Moved from D1 forum

[--Pete]

Hi,

Enter Chaos Theory... Or, the non-linear equation.

Well, we don't really need modeling for linear problems, Sturm–Liouville theory having pretty well gotten those under control. Also, not all non-linear problems are chaotic. It depends on the form of the non-linearity. Rankine–Hugoniot shocks in condensed matter are an example of non-linear, non-chaotic flow.

I believe and tend to ... make a reasonable justifiable prediction.

It's still just an educated guess. Ultimately, you have to take a bite to know what it tastes like. Make a prediction, figure out how to test it, run the test. That's science. Everything else is just label making and navel contemplating. At best, it might eventually lead to science.

--Pete

[eppie]

Ah, I guess this is Junior high.

Told you so. Neener, neener.

I've been thinking deep thoughts about this "cost to the commons" issue. Clearly even if every nation is a good communist enlightened state, there will be some sort of market dynamic between the nations. Something may be in the best interest of a certain country and yet globally harmful. What we need is a single Communist World State, so that for example Supreme Brother Eppie's words of wisdom on beef rations can be applied equally to every man, woman, and child around the globe. And everyone can play Diablo for free (although personal computers may not be allowed if the world electric supply cannot support one for every family).

Until that day comes I will be eating as many steer and piggies as my pocket book allows, and thanking the good Lord for high metabolism.

First I am not opposed to a more or less free market. But nowadays are western free market isn't free. Weapons, agriculture, fishing are in some way all subsidized, I would just hope the hard core market capitalists would admit that. A very free capitalist state favours the ones who have a lot already, so it is not as free as we say it is. More socialism means more favouring of people who have less....so finally not so much technical difference.

Further, modern capitalism has survived for what now? 50 years? I think it is very premature to say it is a working system, especially if you see that wealth increase is unequal at least, but you might also say localized.
Capitalism in the netherlands started in the end of the 16th century, and led to a golden century, but after taht it was not sustainable in the same way, so changes will have to be made.


And for you childish meat eating comment. Enjoy it while you can consumption in the west will have to go down because it is not sustainable at the moment. And that is not because of communism.

[kandrathe]

Ah, I guess this is Junior high.

Told you so. Neener, neener.

I've been thinking deep thoughts about this "cost to the commons" issue. Clearly even if every nation is a good communist enlightened state, there will be some sort of market dynamic between the nations. Something may be in the best interest of a certain country and yet globally harmful. What we need is a single Communist World State, so that for example Supreme Brother Eppie's words of wisdom on beef rations can be applied equally to every man, woman, and child around the globe. And everyone can play Diablo for free (although personal computers may not be allowed if the world electric supply cannot support one for every family).

Until that day comes I will be eating as many steer and piggies as my pocket book allows, and thanking the good Lord for high metabolism.

First I am not opposed to a more or less free market. But nowadays are western free market isn't free. Weapons, agriculture, fishing are in some way all subsidized, I would just hope the hard core market capitalists would admit that. A very free capitalist state favours the ones who have a lot already, so it is not as free as we say it is. More socialism means more favouring of people who have less....so finally not so much technical difference.

Further, modern capitalism has survived for what now? 50 years? I think it is very premature to say it is a working system, especially if you see that wealth increase is unequal at least, but you might also say localized.
Capitalism in the netherlands started in the end of the 16th century, and led to a golden century, but after taht it was not sustainable in the same way, so changes will have to be made.


And for you childish meat eating comment. Enjoy it while you can consumption in the west will have to go down because it is not sustainable at the moment. And that is not because of communism.

50 Years seems a bit small. I'm not sure what you mean by "Modern".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_capitalism

Clearly even if every nation is a good communist enlightened state, there will be some sort of market dynamic between the nations.

Worse, commodities and advantages will be horded by individuals. Until the world is populated with saints, and managed by a single incorruptible harmonious world government... Yeah, that's not gonna happen... How quickly utopia falls into dystopia, characterized by the transformation of Berlin before WWI.

