 |
| 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: 331/607 EXP: 365476 For next: 4971 Since: 03-15-04 From: Portland, OR Since last post: 73 days Last activity: 60 days |
| ||
| Whoa.. has anyone noticed that in level 7-3, where there's a block with one of the rotating powerups (mushroom/flower/leaf/star) next to a P-block block, if you hit the P-block and then the rotating block, the game seriously fucks up? At least it does for me. How weird. | |||
|
hhallahh Bob-Omb Level: 38 Posts: 332/607 EXP: 365476 For next: 4971 Since: 03-15-04 From: Portland, OR Since last post: 73 days Last activity: 60 days |
| ||
| Gah. I can't find the secret exit in the World 8 Ghost House. Help plz. (edited by hhallahh on 09-04-04 01:14 PM) |
|||
|
hhallahh Bob-Omb Level: 38 Posts: 333/607 EXP: 365476 For next: 4971 Since: 03-15-04 From: Portland, OR Since last post: 73 days Last activity: 60 days |
| ||
| I just beat the game with 80 exits as well. =\ I guess I'll play around more if there are 84+... I haven't checked a lot of Ghost Houses and stuff thoroughly. Also, is there a Yoshi in the game anywhere? I found it strange that at one point there were those wings Yoshi's supposed to eat, but no Yoshi in the game. And I didn't get a password for the zip.. or maybe I missed it in the credits? I speed through those.. |
|||
|
hhallahh Bob-Omb Level: 38 Posts: 334/607 EXP: 365476 For next: 4971 Since: 03-15-04 From: Portland, OR Since last post: 73 days Last activity: 60 days |
| ||
| Which ghost house? I can't find any more keys, and I've explored them rather thoroughly.. can't believe I'd miss 4 exits.. I'll just make a list of possible levels with 2 exits. Help please? 1. Ghost Fort in World 2 2. Ghost House in World 3 3. The ship between world 3 and 4. 4. The fort at the beginning of World 4. 5. The tower in World 6. 6. The ghost house in world 7. 7. Airship in World 8 8. Fort in World 8. 9. Bowser's Castle / side door. 10. Any of the world-ending forts. Gr. |
|||
|
hhallahh Bob-Omb Level: 38 Posts: 335/607 EXP: 365476 For next: 4971 Since: 03-15-04 From: Portland, OR Since last post: 73 days Last activity: 60 days |
| ||
| Sounds good.. though I really would recommend looking into a new overworld, or possibly having someone design one for you. A hack without an innovative overworld suffers a lot, in my opinion. | |||
|
hhallahh Bob-Omb Level: 38 Posts: 336/607 EXP: 365476 For next: 4971 Since: 03-15-04 From: Portland, OR Since last post: 73 days Last activity: 60 days |
| ||
| Hm.. still no clue how to get it, and I don't have time to explore at the moment.. Is anyone confident they've completed the entire hack? And know how many exits there are? I'm loathe to update my "Completed Hacks" thread until I know. If someone could at least PM the information if they don't feel like sharing, that'd be nice. |
|||
|
hhallahh Bob-Omb Level: 38 Posts: 336/607 EXP: 365476 For next: 4971 Since: 03-15-04 From: Portland, OR Since last post: 73 days Last activity: 60 days |
| ||
| Added MarioWorldXSER or whatever it is. x_X On further consideration, I decided not to change the "exits" to "# of courses". Just because. I also wish that it were somehow possible to rate hacks... or, even better, I wish it were possible to create a subforum meant for hack reviews. =\ |
|||
|
hhallahh Bob-Omb Level: 38 Posts: 337/607 EXP: 365476 For next: 4971 Since: 03-15-04 From: Portland, OR Since last post: 73 days Last activity: 60 days |
| ||
| I don't know if this is feasible, but I have a proposal. I think it would be a good idea to have a forum dedicated to SMW hack reviews. A subforum would be the most desirable option, but I'm not sure if AcmlmBoard supports subforums. If not, then a "missing" forum could be dedicated for this purpose. A missing forum is one of the many numbered forums that doesn't appear on the main pagelist (I don't want to create clutter.) For example, this forum's number is "8", Pokemon Hacking is "15", Officers' Club is "24", etc. Since many of these values are unused (example), it wouldn't be much of an issue to dedicate one for this purpose. This forum would consist of one thread for each hack created, each thread being created by a moderator or someone designated to make a standardized format for the review thread introductions. Preferably, the forum's setting would be such that only a moderator could post threads - hence it would be orderly. Each thread would consist of a poll for a hack's rating (perhaps on a scale of 1-5) and replies could be used for individual users' comments. Having an organized knowledge base like this would help users new to the SMW hacking scene to pick out a hack that appeals to them. At the moment, my completed hacks thread is well-organized, but contains little information about hacks that would give a user good knowledge about which ones he might prefer. Designating a "missing" forum to reviews would be a good way to organize this information. It should also be mentioned that the idea of missing forums could be used for other things as well - for example, questions asking for help in a hack could get their own subforum, etc. However, I think if anything deserves its own area, it would be hack reviews. |
|||
|
hhallahh Bob-Omb Level: 38 Posts: 338/607 EXP: 365476 For next: 4971 Since: 03-15-04 From: Portland, OR Since last post: 73 days Last activity: 60 days |
| ||
