.. I read an article on the various possibilities a few days back, but didn't pay much attention.. after all, it is a remote possibility. It would be bitter, but there would be a winner, like last time. And life goes on. And maybe there would finally be a public move against the EC. |
|||
|
hhallahh Bob-Omb Level: 38 Posts: 427/607 EXP: 365476 For next: 4971 Since: 03-15-04 From: Portland, OR Since last post: 73 days Last activity: 60 days |
| ||
| Okay. The flat tax is simply a bad idea. It's usually based in principles of "fairness", yet the standards of fairness behind it are completely arbitrary. I wrote a decent article about it a while back. Basically, the idea is that taxing people at a flat rate of their consumption or income isn't fair, because that's an arbitrary standard. There are only two standards of fairness which I could imagine being useful. 1. Libertarian Fairness Basically, tax people according to how much they benefit from government services like police and military protection. The problem with this kind of taxation, though, is that it would tend to be heavily regressive, since poor people, on average, benefit from social services and police protection more than the rich. People would pay more as their assets increase, though, because they're basically getting "insurance" on more valuable packages of goods. So a wealth vs. tax burden curve would be heavily regressive up until about middle class income, and then level out like a flat tax, roughly. However, this system would be completely ridiculous for poor people. At best, the tax burden could be altered to take into account the fact that poor people wouldn't be able to pay the tax, and they would subsequently be imprisoned by the thousands, yielding a higher taxpayer burden. 2. Utilitarian Fairness; Basically, this would require taking a flat percent of a person's utility via their income... and since there's a diminishing marginal returns on every dollar a person has, this kind of tax would be heavily progressive. Taking 10% of a poor person's income hurts him a lot more than taking 10% of a rich person's income would, for example, so perhaps it would be more "fair" to only charage the poor person 5% and the rich person 20% to achieve equal utility loss. |
|||
|
hhallahh Bob-Omb Level: 38 Posts: 428/607 EXP: 365476 For next: 4971 Since: 03-15-04 From: Portland, OR Since last post: 73 days Last activity: 60 days |
| ||
Originally posted by Ziffski Only if you believe that people have no right to their income. |
|||
|
hhallahh Bob-Omb Level: 38 Posts: 429/607 EXP: 365476 For next: 4971 Since: 03-15-04 From: Portland, OR Since last post: 73 days Last activity: 60 days |
| ||
| It's (generally) true that you can't force new customs down a country's metaphorical throat, but it's also true that often a country's old customs are not well-adapted to running the rich, industrial economies based on free-markets and human rights that they wish to become... so the culture itself must be changed, which is most effectively done from top-down. If a country's culture inhibits its material prosperity... well, you can argue that that's okay, but you'd have to accept the fact that they're doomed to be poor, then. And that their culture is not "evolutionarily stable", so to speak, and will probably die anyways. |
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 |
| Acmlm's Board - I2 Archive - - Posts by hhallahh |
