Recent posts by Ceasar on Kongregate

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Prostitution

Well, first of all, if you’re doing this for a statistics class, I hope you recognize how biased your sample is going to be. You’re asking on Kongregate, which has an international population of mostly relatively younger people, and by asking the question up-front you’re likely to get more people who feel strongly enough on the issue to want to take the survey.

Prostitution is going to happen whether it’s legal or not.

That’s a rather weak argument. Murder is also going to happen whether it’s legal or not. Making it illegal does make it less common.

If it is well-regulated by the government, the health of the companions can be checked and verified, protecting not only them but also their clients.

Maybe. Are you going to draw blood from them weekly? Are you going to give them free medical care if someone tests positive?

When a system that is legal is established, people will gravitate towards the legal channel.

Mostly true from the “buyer’s” perspective. However, if someone wants something not available legally – for example, if either party is underage – they’d still turn to the illegal channels.

And here’s a question for you. Do you think the average prostitute wants to be a prostitute, and only wishes the government would get out of the way so they could have sex with strangers for money unhindered? Or is this a last resort of a desperate person who would literally rather be doing anything else?

 
Flag Post

Topic: Kongregate / Generic Tournament Name - SHAWN WINS

 
Flag Post

Topic: Kongregate / Generic Tournament Name - SHAWN WINS

 
Flag Post

Topic: Kongregate / Generic Tournament Name - SHAWN WINS

A score.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Kongregate / Generic Tournament Name - SHAWN WINS

I’ll join.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / The Marriage Process.

Because when you get married you take on a host of obligations, such as the obligation not to cheat on your wife, to share your income, to take care of your kids, to behave lovingly toward your wife and so on.

There’s something called “child support” which forces you to at least pay for your kids even if you were never married. And if you cheat on your girlfriend and don’t behave lovingly towards her, don’t expect she’ll be your girlfriend for long.

But if you look at “behaving lovingly towards your wife”, “not cheating”, and “taking care of your kids” as onerous obligations, then you in particular should probably NOT get married.

This is in addition to the bad stuff about marriage, such as possible abuse, couples growing distant, fights and squabbles as well as legal issues.

Do you think abuse doesn’t happen with unmarried couples? Do you think they don’t grow distant, or get into fights, or have their own set of legal issues?

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / AX: The government should be more social.

One of the big problems with direct democracy is: how do you even decide which bills should be voted on? Anything which gets a motion and a second? With hundreds of millions of voters, that’s going to be an insane number of proposed bills even if only 0.1% of people propose only one bill per year.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Galaxy Online / Bugged?

It’s not just you.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Faith healing, should it be illegal?

At least 303 children have died since 1975 after medical care was withheld on religious grounds, according to Rita Swan, director of the Iowa-based advocacy group Children’s Healthcare is a Legal Duty. Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, Nebraska and North Carolina have taken their exemptions off the books, Swan said.
I’m not entirely sure what counts as a bigger issue than your state’s children dying in quite large numbers because it is against their parents’ religion to allow them medical care.

I wouldn’t exactly call those “quite large numbers”. Even taking the advocacy group’s numbers at face value (which is probably not wise, in general,) 303 deaths over a nearly 40 year period? That comes out to about 8 per year nationwide. It’s low enough that it probably wouldn’t happen at all in a particular state in a particular year. It’s newsworthy partially because it’s rare.

… OK, this particular church in Idaho seems to be a bad offender. 9 deaths in about 2.5 years, according to the article you linked. That’s about 3-4 per year. Two of those nine were 15-16 years old which may be old enough where if they agreed with their parents that they didn’t want treatment, you’d have to at least consider respecting their wishes. (Of course, they may have been in no condition to express any wishes… and no mercy if the parents withheld treatment that the child wanted.)

In comparison, in Milwaukee alone about 16 deaths were attributed to parents co-sleeping with an infant last year. And the population of Idaho is about three times the population of Milwaukee.

Allowing parents to not get needed treatments for their child is not a good thing. I’m just saying it’s not happening in “large numbers”. About 12 people aged 0-19 get killed by lightning in the US each year, and that’s hardly a major cause of death.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / The only way to save our species is to dramatically reduce our population

the species as a whole could agree

I doubt it.

So yeah, morally superior to select randomly and have a survival of the fittest / luckiest scenario, although logically superior to save everyone under a certain age, with a certain level of education, with no evidence of ‘bad genes’ (known disease precursors), with vital skills, etc.

If you assume that we’ve agreed to this “as a species” then it seems a lottery system would be far better than unleashing a new fatal disease. That way you can at least even out the effects, so you don’t accidentally kill an entire ethnic group due to a natural genetic vulnerability to your disease, or leave a nuclear reactor unattended, and if you know who you were killing then you could perhaps do something about the orphans who would otherwise be roaming about, and you’d have people in a nice mass grave instead of dropping dead from disease wherever.

