Kafuuka

imo caching is freakin efficient. And is there anything preventing us from taking screenshots? (i can't find the printscreen button on this laptop, oh irony!) They make an easy way to generate spoilers.

It seems that every time I happen upon something rare, I get these really lengthy private mails: [i]Untitled - Wrong Label Hi, are you willing to trade your ....?[/i] Except that half of the time there is a spelling error in this one sentence. I can somewhat understand why these inquiries arrive and I am not really overwhelmed by the amount of them. But seriously, [b]if[/b] I wanted to sell something to just anybody, I would have announced it in the appropriate channels. If you are not going to bother making an offer, I am not going to change my mind either. I haven't had much time to play the game recently and I simply deleted most of these pm's, without replying, so I thought it might make more sense to make some sort of announcement: [list] [*]I am not willing to trade "Kafuuka's signet ring" EVER. [*]I am not able to trade those special creatures on that one account I got as a reward, because technically they are not mine. Even if the probability that the last one will be claimed by it's rightful owner is near zero, I am not selling something that isn't mine. [*]I will trade or gave away my pass papers once the changes to the items are more final. Yes I did say trade or give away: if I don't find anything that makes RP sense for my character to have, then I'll give them away to someone for whom it makes more RP sense to have the pass papers, ie. a citizen. Otherwise I'll use it to bargain with, obviously. Consider this weird/generous/opportunistic if you want. [/list]

[quote name='I am Bored' date='22 January 2010 - 11:13 PM' timestamp='1264198401' post='53260'] if we do impliment a way of gaining raw materials, then those who currently have raw materials should be compensated, because the value of them would drop a bunch [/quote] They were never meant to be valuable, but as soon as they were released, people saw the potential to corner the market and control the supply-demand ratio. From the start those people were asked politely to refrain from doing this and now you want to be compensated? For what? For thinking of the obvious plan everybody thought about but only a few decided their own gain is worth causing trouble to all other players? I wonder what is more sad: your sheer opportunism, that you think people are silly enough to agree with you, or that you not so long ago tried to see if the average MD iq is significantly different from 100 in a vain attempt to feel better about yourself but now seem to hope people are stupid so you can profit from it? Besides MD is a perpetual beta game, things will change and there'll be no refund. You know that when you sign up.

If you ignore the alt problem for a minute, the unbalance can be tackled: Allow people to posses only one kind of extraction tool/creation device, from many many tools available. Make the creation tree complex. => People will can only specialize in 1 'skill' and are required to trade. eg. to get iron bars you'd need to mine iron ore, coal, then take them to a smelter (which has to be a separate person and will request a fee). It doesn't have to be 1 one tool, but the amount of tools you can possess should be much lower than the amount that exist. Some tools could be more expensive both in purchase or in 'space taken'. eg. My character wants to be a miller, he could then produce various kinds of flours from various plants. If farmers are allowed to grow only one kind of crop, then milling is more versatile and should be a more expensive ability. (which is realistic too, a mill was a very important possession in the old times; also the reason why I have long ago stated to want a mill and planned to request the deed to the Golems' mill and all milling rights once I'd get a dozen WP )

The idea of unique items doesn't match the coins and pass papers. Roleplay-wise, it would be easier if people had dozens of items, but nothing not in their inventory list. A lot of existing items don't make much sense to be unique either, like a 'bucket of water'. Downside: no one has enough WP yet to create separate items for what an adventurer usually carries, from lunch to arrows. So there should be a different method to create/distribute 'ordinary' items. The list of 'ordinary items' is going to be huge too. I think it would be fun if done well, but there should be a balanced method of acquisition. I'd prefer there to be an interesting economy or quest system instead of a new MD shop category, although a new credit sink is less code work and can't hurt the cash flow.

[quote name='Grido' date='22 January 2010 - 05:41 PM' timestamp='1264178514' post='53240'] This suggestion has been brought up before, not entirely sure what happened with it... I like it though, and this is me, with 30kg's of Cement saying this [/quote] [post='30224']Indeed it has[/post] and nothing happened. Although the adding of effects to items seems a bit like the idea of artifacts and mundane items, the basic problems remain. The amount of raw materials is relatively low, making it too easy to acquire a monopoly. And to have a handful of people artificially keep the circle of items in motion is asking too much.

