TheRobin

erm I don't know One I really like (and which is quite simple and relaxed) is Tokaido. Or if you're more into "recource management"- kind of games, I'd probably go with Stone Age. Of course, feel free to propose any game you like there, I'm happy to learn some new ones if they're fun to play

Cool I'm a bit planned out the next few days, but how abut beginning of next week somewhen in th evening (like 19:00+ (GMT+1, I think))?

Hey everyone, so I just thought I add this to the list of things people can do together while chatting over skype or so :)I had a lot of fun playing Hearthstone and chatting and before that same with playing Civ 5 with some people here. And recently someone showed me a nice little site called boardgamearena.com where you can play boardgames (for free). With that I mean mostly modern stuff, not the old ones (so no chess players there from what I can tell). All of the games usually have some short rules tutorial (or ofc, the best way to learn them is to play with someone you know who can explain the rules real quick), not that the games a re very difficult to learn (no 20 pages rulebook study required). So, since I'm a big boardgame fan myself (and I know of at least another person here who also enjoys them) I thought, I toss the idea out there and see how people respond. In my opinion some casual boardgames along with some chatting with nice people can make for a very enjoyable evening. It's also perfect, if people don't have that much time (say, maybe 40 minutes or so and want to do something fun with people). Anyway, let me know what you think if you're interested in giving it a try. I'm sure I'd greatly enjoy it.

well, if you do not get that violence (i.e. governments) are the reason people are poor in the first place, then any solution will not only not last but make sure that things actively worse for everyone (most notably the poor) in the long run. (of couse even IF you advocate the poor being able to rob from everyone else, then the solution isn't government, but to get government out of the way, so that the poor can steal from everyone without any police interference (and since they outnumber the rich anyway, that would be easy-peacy, right?))

Okay, so I still don't see the point you're trying to make. So Brazil was founded by some violent statist military force and it's people basically abused economically by the same military force. Then another military force who extracts a ton of money from Americans fucks up the people even more by what is basically economic warfare via central banking. All this is obviously terrible and no sane person would defend it. But what exactly is it that you're arguing for or against here?

I think you're mixing stuff up here. Obviously if the environment is shitty enough being lazy or not has no bearing on being poor or not. We just have to look at the middle ages to know that. So the argument that poor people are lazy is mostly about Western world citizens (which is where the statstics come from anyway). And the other thing is, that if the environment is so shityy that people don't have enough to eat regardless of how much they work, then the question is "How did such an enivronment come about in the first palce and who/what maintains it?" I remember hearing something about Economic Hitman which might have somthing to do with it, but ultimately there needs to be some sort of actual violence involved, else how do you explain Brazil developing the way it did over the last 100 years, especially when you can comapre it to countries liek the US?

It's sad for me to see the state Brazil is in and how bad the quality of life is for the poor there, but I still don't see what it is that you're arguing for or against here.

To use a metaphor here: If there are people who were infected with a disease, I wouldn't stick around them, cause I don't want to catch it. Plus, I'm not a doctor and don't have a cure either. So even IF we assume no fault of the diseased (which I don't agree with anyway, as they obviously didn't get help, but anyways), then even if I had some sympathy for them, there's no point in sticking around. In fact, if they have any empathy and care for my wellbeing they wouldn't WANT me to stick around, as they'd know I might get infected too. So even if these disorders are real and the people having them have no responsibility and couldn't have done anything to change that, there's still no reason to hang around and get damaged in the process in my opinion.

No, it's claim about claims about the outside world.

I'm not quite sure you're aware of it, but all you're doing is repeating claims without any basis (like minarchism somehow being "safe" and actually achievable). There are good arguments why minarchism (even if you ignore the moral problems with it) is completely unsuited to a) stay small or b) end in anarchy or that the state c) can even BE downgraded to minarchism at all (without, say a lot of violence and deaths due to unpaid bills and peopel starving and such) Also, just fyi Stef has been an Objectivist/Minarchist for I think more than a decade (iirc), so unless you think he's a complete buffoon those arguments are certainly nothing new to him, so IMO if you want to hear the reasons against minarchism, calling in might be more productive.