Enjoy it while you can consumption in the west will have to go down because it is not sustainable at the moment.

Sustainable for who? We are burning our grain to make ethanol. We will continue to pour resources into livestock and eat it. Too bad for the people who live in the food deserts.

[eppie]

Too bad for the people who live in the food deserts.

Yeah, well I prefer to look at these things from a global, not a personal perspective.
That is my whole point. Who are we to say a system works, or 'is the best' if we have a few billion people below the poverty line and not much lesshaving trouble finding something to eat?

[kandrathe]

Too bad for the people who live in the food deserts.

Yeah, well I prefer to look at these things from a global, not a personal perspective. That is my whole point. Who are we to say a system works, or 'is the best' if we have a few billion people below the poverty line and not much less having trouble finding something to eat?

So, you have a choice then. And, remember that any system of normal individuals over time will become corrupted to favor the "powerful" of the moment. Are you in favor of a non-competitive system that restricts freedom, and imposes order such that everyone gets an equal share? Or, are you in favor of a competitive system that depends upon freedom, and appeals to everyone to give away what they can spare to those who have less.

In the first case you need to rely on the incorruptibility of those wielding the power, and in the second you need to rely on the hearts of the masses being soft enough to give aid where it is needed. The first tends to impose order through the direct power of authoritarianism, while the second moderates the power through a legal framework, and representative democracy. Wherever communistic central planning has been attempted, it has been done through totalitarian means. So far, no democracy has chosen communism. Even in socialistic democracy, what begins with idealism strays into corruption pretty quickly.

As Deebye so wisely pointed out early into the debate, there is the middle road. Allow maximum freedom through Capitalism and Democracy, but establish protections for services or the "frail" in our society such that the "State" broadly taxes the populace to provide (where needed) basic needs, such as food, housing, clothing, education, and even a maintenance level of health care. But, again, it is easily corrupted by representatives tweaking the formulas. You end up with a system where not enough people contribute enough tax to pay for too many people consuming too many benefits. Important questions are "Who should be taxed and at what rate?" And, "Who should qualify for what services, and for how long?" Just consider education. It shows how the whole system goes off track quickly. How can we expect to give away a "world class" education to every child through a State bureaucracy? The best we can expect is that it be adequate. And, the same applies toward the other things the State hands out. Everyone wants(expects) a steak, but through a central bureaucracy we can guarantee that everyone gets warm oatmeal.

You know where I stand. I don't want central planners with too much power, and I fear in the US we've strayed too far in allowing our federal commissars control over our economy. No, I don't trust Tim Geitner, or our central banking system. We are probably at a point where we need to peg the value of a dollar to commodity index.

[ShadowHM]

You know where I stand. I don't want central planners with too much power, and I fear in the US we've strayed too far in allowing our federal commissars control over our economy. No, I don't trust Tim Geitner, or our central banking system. We are probably at a point where we need to peg the value of a dollar to commodity index.

If nothing else, your posts can provide a chuckle and a renewed admiration for your perseverance.

So how, then, was it that excessive federal control over your economy allowed a financial industry melt-down that our regulated economy managed to miss?

Keep the jokes coming, please!

[kandrathe]

You know where I stand. I don't want central planners with too much power, and I fear in the US we've strayed too far in allowing our federal commissars control over our economy. No, I don't trust Tim Geitner, or our central banking system. We are probably at a point where we need to peg the value of a dollar to commodity index.

If nothing else, your posts can provide a chuckle and a renewed admiration for your perseverance.

So how, then, was it that excessive federal control over your economy allowed a financial industry melt-down that our regulated economy managed to miss?

Keep the jokes coming, please!

Oh, that's an easy one.