And if we could climb down another rung on the “crimes against humanity” ladder, forced sterilization would be superior to killing people, although the effect on population would be delayed and it would STILL be a crime against humanity.

What exactly is horrific

Even putting aside the whole “eating people” thing, you called it a “retirement plan” which implies that you’re also going to continue killing anyone who gets too old. Not as an emergency measure, but as your long term plan.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / The only way to save our species is to dramatically reduce our population

I would suggest a figure in the region of one third to one half of the current population (e.g. 2 – 3.5 Billion persons) achieved through the use of a ‘biological weapon’ (recombinant virus, human specific, airborne and/or waterborne, with moderate infectivity and mortality) would be the morally, if not intellectually, superior method for a cull as, with all biological weapons, you’ll only kill a given percentage of a population ‘randomly’ (with some naturally immune, some receiving too low a dose to become infected, etc).

People might die from overpopulation, in large part due to disease… so to prevent this, we should kill people on a massive scale with a biological weapon? And you dare to use the words “morally superior”?

I say this in all seriousness with no hyperbole: Doing what you propose would make you the worst person in the history of the world. And that would be the case even IF you could somehow guarantee that your virus would not just kill everyone. (Or kill/incapacitate everyone in any particular country who knows how to keep a particular type of nuclear reactor from melting down.)

This is like proposing to eradicate a childhood disease by killing all children. Even if it “works”, it misses the point of why you want to do it in the first place.

And this feels like nitpicking, but a biological weapon would not be “random”. If there was natural immunity to be had (and you suggest there would be) certain ethnic groups would almost certainly have more than others. Literal genocide is a likely outcome.

What criteria, if any, might we elect for determining who, if anyone, should be culled?

Does anyone else remember when it was supposed to be self-evident that the right to life was inalienable? Even if you assume the AX, you do not have the right to kill me.

There is only one person in the world you have the right to “cull”. It would still be morally wrong to do so and I do not recommend it. But if the choices are between that, and you unleashing a biological weapon which you think will kill half the world’s population…

‘soylent green retirement plan’ the global population could be managed effectively into the future.

You are proposing the most horrific feature of a dystopia as your long-term solution? You must be joking or trolling or satire-ing. Just so long as you’re not serious.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / The Santa Problem

Maximum capacity is 2500 presents (500 on the sleigh, 2000 with the elves) and you need to deliver 1 billion? That’s 400K rounds trips from the pole, minimum. Even if the houses were only half a mile away from the North Pole… with a top speed of 5000 MPH (and the elves can’t even go that fast) then a 1 mile round trip done 400K times would take a minimum of 80 hours. You simply cannot get this done on Christmas with these constraints.

If the average house was 3000 miles away (and even Toronto is a little farther than that) that would take 6000 times as long. Which would be over 50 years. And I haven’t even taken out the assumption that the elves can fly 5000 MPH yet. And this assumes ZERO time for loading, dropping off presents, or acceleration, and that the cloaking device is never engaged.

The BEST strategy? I’m going to think slightly outside of the box. What if we didn’t need to babysit the presents by having them physically on the sled at all times? If the sled can accelerate to 5000 MPH, that’s not QUITE fast enough for the presents to achieve orbit, but it MIGHT be enough to launch them quite a distance. Quickly get 500 presents on the sled, accelerate to top speed, let them go, and repeat. No, I’m not going to try to hit a chimney hole with a present launched from the North Pole. But it would be useful to quickly get a large supply of presents towards a population center without having to make those costly round trips. If you could also launch elves this way, that would help.

Even launching 500 presents at a time, and somehow managing to load all 500, launch them, and get back to ready once per second, this would take over 3 weeks of nonstop launching. (But even if it takes longer than this to load, it’s still faster than the hour round-trip it would take to get from 2500 miles away to the North Pole every 500 presents – and you’re going to be more than 2500 miles away most of the time – and you’re going to need to load the sled with those presents eventually no matter what your strategy is.) If you need the elves to help load, you save them for last (what’s an extra thousand launches out of 2 million?) If you don’t need them to load, you launch them with some of the presents they’re responsible for, and you make those the first 1000 launches so they can get started right away. Of course, you don’t launch the last pile; you may as well keep it on the sled to deliver it.

You have 1000 elves. Santa can go 50x as fast as an elf, so he counts like 50 elves. So each elf would be responsible for about 1905 piles of 500 presents (the exact number, of course, will vary depending on the population density of the area) and Santa would be responsible for about 95,000 piles. That’s a total of about 952,500 presents per elf and about 47,500,000 presents for Santa.