| Trading economic freedom (the right to own what you earn) for "equal opportunity" is not only unjust, but is economically undesirable as well. I'm gonna skip out the full explanation unless someone really tears into me like an idiot, at which point I'll have to explain such concepts as "supply and demand" and "liberty" that socialists seem to have no real conception of. I'm too lazy to read over the entire thread, so I'll point out one mistake I noticed thus far: You could say that poverty will, to a certain extent, function as protection from suicide. Or: The richer a society is, the higher its level of suicides will be. (By the by, anomie could go the other way, too. If a society undergoes sudden economical worsenings, it will then, too, experience a rise in suicides.) Economic change leads to suicide.. either for the better or worse. I'm thinking you simply misspoke when you said a rich society has a higher suicide rate, because your next paragraph conveys the correct idea. (edited by hhallahh on 09-09-04 01:06 AM) |
|||
|
hhallahh Bob-Omb Level: 38 Posts: 339/607 EXP: 365476 For next: 4971 Since: 03-15-04 From: Portland, OR Since last post: 73 days Last activity: 60 days |
| ||
| Proportional voting would entail the destruction of all local congressional districts, and hence is pretty undesirable on those grounds alone. I don't think many people would support it. The electoral college is generally undesirable for several reasons. I could make a list, but it's not necessary. |
|||
|
hhallahh Bob-Omb Level: 38 Posts: 340/607 EXP: 365476 For next: 4971 Since: 03-15-04 From: Portland, OR Since last post: 73 days Last activity: 60 days |
| ||
| A mix of the free-market and government control is an ideological mix of oil and water.. the philosophies behind the two systems are inherantly contradictary. While it is, of course, possible to have such a system, it's a philosophically convoluted one, based on the subjective weighing of the intuitionist morality of the dominanat political group. Also, as a believer in Socialism/Social Democracy (Neither of which is the same as communism), I do not agree with your beliefs that equal opportunity is unjust. A system where smart people will get no chance of doing good, only because their parents are poor, that is an unjust system. Remember, you cannot have true liberty without equality. A system where smart people do poorly simply because they're poor isn't an unjust system.. it's an inefficient one. A properly coordinated free market should be able to resolve these issues. It's not equal opportunity I'd gripe at in a Social Democracy - although I would say that stealing money and giving it to others for the sake of "justice" is an obviously unjust act - it's the bleeding-heart liberalism behind such notions as free health care, pensions, etc. wherein you end up paying vast sums of money to support the deadweight of society. The welfare state should exist insofar as it's an economically efficient thing to have, and Social Democracies generally go way beyond this threshold. And just out of curiousity, what are the immigration statistics on Sweden? Are they as troubling as the rest of Europe? I know that one cause of the dismantling of welfare states across Europe has been that people would come and sponge off of them... what a surprise! |
|||
|
hhallahh Bob-Omb Level: 38 Posts: 341/607 EXP: 365476 For next: 4971 Since: 03-15-04 From: Portland, OR Since last post: 73 days Last activity: 60 days |
| ||
In any case, that's an interesting idea, hhallahh, but I'm sure the same thing would work with threads in this forum if people could stick to a unified format for information about their hacks. The moderator idea to enforce a unified format is interesting, but I don't know who you're going to find to do something so tedious The problem is that, as is, a hack review thread for hack X will eventually get lost among all the other topics and never surface. Also, there's no rating system or template that would make comparing hacks possible. (edited by hhallahh on 09-09-04 10:53 AM) |
|||
|
hhallahh Bob-Omb Level: 38 Posts: 342/607 EXP: 365476 For next: 4971 Since: 03-15-04 From: Portland, OR Since last post: 73 days Last activity: 60 days |
| ||
Originally posted by Arwon Health care isn't my strongest area of expertise, but I will say that a vast sum of the money spent on health care here goes to the purpose of basic research, which you Social Democrats should be very thankful for. I do believe, though, that there's a somewhat.. symbiotic relationship between government and pharmaceutical (sp) companies in America, though, which accounts for their ridiculous profit margins. I'm not sure how to deal with that. There's a great deal of skepticism over whether the state health care system in America serves the people or the corporations.. and I'll grant that socialistic states are much better at creating systems in favor of the people. However, I would simply advocate abolishing (or phasing out) the state healthcare system, therefore lowering expenses on health care, because people would simply die, like they used to in the old days. (And before the inevitable complaints about a massive health care crisis ensue, keep in mind that there's such a thing as health insurance, which is a very good investment and will exist regardless of government policy.) And the mix is oil and water, largely because the socialist and capitalist philosophies are completely incompatible. If you have a country private property, political rights, and a free market (as the liberal capital philosophy entails), then this is incompatible with the welfare state. Period. The welfare state is a moral system based on giving welfare for the sake of giving welfare... you might as well be forcing people to pay money into the state's favorite church, that's about as much freedom as you have. And I suppose I'll use liberal in the 19th-century sense, then. I prefer doing that anyways. (edited by hhallahh on 09-09-04 12:09 PM) (edited by hhallahh on 09-09-04 12:10 PM) |