[quote name='Malaikat Maut' date='11 January 2010 - 03:28 PM' timestamp='1263220080' post='52504'] I think immortality would be a curse. It's something my character wrestles with a great deal, and Dr. Manhattan from The Watchmen is an excellent example of how or what you would become if granted immortality. [/quote] I second that; mortality is very important to my character too. However, if I had to make up powers, I'd go for: 1. excellent health; no fun in having a headache that lasts a century 2. to always stay true to myself; call it 'iron will' if you must 3. never be bored!

Where are all the interpretative dances, that was the best part!

[quote name='Shadowseeker' date='10 January 2010 - 08:12 PM' timestamp='1263150760' post='52446'] There once was even an announcement asking for this..paper shaper or so? I don't remember too clear anymore. Might be interesting to give some people the ability to edit, best would be those really versed in coding and wanting to help others. [/quote] There was a request for someone to become a sort of paper editor RPC, to help with html and stuff. The paper shaper is a contest we held twice and might (I myself don't have much time right now) do again.

[quote name='dst' date='08 January 2010 - 10:42 PM' timestamp='1262986927' post='52240'] Why all our suggestions imply nudity? Or similar things? [/quote] My suggestion is entirely against nudity! If you read it the way my character reads it of course... which leads me to the point: nudity is funny. Seriously, have you looked at a naked human? The idea that the feet, the ankles and the spine have to carry their burden is quite comical. For more serious things to do, I dno. Women rights have been mentioned, but I don't think that fits into MD. The game itself doesn't differentiate between genders, and the way people treat others is set to fantasy standards. Imagine a succubus complaining men treating her like a object...

[quote name='Windy' date='07 January 2010 - 02:28 PM' timestamp='1262870912' post='52094'] We don't really DO anything...yet. That is why I am asking for suggestions to revamp it. We always address each other as SISTER and we (not all) go skinny dipping in the lake by Wasp's Totem...[img]http://magicduel.invisionzone.com/public/style_emoticons/default/tongue.gif[/img] [/quote] You could start 'nudists anonymous' to try and cure that behavior. Or start a bathing fashion line, like a seamstress guild?

[quote name='Dmik King' date='06 January 2010 - 01:00 PM' timestamp='1262779228' post='51967'] Is it more like department of woman rights? [/quote] lmao, The closest person to a feminist in MD is dst and she refuses to join the sisterhood. (This is my personal opinion based on what I read, for all I know others might be very active irl but it certainly doesn't show through MD.)

It'll be interesting to see what people will be bidding and i'll be feeling sorry for Mur when he has to read all the nonsensical bids and keep track. The spell doc reward is a bit odd. It seems to me that it is worth most to those who already have a large collection. [i]"Spell docs were given by RPC players but since there are no more rpcs there is no current way to give them out...yet. When there will be a way to do so, and there will be one, the higher level spells will not be given."[/i] => The use is for high levels of documents, which are only usable if you have all the lower levels. Who is going to bet on getting the lower levels once there will again be a method to get them? The RPC method made some docs readily available and others sparse. I'd rather bid on the ability to distribute a low level doc than on a couple of unique docs and pray I'll get the corresponding lower ones soon. (not that i have the funds for bidding though.) [quote name='Burns' date='06 January 2010 - 04:35 PM' timestamp='1262792100' post='51994'] Of course it's just one morph and one darkling, it could be a lot worse, but i definitely hope that there'll be some nice quests for those, too, cause.. you know... it's one thing to buy the colored crits that are basically a normal crit with a bit added strenght, but something completely different to buy a creature that's not for sale normally :/ [/quote] I have it from a good source that a "darkling" has been a quest reward before actually. Rumor has it that it's been sold privately afterward, I wonder if that is true and if the price was similar to current bids.