You would want Santa to be responsible for the sparsely populated areas. Since Santa can travel fastest and carry an entire pile of 500 presents instead of just two, he’d be ideal for areas where the houses are miles apart. The elves would be more efficient in high-population areas where constantly going to the pile to get another 2 presents would be less of an issue. You would not keep any elves with Santa at this point; they’re better off doing their own thing.

Santa’s going to go faster than expected because he can carry an entire “pile” of 500 presents at once, but slower than expected because of the ultra-rural areas he would be responsible for. Hopefully those would balance out to some degree. If not, then his load vs the load of the elves could be adjusted.

Aerodynamic heating and atmospheric drag might become a problem, as well as the impact. Not to mention the sonic booms. So if magic could not be used to protect the presents, this “launching” strategy would not work. (If it was only the elves that could not be launched, it would “only” take them a few days to get to their areas, so that would not be as serious.)

 
Flag Post

Topic: Kongregate / The Kongregator Klash (Over)

A score.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Kongregate / The Kongregator Klash (Over)

 
Flag Post

Topic: Kongregate / The Kongregator Klash (Over)

 
Flag Post

Topic: Kongregate / The Kongregator Klash (Over)

Better than nothing.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Kongregate / The Kongregator Klash (Over)

 
Flag Post

Topic: Kongregate / The Kongregator Klash (Over)

Just to have a score and take temporary first place.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Kongregate / The Kongregator Klash (Over)

I’ll vote for option 2. I almost went with that for my tournament.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Kongregate / Kongregate Tournament Sign-Ups & Directory

Ending Competition

Back to School

Thread is here:

 
Flag Post

Topic: Kongregate / Back to School, 36th Kongregate Gaming Tournament (Winner - BestMte!)

Congratulations to BestMte for getting first place!

ShawnerSSS gets to be the salutatorian, with second place!

And j64e gets third.

Thanks for playing, everyone!

 
Flag Post

Topic: Kongregate / Back to School, 36th Kongregate Gaming Tournament (Winner - BestMte!)

Time’s up!

 
Flag Post

Topic: Kongregate / Back to School, 36th Kongregate Gaming Tournament (Winner - BestMte!)

Unfortunately, I am disqualifying banditpro34 on suspicion of hacking.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Kongregate / Back to School, 36th Kongregate Gaming Tournament (Winner - BestMte!)

Originally posted by j64e:

I’m gonna do it tomorrow. What exactly is needed, to get the highest sum of all three scores?

One point for first place, two for second, etc., for each game. Lowest total wins.

In the event of a tie, tiebreaker is number of first place finishes. If that’s also tied – well, then, it’s a tie.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Can there be a Time Machine in the Future???

Originally posted by simeng:

I’m not sure, but I assume or imagine a time machine which moves into the “past” from the “present” (our common time frame – absolute time is an illusion of perception) by moving faster than light is impossible, since it seems to violate and contradict the Second Law of Thermodynamics (the tendency of things to become more and more disorderly as a function of time or the tendency of entropy to increase or remain constant at equilibrium, relative to the passage of duration). To travel backwards in time, you would inescapably cause a certain reduction in the net entropy of a closed system (the universe), which is strictly prohibited or forbidden. So, time travel via superluminal manipulation is off the table, but there are alternative theoretical frameworks which one can explore for possibilities.

But the Second Law of Thermodynamics is a statistical function. Things TEND to become more entropic, but it is not guaranteed. If you have some gas molecules in a closed container, you wouldn’t expect all of them to be on the right side of the container – but what if you only had 2 gas molecules? It’s perfectly possible that both would be on the right at any moment. 10 molecules? Unlikely for any given moment, but not impossible and would probably happen before too long. 10^23 molecules? I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for them to all move to the right – but “entropy” won’t STOP them from doing so, it’s just very unlikely.

If you flip a billion coins, they pretty much aren’t all going to be heads – but it’s only probability that is stopping them.

And even if you don’t accept the above, I don’t think you can say that the Second Law prohibits time travel. Wikipedia says the Second Law is “an empirically validated postulate”. Which pretty much means “experiments always show this as true, so we’re going to accept it as true.” It could very well be that the Second Law does NOT apply, or applies differently, when time travel enters the equations.

It’s like… an ancient person might have attempted to calculate the exact value of gravity, and concluded that gravity has a value of 32 feet per second squared. Every experiment would hold up that number to within experimental error, and the person decides that this is a universal constant. Except that the person never tried his experiments in space, because he didn’t have the means to do so – what he thought was a constant was actually a function. Entropy could be similar – the conditions for time travel may make the function negative. Just because we’ve never SEEN it be negative doesn’t mean it’s impossible, just like it’s not impossible for something to fall away from the earth if it’s close enough to something else. That doesn’t mean gravity (or entropy) doesn’t exist, it just means it was misunderstood.