Partially you can look at Fannie Mae, and Freddy Mac. You have the authority of Federal protection without any of the reality, so you can go ahead and underwrite loans without much hope of getting the money back, supported by the illusion that the Congress will bail you out if you go into the red ink. But, private banks also went along with the fast and loose nature of the "free" credit market prior to 2008. Lehman Brothers’ collapse is traced back to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the two big mortgage banks that got a federal bailouts of upwards of $400 billion in the recent crisis. Freddie and Fannie used huge lobbying budgets and political contributions to keep regulators off their backs. A group called the center for responsive politics keeps track of which politicians get Fannie and Freddie political contributions.

I can blame former Fed Chairman, Alan Greenspan for keeping interest rates too low, for too long after the economy recovered from the tech bubble bursting. It immediately re-inflated a bubble in housing, but rather than affecting just the resilient tech sector, it reached into a foundational part of the economy, housing.

Check out the failed Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190. A direct result of a crony "corporation" that is allowed to bribe the group that is charged to oversee them, and the their failed leaders, like Franklin Raines or Jim Johnson, are given lucrative golden parachutes when the proverbial excrement ultimately hits the whirling bladed thing.

And, to be fair, I can blame the government (and it's crony capitalist buddies) for failing to regulate a new product, Credit Default Swaps. In an unregulated market, people would be careful to protect themselves (buyer beware), but in a mostly regulated market there is an illusion of safety. It was Warren Buffet who labeled these derivatives as "Weapons of Financial Mass Destruction", but when the congress was ready to write the regulations covering derivatives, he was the one who stopped that within the same week. There were some US financial institutions that stayed away, and they benefited by not being in the blast radius. Some British, and other foreign CDS investors got very burned. So, here is your answer. Your banks properly stayed away from the craziness that originated with Bear Stearns, destroyed them, forced Lehman to bankruptcy and almost destroyed Goldman Sachs (and would have had the US government not slid billions of newly minted money to them).

The joke, my dear ShadowHM, is that we have done nothing to change anything that existed before the meltdown. CDS remain unregulated*, the interest rates are pegged to zero, and the government in the name of stimulus is still actively promoting lending to those who cannot afford it. One factor of the latest reform bill, making lending institutions double down on reserve currency, has trimmed temporarily the zeal of lending institutions.

* Although, the industry group ISDA has implemented standards and has established private sector Exchanges for the CDS market. About 10 years of progress was made in 2009 in catching up the CDS product with audits and controls.

Beyond that, every funding bill through our Congress in the past three years has been a newspeak version of greasing the palms of the financiers of their elections. While partisans are blackwhite engaged in a propaganda war which eases slightly between election cycles culminating at hateweek, the first week in November.


This is what I mean by Central Federal power. What was the chain of command in agreeing to expand the monetary base so drastically? What is the downside to devaluing the US dollar by 50% in one year?

Some good insights --> Why investors favour Canada For many, the impression is that Canada's economy is more regulated, but I think that is inaccurate. You beat us handily in the index of economic freedom at #6. You are not #1 like Hong Kong, but then, you are not #9, like the US either.

And, a final thought. You can look at certain micro-economies in the US for what they are doing correctly, such as Texas. Canada and Texas benefit greatly being heavily in the Fossil Fuels market, just when world demand for oil returns to 2008 levels. 30% of Canada's GDP are exports, and 60% of your exports are natural resources. Did you miss the part where I said Deebye was wise (other than his unbridled support for the Nihilist Spasm Band)?

[[vL]Kp]

[Yes, my post more properly belongs on the original thread, but it seems everyone moved here, so I must answer here for anyone to see it. I will watch both and happily take my responses back to the D1 forum if people wish to continue the D1 related content there.]

I can't find a download size for Diablo, but DII comes in at a hefty 14.4 MB file size for the download. I would assume, since it is more "advanced" than Diablo, the original game couldn't be much bigger.

Not much bigger, no. The Diablo 1 CD weighs in at 635M (~44 times the size of the Diablo II download). You are probably looking at the size for stub download helper programs, not for the game itself.