For conversations, if a person knows only the very basics about a lot of things, you can never have an in depth conversation. Actually if I encounter people who specialize in impressing people with their vast amount of subjects, but don't know more than the first ten pages of a single book, be it textbook or novel, I consider them annoying. They spent all that time working only on looking smart instead of actually being smart. @Pipstickz: some people do try.

[quote name='Burns' date='16 December 2009 - 06:17 PM' timestamp='1260983831' post='50428'] I can't speak for all quest-creators, but i think most would like more reward-codes better than wishpoints to spend themselves... i mean, sure, getting one or two as specail reward would be nice, but it would lead to a huge decrease in quality of quests, and insanely increase the quantity of quests, leading the system ad absurdum, if every bloody stupid action you do is part of a quest, where's your own role? i'd like it much better if WPs were limited to questees, questers can do other peopels quests anyway, it's not like back then when RPCs were the source of WPs and it was frowned upon when they did quests of other RPCs, now any quest could bring WPs and anybody can participate if they want to, so there is no reason to give out Wishes for the quest-creators imo... unless something is really brilliant and time-intesive, like Cutlers quests, then appropriate rewards would surely fit, but that's already being done anyways LOL so, to conclude: i'd like it better to get more reward-codes for being a good quest-creator and do more evil experimental quests, than get a WP and buy something in the shop for the bragging rights, and i don't think that i'm the only one with that opinion [/quote] If quest creation is to be rewarded it would make sense for the rewards to be the same as for artisans, right? The RPC thing is of the past and the only other reason i can think of is that clicky acces costs a WP. Maybe a single time refund? I agree that more tools is what I as a creator want: WP codes, other prizes, script features (although i have to try the existing ones first)... Also, most people seem to propose linear WP-days relationships or piecewise linear relationships. Why not make it some mathematical function like the fibonacci series? It would be fun for people to figure out when they will get the next one (until a spoiler occurs, and obviously fibonaaci isn't useful now that i mentioned it; of course a function with the id as seed would be difficult to spoil, but might be difficult to keep fair and unconfusing). For this it might make more sense not to reward retroactively, but start the count at zero for all players; maybe an extra WP for the first to crack the series, that would set the record for longest lasting contest

[quote name='Malaikat Maut' date='15 December 2009 - 03:48 PM' timestamp='1260888497' post='50086'] I believe that Mur may have stumbled on to something that I often consider in philosophical and religious debates, being the subjective application of mathematics. To my knowledge, empiricists have failed to express logic in terms of pure mathematics. Godel showed in his [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_theorems"]Two Incompleteness Theorems[/url] that math is not robust enough to validate its own truths, let alone the absolute truths beyond it. [/quote] Mathematics is a logic system. It doesn't make much sense to express logic in terms of maths. The status of maths in society is due to it being the first logic that was axiomatized and has for a long time been the most extensively studied one. Godel proved that for each non trivial set of math axioms (yes there are mutliple sets and thus multiple mathematics) there are mathematical truths you cannot prove in a finite amount of time. Proving anything beyond what is true in a logic is by definition impossible: if you cab prove it with the set of axioms then it is true in the logic. Philosophy has difficulties beyond this because there is less consensus on which set of axioms is valid. @Mur: it makes sense, but it doesn't convince me. My 'problem' is not that there are different representations but that you choose the ones you like. Apples (before beingn cut) looked upon as discrete objects and in discrete numbers 1 is decided upon. Gold however is quantified with continuous numbers. If you were to ask people what 1.001 apples is, they'll have a puzzled look on their face, if you ask them what 1.001 kg Gold is, they will know that it is 1 g of gold more than 1 kg Gold and if they are ecnonomists, they might even be able to say how many euros that difference is. Extending upon that desired precision is public opinion and looking at one type of object only (thus one precision), I could even argue that multiplication and addition are the most powerfull in terms of digit generation. No matter how large the number, the precision is fixed and thus the number of digits after the comma are always the same, but by multiplying or adding, you can increase the number of digits before the comma. If we stick to apples I can say that substraction does not give any meaningful numbers: what is -5 apples? Baseline: for something to be true, it has to be true in all representations. I see no reason to drop that premise.