|||
|
hhallahh Bob-Omb Level: 38 Posts: 343/607 EXP: 365476 For next: 4971 Since: 03-15-04 From: Portland, OR Since last post: 73 days Last activity: 60 days |
| ||
| Now, health care. As you have pointed out, healthcare in the US is pretty inextricably linked to the massive sums of money the US govenrment provides for research and such. Given this, why not simply admit that America's health care system has heavy state influence like the rest of ours, taxpayers are footing the bill, and stop pretending like it's a free market? I can admit it, and freely do so. I think it's somewhat of an abomination as well, violating the capitalist ideology. America, of course, isn't perfect, but the liberal spirit is far more intact here than in other countries, which alone is something that pretty much guarantees American economic dominance over the socialistic rich countries of the world. ...and yes, as you point out, health insurance exists anyway. But you know what? 40% of Americans don't have it. Do you know how many Australians lack health insurance? NONE. We still have private healthcare and insurance for those who can afford it and can be bothered... and in many ways are that middle ground between the US and Canada/Europe. I have my medicare card, that entitles me to use the public health system. It's nice and simple, and I like that simplicity. But the difference is, that minimum medicare net is enough for a lot of people, and it is there for things other than "I just got shot and I have no private insurance". Know what it costs? 1% of each person's income - there's a separate levy to pay for it. Do the math - for someone earning 50000 dollars that's 500 dollars a year. Less than a third what the average American spends once you do the currency conversion. (about 1200 a year off the top of my head, in US currency, or about 1800 Australian dollars) You seem to have the fundamental misunderstanding that I actually care what percentage of Americans are covered by health care. I can freely concede, as well, that a small amount of income redistribution can help a lot of people. However, I can say that it's highly unjust for the government to force people to pay for the health care of others. Sure, the poor may not mind that their benefits are the products of theft... they believe that this theft is justified, simply because they have more "need"! "I need health care more than you need your new Porsche, so it would be justified if I stole your Porsche and traded it for a health care plan"... this is the morality of socialism, only people seem to accept it when government is the one doing the theft. Are you going to make the argument that need-based and coercive appropriations are compatible with the (generally) meritocratic and voluntary ideas underlying capitalism? Of course not. You can, of course, have a society with different philosophies competing for power, but when these philosophies influence real institutions, the institution's fundamental workings will be full of contradiction. Only mass cognitive dissonance on the part of the citizenry, though, can lead to people who in their own minds believe in social capitalism. Socialism and capitalism each have different axioms, but to actually believe the axioms of both philosophies simultaneously is completely impossible unless you never really consider their logical consequences. |
|||
|
hhallahh Bob-Omb Level: 38 Posts: 344/607 EXP: 365476 For next: 4971 Since: 03-15-04 From: Portland, OR Since last post: 73 days Last activity: 60 days |
| ||
| It should be connected to the board. Really, a webpage would be the most preferable thing, but I don't know if anyone would put the necessary effort into that. | |||
|
hhallahh Bob-Omb Level: 38 Posts: 345/607 EXP: 365476 For next: 4971 Since: 03-15-04 From: Portland, OR Since last post: 73 days Last activity: 60 days |
| ||
Originally posted by Arwon Completely missed my point. First of all, I'm not an Objectivist. Although I'd agree with much of what Rand wrote, classic liberalism existed long before Objectivism. Second of all, as I've said many times before, I won't argue that a lot of people are better off under social democracies... similar to how a lot of people would be better off if I stole a billion dollars from Bill Gates and distributed it to the inhabitants of a poor city. But it doesn't make it right. Now, you can argue that some abstract concept of the "common good" makes things right... but that's socialism, and it implies that people are ultimately slaves to the common good, and their rights may be curtailed at the government's leisure to actualize it. Minimum wage laws are at odds with liberty. Universal health care laws are at odds with liberty. Simple fact. I personally do not believe all restrictions