The original topic was lost in the exchange, and your post addresses that original topic and not this side issue. Your post is more appropriate for the original thread in the D1 forum.

Oh, and just to continue an off topic conversation on an off topic spin off thread: I suspect why Blizzard is dropping D1 support has more to do with the difficulty of keeping b.net secure and yet compatible with D1 than it does with any financial considerations.

The server protocol used for D1 shares quite a bit with the older RTS family, so I doubt Blizzard will save much if anything until they kill off battle.net support for Warcraft II and Starcraft 1.

Would I release the source code to it, but still hold the rights? As mentioned I don't know all the legal implications of that. I likely wouldn't. Especially when you consider that most of the people that wrote that code don't work for Blizzard anymore.

Although this might have been different back when Diablo was written, it has been common practice for many years that the authors do not retain any rights to a Work for Hire. Since the original authors were paid to come to work, write the code, and debug it (although one wonders about that last point at times...), they likely assigned all rights to Condor, at which point the rights flowed with the company as it was acquired. Thus, Activision Blizzard should be able to release all of the Condor source without consulting the original authors.

Due to reliance on Smacker libraries for some animations, they might not be able to release a full source dump that could be compiled into Diablo v1.09, but they could release most of the interesting parts. Given how many platforms open-sourced games have been ported to, it would not be surprising to see someone plug in a replacement for the Smacker animations. That said, Diablo shares most of its network and portability code with Starcraft. Releasing that code would not enable someone to recreate Starcraft, but the commonality probably would discourage the lawyers from approving a release.

The graphics of D1 and D2 are far from "fine". They look like absolute garbage on current monitors. 640x480 or even 800x600 resolution scaled up on a current 1920x1080 LCD looks awful.

I believe Skywing got most of the older Blizzard games to run windowed mode with a few patches to the DirectX code. This might cause you to fail battle.net logon checks, but it works fine on unofficial servers and for LAN play.

[--Pete]

Hi,

[Yes, my post more properly belongs on the original thread, but it seems everyone moved here, so I must answer here for anyone to see it. I will watch both and happily take my responses back to the D1 forum if people wish to continue the D1 related content there.]

Sorry about that. I'd hoped to keep the D1 related discussion in the D1 forum and only move the political nonsense to here. Apparently I failed.

--pete

[DeeBye]

As Deebye so wisely pointed out early into the debate, there is the middle road.

Yay, I am wise!

Did you miss the part where I said Deebye was wise (other than his unbridled support for the Nihilist Spasm Band)?

I AM CALLING SHENANIGANS!

edit: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTzMqm2TwgE

[kandrathe]

edit: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTzMqm2TwgE

Hmmm. This is so sad to see how far he's fallen. Secretary of labor in the Clinton administration, to schilling his books, now a Berkley professor, and selling out to Moveon.org.

A rebuttal by Lee Doran -- "How the world works"

[eppie]

As Deebye so wisely pointed out early into the debate, there is the middle road. Allow maximum freedom through Capitalism and Democracy, but establish protections for services or the "frail" in our society such that the "State" broadly taxes the populace to provide (where needed) basic needs, such as food, housing, clothing, education, and even a maintenance level of health care. But, again, it is easily corrupted by representatives tweaking the formulas. You end up with a system where not enough people contribute enough tax to pay for too many people consuming too many benefits. Important questions are "Who should be taxed and at what rate?" And, "Who should qualify for what services, and for how long?" Just consider education. It shows how the whole system goes off track quickly. How can we expect to give away a "world class" education to every child through a State bureaucracy? The best we can expect is that it be adequate. And, the same applies toward the other things the State hands out. Everyone wants(expects) a steak, but through a central bureaucracy we can guarantee that everyone gets warm oatmeal.

You know where I stand. I don't want central planners with too much power, and I fear in the US we've strayed too far in allowing our federal commissars control over our economy. No, I don't trust Tim Geitner, or our central banking system. We are probably at a point where we need to peg the value of a dollar to commodity index.