[quote name='Muratus del Mur' date='14 December 2009 - 01:19 PM' timestamp='1260793171' post='49873'] infinitely precise is a requirement fulfilled from the start. What you say is only valid in a virtual world, where there is no 1, there is only 1.00000O(infinity), but in reality we say ONE apple, assuming all that the apple means. Now before you reply to this i will throw in your best argument There is a connection between the "virtual" number 1.0000 and the "one" apple. In reality there is no clear border between the apple and the surroundings. At atomic level i mean. You can say with precision the apple ends here and air or plate starts here. Who will claim all the layers of dust and dirt between them ? So, i guess we are both right in a way. [/quote] If you wish to invoke the finite precision of measurements or rely on de broglie wavelengths, then your original division example fails as well. Imagine a pie, slice it in 3 equal pieces. Same as your apple there is no 0.33333(infinity) slice. With platonic numbers 1 must equal 1.0000(infinity) for it is the perfect one and thus .3333(infinity) is not special. Without Plato you could claim 1 is not exactly 1.0000(infinity) but the same can be done for 0.33333(infinity). Either way you are playing with representations and choosing the one that suits you most. As I said before, if you do that, then I too will always choose the representation that is most convenient for me (and in light of having a nice debate that would be the representation that least agrees with your theories; no fun in agreeing.) Now that we are considering numbers: there is a fun fact about complex numbers and multiplication: First consider pairs (0,0) (1,0) (0,1) etc. With multiplication you can never stray from axis you are on in R2. Complex numbers are often represented as pairs (a, [img]http://magicduel.invisionzone.com/public/style_emoticons//cool.gif[/img] with z = a + bi. However if you multiply (0,1) with itself, you get (-1, 0). Not certain if you can do anything with it though? [quote] Note: I can't reward you for "being right with me", even if you deserve a reward for the math stuff, its not ethical. Sorry. [/quote] How expensive would it be to airmail a cookie? afaik cookies are the standard reward for nice posts.

Difficulty of programming depends a lot on what you want. If you want a shout to be heard at every location that is 1 click away, except if there is a door between the scenes, then the code will be quite annoying to write. If you want to send a line of text to a single location, specified upon 'casting' that should be child's play. For things in between, it depends a bit on the coordinate system. afaik That is the only way for the server to recognize which scenes belong together and it is a bit fuzzy for this purpose.

Swiftweasel (a fork of firefox) on ubuntu linux (9.10 for amd64) with an alpha flash 10 plugin... and it works!

Name – |_Ark_Mattarox Player ID – 10113 Title/Tag – Controlled Shade Undefined entity commonly referred to as Shade. Usually being a fragment of a larger cluster and without individual identiy. Interests – Individuality Petition – I believe humans would call this my birthright

Most, if not all, ethics are an extension of 'treat others like you want them to treat you'. It makes perfect sense regardless of religion, for it is an equal trade, while the alternative is the will of the strongest. This is also why anarchy is the least stable state, it will collapse into dictatorship (or evolve into democracy, but less likely). And do so very quickly: as soon as people in an anarchic state realize this fact, plans will be forged and carried out. @Malaikat: then put fries on the left side and the hamburger on the right, and bury the toy from the happy meal somewhere out of sight!

I don't really care much about the number of WP/year, the WP codes are likely to cause inflation anyway. As for alt abuse there is one relatively simple method to make it impossible: change the way items are made and don't add useful creatures to the WP shop. Afaik everything else in there cannot be traded and I don't think it's a secret that I disagree with the item creation process. As I said in the market debates there needs to be a creative and a destructive flux of items if you want to sustain circulation. If WP abuse for items would lead to larger creative flux, that might actually be a good thing. If you however want to check alts, I don't believe there to be a 100% efficient system and manually approving "good alts" is going to be tedious at best.