Well, I guess technically, when people say "We can't know anything" what they really mean is "The only thing we can know is that any claims about the outside world can't be 100% proven" or somethign like that, which, depending on how you define "knowledge" and "proof" might actually be accurate (albeit comepletely useless as a model of reality)

here's a guy doing some personal 2 week testing with the stuff (thanks to Eh Steve for sharing that with me) http://fourhourworkweek.com/2013/08/20/soylent/ Also, from what I can see now, the idea HAS been tried before. Not quite sure, why it wasn't succesful or what happened to the individual products (Didn't have enough time to really search the web yet).Anyway, if I find something I'll post it (or if anyone else finds stuff, pelase share it here, thanks )

Soylent is a sort of "meal replacement drink" where the formula consists of all the nutrients you'd need (or at least that's the idea). Also it's quite cheap compared to regular food and you can create and order your own recipe and mixture. Sounds really intersting. Also maybe a good and cheap way to prep some food that doesn't take up a lot of space too. So far only available in the US though. Enjoy the reading though http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2014/05/12/140512fa_fact_widdicombe?currentPage=all

The beard looks awesome in my opinion.

Never undererstimate people's ability to come up with new and cool stuff that other people then want

Well, if you can't figure it out, maybe that would be a good reason to call into the show and ask Stef directly

The true origins of "Das Kapital"

Yeah, not sure what the idea is here from Blizzard. But anyway, I played on the US serves a bit today, added you to my freindlist and unlocked the classes and some basic cards for them. Oh well, still fun enough for some occasional casual game I guess. (Also probably still better than one of us having a ton of cards and the other not)

Hi, great page you have there! I assume you already know, but just in case you don't: There are some great people doing http://freiwilligfrei.de/ and also translated a lot of Stefs stuff and create their own content in german.

Hey Wes, I just realized, that you're probably on the American server, which is why I never get your invites :(I'll try and see how one can switch servers then (if that's possible at all) and maybe we can get a game running on Saturday or so

You mean this here? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Consciousness_Project There seems to be quite some ciritcism in regards to their methodology "Skeptics such as Robert T. Carroll, Claus Larsen, and others have questioned the methodology of the Global Consciousness Project, particularly how the data are selected and interpreted,[3][4] saying the data anomalies reported by the project are the result of "pattern matching" and selection bias which ultimately fail to support a belief in psi or global consciousness.[5] Other critics, stated that the open access to the test data "is a testimony to the integrity and curiosity of those involved," but in analysing the studies, May et al. stated that they found only chance derivations throughout.[6]" "Independent scientists Edwin May and James Spottiswoode conducted an analysis of the data around the 11 September 2001 events and concluded there was no statistically significant change in the randomness of the GCP data during the attacks and the apparent significant deviation reported by Nelson and Radin existed only in their chosen time window.[20] Spikes and fluctuations are to be expected in any random distribution of data, and there is no set time frame for how close a spike has to be to a given event for the GCP to say they have found a correlation.[20] Wolcotte Smith said "A couple of additional statistical adjustments would have to be made to determine if there really was a spike in the numbers," referencing the data related to September 11, 2001.[21] Similarly, Jeffrey D. Scargle believes unless both Bayesian and classical p-value analysis agree and both show the same anomalous effects, the kind of result GCP proposes will not be generally accepted.[22]" But the main reason I brought up the question is that, IF you don't accept that conciousness is an effect of brains (which is a claim you can measure once you find out what exactly correlates to degrees of conciousness) then it becomes this non-material thing that is neither matter, nor effects of matter (i.e. energy), so you'd have to introduce a whole new substance, that although it affected matter wouldn't be measurable or detectable by it. (but then it's at a stage where it both has and doesn't have an effect on matter, which also makes no sense)

Walker, given your theory about conciousness energy: How could we theoretically be able to measure that a stone has conciousness or not? (Assuming all the recources you need are at your fingertips)

Can you link the post where you answered that then please? I must've missed it then. In regards to the question I'd probably ask them to define "God" first, after that, we know what characteristics (which inlcude effects) we are looking for. (ofc most gods are defined in a self-contradictory way, so no experiment is possible, cause the definition is meaningless).But assuming the definition wouldn't be meaningless, then the question would be valid, wouldn't it?

mines TheRobin#2635 btw. Yeah I used to play magic tournies as well and wasn't too bad either But still, after about 3 months of hearthstone I didn't get that same sense of randomness that magic has. Certain cards in certain matchups are way too game-deciding, which makes the meta quite crappy. In the sense, that it produces way to high Matchup win changes in and of itself, making games much more predictable, but also more random (in the sense that, you might already start with 70% winchance or so imo).Anyway, curious to hear if your impression is different after a while. And, again, happy to play some games and chat a bit, just for funsies

I don't quite remember the details of what bothered me so much. Depending on whether you look at Arena or Constructed that changes ofc. But in general it's way too "coinflippy", both in terms of what Matchup you get and what random effects the card actually do in the game, But I'll add you, maybe we can meet for a few games or so and have some fun