And I agreed with Deebye's point. But your explanation has shown that the system we are running today doesn't work. People's hearts are not good enough to end poverty. On a single country level it works fine in some western european countries, but on an international level it doesn't.
Again, I am not saying that I know how to solve all the problems but I am saying that it is premature and arrogant to think capitalism is the answer to all our questions.

[kandrathe]

And I agreed with Deebye's point. But your explanation has shown that the system we are running today doesn't work. People's hearts are not good enough to end poverty.

Based on what evidence? That poverty still exists? But, then I would estimate that the hearts of communist central planners are not good enough either.

On a single country level it works fine in some western European countries, but on an international level it doesn't.

There are no international laws that require nations to donate to each other. It is only accomplished through political pressure, embarrassment, or self-interest. It seems to me to be quixotic in the extreme to suggest that we endeavor for a communist world government to see if it might work. I can easily imagine a Stalinist world wide regime, and much, much worse.

Also, when comparing Denmark to Kenya, should we measure "poverty" the same way? Even within the US, in relative terms the prices of similar family homes vary by hundreds of thousands of dollars depending on where they are located (i.e. proximity to large cities and employment). For the Maasai, from poverty to wealthy may be a few cows.

Again, I am not saying that I know how to solve all the problems but I am saying that it is premature and arrogant to think capitalism is the answer to all our questions.

No one is saying that capitalism is the ONE answer.

Clearly, no economic model is going to change the hearts of people. I'm advocating systems where we have the freedom to choose.

[--Pete]

Hi,

blah blah blah ... capitalism ... blah blah blah

blah blah blah ... communist ... blah blah blah

I had a friend that claimed there was no such thing as a dialog, just two interleaved monologues. You two are strong evidence for his point.

You both claim not to believe in the extremes, then you both assault the opponents' position with an extremist label.

And neither of you is basing his argument on the behavior of real people in the real world.

--Pete

[kandrathe]

You both claim not to believe in the extremes, then you both assault the opponents' position with an extremist label.

Are you saying that eppie and I agree in some squishy middle ground?

And neither of you is basing his argument on the behavior of real people in the real world.

I am. Hence, my reference to the Masai and the cows.

Seriously, the argument to me seems to be that our system has failed because there are people suffering. Especially when you export our notions of adequate to other nations, namely in SE Asia, or sub-Saharan Africa.

Clearly, the UNESCO, UNICEF, WHO, UNetc, have failed to solve the world "poverty" problem. I'm not sure what you do about inequity in that the Saudi's happen to have been sitting on the bulk of the world oil supply, while Belize has some pretty tourist attractions. Although, many nations do just fine without an abundance of exploitable natural resources. In other places, the resources become the fuel for endless waves of bloody revolution.

In general, I think most impoverishment is due to political and economic strife disrupting the normal means by which a family lives.

[--Pete]

Hi,

Are you saying that eppie and I agree in some squishy middle ground?

No. I'm saying you two (and I) disagree just where in the squishy middle ground we should be, but agree that we need to be in some squishy middle ground. The discussion becomes an argument when any of us calls anything to the left of our position communism, or to the right capitalism.

And neither of you is basing his argument on the behavior of real people in the real world.

I am. Hence, my reference to the Masai and the cows.

While that is true, it is limited to demonstrating that poverty is a relative thing. It is the behavior of people, in the whole, that is what you two are ignoring. That people are both selfish and altruistic. Indifferent and concerned. Stingy and generous. Malignant and kind.

Seriously, the argument to me seems to be that our system has failed because there are people suffering.

Which, of course, is an illogical argument. It presupposes that there exists some system under which no one is suffering. Since no viable alternative is offered, the argument boils down to "I'm not happy, so this must be wrong." No consideration is being given to the question of whether it is possible to completely eliminate suffering in the first place.