The agony of choice. I have once read a very funny thought experiment on it: Suppose you have a donkey that is equally thirsty as he is hungry. To the left at 10 meters is a pond and to the right at 10 meters is a batch of hay (or whatever donkeys like to eat). ie there is no logical way to decide whether the donkey should first have a drink or go for a bite and thus he will be unable to decide until he dies. It has been proposed that instead of choosing to either first have a drink, or eat first, a third option is available: decide to do something random. If one is truly without limits, that includes knowing whether an optimal solution exists or that a coin toss is needed and the problem of choice will not occur. Ironically you will never actually choose something because omniscience will put you on a deterministic path. If you accept that thought, then it is clear that a minimum of restriction is needed to ensure a positive amount of freedom exists for a one-person universe. For multiple people it is easier to see, since the freedom of person A is limited by that of person B. [quote name='Malaikat Maut' date='09 December 2009 - 03:21 PM' timestamp='1260368490' post='49506'] This is something I've thought a great deal about, mostly in the context of American culture and social ideology. The problem with any regulation that limits or removes freedom is that it also removes individual responsibility. If we each maintain unhindered freedom of choice, than we have only ourselves to blame or praise for the outcome of those choices. However, if choice is limited or regulated than the result is a dissociation between cause and effect, action and response, behavior and consequence. For instance, consider the manner in which our (American) Electoral College system breeds complacent voters, or how social reforms (welfare, social security, etc.) may contribute to financial irresponsibility. [/quote] Even if it will be horribly off-topic, it must be said that the current economic crisis is the result of capitalist reforms leading to financial irresponsibility of those who owned large amounts of money. After 1929 laws were imposed upon banks to prevent a similar crash and these laws have been circumvented by constructions involving insurance companies. The crash has also been quite accurately predicted by people from various disciplines (historians, physicist and economists to name some). (When asked if the prediction would change the behavior of people and thus nullify itself, a professor answered: "One word: Greed") [quote]in all democratic countries everyone has right to vote if they want too[/quote] Actually in Belgium you have the duty to vote and not voting is considered a severe crime, for which you can be sentenced to prison (I doubt it ever happens though).

[quote name='Muratus del Mur' date='07 December 2009 - 07:57 PM' timestamp='1260212263' post='49396'] @Mailakat,Grido 1/3 = .3 -> is WRONG your 0.9x10 example Grido, uses 1/3 already, because you can't describe 0.333... in a complete way without it. Without division you will always miss a 0.00...001. of course (1/3)*3 is 1, but without the division its not, that was my point, And i am still not convinced i am wrong on it. [/quote] 1/3 = 0.[u]3[/u] is wrong? If you use tail division, you will after n+1 steps get "0." + n times "3" as your quotient (concatenate it as a string) and "0." + n-1 times "0" + "1" as remainder. Mathematical induction allows us to say 1/3 = 0.[u]3[/u] wherein we mean the 3 is repeated infinitely. You can see this as an extension upon the decimal representation if you must and say that without this extension 1/3 cannot be represented in the decimal system. You can then use the proof Grido used to say that 0.[u]9[/u] = 1.[u]0[/u] = 1 = 3/3, with induction on all the digits or with epsilon-delta proofs. (Not everybody believes in induction, but then again not everybody believes in infinity and in both cases the math becomes a lot more difficult to prove all theorems that have been proven (and for some of those practical applications exist)). [quote]No, you are right its not infinite information, 1/3 is just "hard to match" information, without using division. Its still one step forward. To relate this to the original thought... if you have a perfect circle (because its the simplest 2d shape) you have less information than you wouldhave with lets say a star shape. An irregular shape would have even more information stored in it. I am not sure but i dont think you can have endless information out of a finite system.[/quote] I fail to see how it is a step forward especially since 1 can also be represented as having countable infinite zero's. Square roots and pi are more likely candidates for your step, since those are irrational numbers and pi is actually linked to circles and spheres, you should like pi(e). As for information contained in a circle, I ask you again, why should I take the smallest set able to describe it all (3: origin and diameter if talking 2d) instead of the largest set: the uncountable infinity of points that make the circle? For 1/3 you chose the most difficult representation, now you want to choose the easiest? If you take the easiest then yes, a symmetrical star shape would have more parameters to describe it (6+); if you merely look at the full set of points, it too is uncountable infinity. For the glass sphere, I also have to guess how you define information, but I would strongly suggest not to use the set of points (subatomic particles) there either. imo you'll have to drop the 1/3 argument in favor of always using the smallest representation. [quote]no quantum does not respect classical. in quantum you can have a particle jump from one place to an other without actualy going all the way there (eletron energy levels). That and much more are impossible in classical physics. Theyare not compatible from what i know of.[/quote] That is not what I meant: it is classic which does not respect quantum when looking at the scale for which quantum effects are important (usually this means nanometers or smaller). Quantum is a more modern and more exhaustive model than classical physics. That we still use classical physics is because for larger scales, if one were able to describe the problem with quantum physics the difference would be negligible (averaged out). The same holds for special (and general) relativity: for velocities close to zero (far from light speed) the difference in outcome between special relativity and classical physics is smaller than the usual measurement error. There have been difficulties in uniting general relativity and quantum, which doesn't surprise me since general relativity is capable of giving anyone a headache (using symbols with four indices repeatedly in every equation is not funny).