of liberty are bad, but I do believe it's completely indefensible when the restrictions are made for moral reasons - ie. the common good. Your argument basically comes down to your emotions, which is a common thing for "social Democrats"... "but it's just better this way!" Maybe it is, by your definition, but it isn't just! If you want to help the poor, here's a word: Charity. Maybe the government can even run a charity. For if man really was social and cared for "communal-good-minded notions", wouldn't he gladly donate a portion of his wages to charity regardless of the presence of coercive forces? Wouldn't I give my Porsche to the man who wanted a health plan so that he wouldn't steal it? If that's the case, why do you need taxes at all? And lastly, I never said that you can't have a government with both socialist and capitalistic institutions. I merely said that maintaining these institutions requires cognitive dissonance on the part of the citizenry. Anyone who believes that theft is bad cannot support government coercion of money from private citizens. I'd love to hear a social contract theory that could say otherwise that wouldn't be completely tyrannical. And you'll just reply, "Well, it's just better that way"... and I'd agree, it's better in a way, but it's not a way that you can justify on any principle that isn't completely socialistic. So throw your lot in with socialism, if you will. (edited by hhallahh on 09-10-04 11:06 AM) |
|||
|
hhallahh Bob-Omb Level: 38 Posts: 346/607 EXP: 365476 For next: 4971 Since: 03-15-04 From: Portland, OR Since last post: 73 days Last activity: 60 days |
| ||
Originally posted by knuckOriginally posted by EscherialSomething that doesn't exist has no value in it. All ravens are black. My shoes are black. Therefore my shoes are ravens. |
|||
|
hhallahh Bob-Omb Level: 38 Posts: 347/607 EXP: 365476 For next: 4971 Since: 03-15-04 From: Portland, OR Since last post: 73 days Last activity: 60 days |
| ||
| Well, sort of. Really it just means you believe there are lots of conflicting consierations which must be balanced. Believing that some form of government-provided safety nets makes you a moralist totalitarian to the same extent that advocating "individual liberty" makes you a gun-toting anti-government kook in Montana. You can argue that this is the democratic thing to do, but in no way can socialism and capitalism be "balanced" in one's considered judgements.. you can't (justifiably) believe A and ~A at the same time, which is to say that you can't believe people have property rights and that these rights can be violated simultaneously. And if you have to choose one or the other, then you'd find that a "balance" of both elements would be undesirable no matter what side you ultimately choose. (edited by hhallahh on 09-11-04 02:20 AM) |
|||
|
hhallahh Bob-Omb Level: 38 Posts: 348/607 EXP: 365476 For next: 4971 Since: 03-15-04 From: Portland, OR Since last post: 73 days Last activity: 60 days |
| ||
| The "maximum possible useful degree of both"? I'm sorry, but you can't trade one for another as if on an economic indifference curve without basing the marginal rate of substitution on your emotions, which are based on your morals, which are contradictary. And just because the government protects your property doesn't give it the subsequent justification to take money from you for other purposes.. unless, of course, you simply argue that the government has the right to do whatever it damn well pleases, and the individual has no rights at all. I don't personally buy the libertarian mantra (my views are somewhat more nuanced), but the social democratic notion of supporting welfare for the sake of the "common good" should not be considered an advance of any form.. indeed, it creates a moral disequilibrium that restrains the growth of society as a whole. Such moralities, of course, fall to the wayside in a similar manner to communism when the gulf of power between the strong states and weak states become sufficiently large.  |
|||
|
hhallahh Bob-Omb Level: 38 Posts: 349/607 EXP: 365476 For next: 4971 Since: 03-15-04 From: Portland, OR Since last post: 73 days Last activity: 60 days |
| ||
| Surely you've heard the term "tyranny of the majority". As Alexander Tyler famously wrote, A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasure. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship. You can see the exact process happening nowadays, in America and I'd assume other nations as well. The "resulting morass" may be functional, but hardly adequate in any sense that focuses on a fact other than the democratic nature of the tyranny. And (American) liberals do face cognitive dissonance - you confront a liberal about how he can believe theft is wrong while supporting coercive redistribution policies, and the answers you'll get will be very vapid: "It's okay because it's for the common good" and whatnot. You hear that a lot, and that's about as far as the reasoning goes. Also, I'm somewhat loathe to engage in a macroeconomics debate, since macroeconomics isn't my specialty, but I'll point out that Marginal Propensity to Consume does not create long-term growth.. you can shift funds from investment to consumption and make your GDP look nice in the short-run via a multiplier, but this "growth" obviously comes at a price. |
| 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 |