Of course, the counter argument that the existing system is the best that can be done is equally illogical. It presupposes that there exists no system under which no one is suffering. That we haven't been clever enough to find such a system may be more a reflection of our ingenuity than of its existence.

Especially when you export our notions of adequate ...

Prior to the 1950s, no one felt deprived by the lack of a color television. We all want to live like kings, forgetting that not long ago kings had fleas and lice and lived in cold castles.

--Pete

[DeeBye]

edit: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTzMqm2TwgE

Hmmm. This is so sad to see how far he's fallen. Secretary of labor in the Clinton administration, to schilling his books, now a Berkley professor, and selling out to Moveon.org.

I thought you might like that.

[eppie]

Hi,
You both claim not to believe in the extremes, then you both assault the opponents' position with an extremist label.

And neither of you is basing his argument on the behavior of real people in the real world.

--Pete

I just disagree with the general conception that 'capitalism is the winning and thus the best ergo the ideal system'.
I also notice that in discussions like these capitalism is exchanged for 'free' and communism for 'dictatorship'.

Any state in which taxes are collected has a certain form of socialism/communism but we don't see the USA or the Netherlands as a communist state, do we?
So indeed we are all advocating a middle ground.
I just think it is very difficult for people to draw a line between what is accepted and what is too much state interference on moral grounds.

[kandrathe]

I just disagree with the general conception that 'capitalism is the winning and thus the best ergo the ideal system'.

Not necessarily the best, and not ideal.

I also notice that in discussions like these capitalism is exchanged for 'free' and communism for 'dictatorship'.

And, there is a good reason for that. By definition, capitalism depends upon the ability of individuals to own property. Private ownership is a key part of capitalism. Without a protection of private property rights by a strong rule of law, administered by the state, capitalism will descend into anarchy.

Communism removes private ownership, and then your job, the place where you live, what you eat, etc are "dictated" to you by commissars and administrators. Where communism has been attempted it has been accomplished through totalitarian dictatorships.

Any state in which taxes are collected has a certain form of socialism/communism but we don't see the USA or the Netherlands as a communist state, do we?

I think "communism" is a good thing, when practiced at the right social level. My family operates communally, and in some ways, my neighborhood does as well. I wouldn't mind if my community became more communistic, because we all participate and share with each other, and we volunteer our time to uplift our community. Have you heard of Yishuv Kehilati a type of commune in Israel? They are a bit too selective, but there are similar types of cooperatives and covenants throughout the US, especially for elderly communities. You know that I grew up on a small farm, and our life would have been impossible without helping and getting help from neighbors.

Once you get to a high enough level though, I would like things to be very sparse. I want it to be very difficult for the State to implement a state wide program. They need to justify the expenditures to all the voters as something in our common interest. Now, urban renewal might be in the common interest of all the voters, so it doesn't mean that the money doesn't flow to where it is needed.

I want it to be very very difficult for the Federal government to engage in something like WAR. It is far too easy for our federal government to rack up a trillion dollar bill fighting a bunch of wars which are not in our national interest.

And... it is the same with social programs at the Federal level. There are vast differences between what the needs are in Fairfax County, Virginia versus Buffalo County, South Dakota. We need to recognize the vast differences in earnings and costs across a broad geography, rather than a one size fits all mentality.

[--Pete]

Hi,

I just think it is very difficult for people to draw a line between what is accepted and what is too much state interference on moral grounds.

It's the labels that irritate me. Also, the tendency to demonize anyone not at exactly one's degree of compromise as an extremist.

Perhaps it is the fact that I am constantly accused of being a communist, a fat cat capitalist, a totalitarian, an anarchist, etc. by people who are offended by my pragmatism.

Instead of slinging mud at each others' general positions, it would be more informative to discuss specifics. What would be an appropriate educational system? How are the extremes accommodated? What about health care? Roads and highways? Etc.

--Pete