[quote]Regardless of system/base, division can be used to obtain a "flawlessly represented" and infinite in that way, number, while multiplication cant. I still wait a proof where it can.[/quote] Just because you can find flawed representations does that mean the numbers contain infinite information? I can easily propose a system in which all numbers have infinite digits: 1 = 1.[u]0[/u] 1/3 = 0.[u]3[/u] Hence we don't even need division to have infinite digits anymore. Should anyone doubt that 1 = 1.[u]0[/u] I shall illustrate it with 1 =/= 1.0000000..01 for any finite number of zero's between the 1s. Of course we never write it that way, but does that matter? [quote]Laws of physics say many things, if you compare quantum physics with normal one, you will see they fight a lot, while both being right in their way. Actualy what i say relies on the balance in an indirect way...to put it in other words: [b]if[/b] something is capable of vanishing , (example, energy into endless universe) then something, according to the same balance, should be capable of appearing out of nothing.[/quote] I mentioned quantum because you mentioned particle physics and quantum is more accurate than classical physics on that scale. Both models have scales on which they represent the universe adequately and in a useful way. Quantum physics works perfectly fine in the range where we use classical physics, and gives the same results, but calculating it that way is way too much work, which is why we use the simpler model there. And I still want to see that if. [quote]this might result into an other side question, is infinity the _equal_ opposite of zero? I personaly think not, you have infinity on both sides of zero, so to say you need one single zero to balance two types of infinity , making zero have more authority[/quote] Mathematically infinity is the inverse of zero with regard to multiplication, where 1 is the neutral element. Multiplying zero and infinity is undefined. For addition, minus infinity is the opposite of positive infinity, with zero the neutral element. Infinity minus infinity is also undefined. The opposite of zero is zero. (And yes there are cases where maths uses positive and negative zeros, eg. when working with limits.) From the archive article: [quote]Imagine you have a glass, for the sake of example lets say its a perfect sphere (or any other ordered geometrical shape). The quantity of information it contains is small, you could use a simple formula to describe the glass sphere and it will be perfectly accurate.[/quote] This is also a question of representation in my opinion. You have said "Muratus del Mur: so a simple equation, causes an endless source of information" in relation to the infinite possible 2d representations of a 3d object. Why should I use your simple equation for the perfect glass sphere in this case? If instead I say it has uncountably many information, it becomes impossible to find something that has more information (afaik there is nothing bigger than uncountable infinity). Something to consider: how do you define information? Suppose I have a message and I encrypt it using a key. If I then give a person only the key or the encrypted message, they will not be able to reproduce the original message. Both the key and the encrypted message can be considered as partial information, which is only of practical use if you have both parts. But there is also the information that the key belongs to that message, or a CSI agent could be interested in the kind of ink used to write the message... @Kyphis [topic='4843']read this![/topic]