revision for year 2

[shabazz]

so, i beter do some......

nah

anyone else in this same situation?

oh, not on this topic, anyone get serious sam to work over a network?

mine just wont have it

it might be the firewalls, but they are configured for it (well all privilages etc)

a few m8s have same problem as me if they try to host a net game and they are on a network (in this instance it says the port/game doesnt exist :/)

actaully, system shock 2 wont work linkup (over net) now that my home network is back up :/

any ideas / help / general banter / m00ing ?

 

[old.roobus]

Year 2

I dropped out in year 2 due to being bored shitless. Rennaissance art was just not going to get me much work in the computer industry...

Where are you studying?

 

[Perplex]

Just did an exam today for one of my year 2 modules...Organisation Behaviour. Got some tommorrow and thursday too :/

 

[Nighty-]

I have a Maths test tomorrow

 

[shabazz]

im at nothamton m8

but i aint got my exams till end of may

got ob too, and i really really dont like it, but i HAVE to do it :/

anyway B&W is too distracting

 

[Nibbler]

Originally posted by shabazz
any ideas / help / general banter / m00ing ?[/B]

You know which 1 i'm going to choose....

 

[Nighty-]

ahh the general banter then

 

[Nibbler]

Nope











m0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000!

 

[old.Cpl_Custard]

hey, that belongs in the m00 thread.

This is a no m00 zone

 

[Nibbler]

This is a no m00 zone

Hmmmm.... lets take a look at the 1st post

any ideas / help / general banter / m00ing ?

See! This is a m00 zone! I can m00 all i want

m00000000000000000000000!

 

[old.Cpl_Custard]

..mumble..mumble...fghuu.fguh..

 

[Durzel]

I had 3 exams in one day when I was at University - the Three Bastard Ones(tm) as well - Advanced Formal Specification, and err.. two others ones I've completely forgotten the names of.

Come to think of it that probably explains why I ended up with a 2:1 instead of a 1st

 

[Durzel]

On a more mundane note:

A low ping will NEVER help you but a high ping may hinder you.

That is a paradox. Help and hinderance are surely contrary - if something does not hinder you then by definition it must surely help you. Therefore in saying that a high ping may hinder you, implicitly a low ping must help you?

And yes, I am bored.

 

[Guest]

Au contraire Monsieur le Durzel (yeah I'm bored too!).

If you look at helping, or hindering, as an either/or situation, then your statement is true.

But there are varying degrees of helpfulness (and hinderance) i.e rubbing a dying mans' back is helpful, but not really helpful. In between these two states (of help/hinderance) there must be a neutral state, when you are doing neither.

Of course there are times when doing nothing can help/hinder someone. Which way the help/hinderance swing-ometer goes depends on the situation at the time. This means that the two conditions actually overlap at some point.

So to summarise:
You can help
You can Hinder
You can do both
You can do neither

...all at the same time

ummm

/me gets me coat

 

[Wij]

You'll tie yourself in philosophical knots if you let language rule you like that. Just m000 instead

 

[Durzel]

Still bored

LOL Brilliant post SoWaT

Since I am still bored I thought I would reply with some conjecture of my own, even though I probably won't even understand/agree with what I'm even writing - at least it will wile away another 5 minutes of work time..

Arguably the neutral state of which you speak is - from a "glass is half full" perspective - "helping" a situation. If you are not being hindered by something (the negative state) then any diminishing of this hinderance should result in a more positive (read: helpful) result. Ergo - if you are being less hindered by something, then it follows that you are being helped? (even if you don't realise it)..

To use your existing paradigm, rubbing a dying man's back is not strictly helpful in the context of his ailment (ie. that he is about to shuffle off the mortal coil) but it is neither hindering him either (unless you rub too hard I would imagine). Therefore looking at the situation optimistically you would - in some small way - be "helping" him.

Clearly if you look at the whole help/hinderance balance in terms of scales, any shift in balance from hinderance would clearly result in a less negative result, ergo a more helpful result. Since ping times (high/low) are clearly corollary, and the recognition of the fact that high ping times are a hinderance, then it would follow - optimistically speaking - that a reduced ping time would be less of a hinderance, ergo more of a help.

Therefore it's bloody helpfUL GoD DAMMit!

I kinda lost the argument at the end there didn't I

 

[Guest]

Tsk Tsk Durzel!

You're obviously an old pro at this debating game, trying to throw me off the scent by introducing a reasoned hypothesis. An underhand manoeuvre if ever there was one.

Bah!

<grasp at straws>

In the case of Ping, we are indeed looking at a situation where it's a help or a hinderance. BUT, if you look at the overall picture, decreasing one's ping may be helping oneself, but it's hindering the ability of other players to frag you. It's a karma thing, and you'll be reincarnated as a fruitfly or something if you do it. Ergo, reducing your ping is a hinderance (cosmically speaking).

</grasp at straws>


p.s.
m0000000000000

[Edited by SoWat on 04-04-01 at 13:48]

 

[stu]

One minor flaw to your determinations - the concept of neutrality

Positivity -----> Neutrality -----> Negativity

To postulate further - both help and hindrance would require activity on the part of the object to affect the subject. Objective passitivity would, by definition, neither help nor hinder the subject, as there would be no affect on its situation, either direct or indirect. This, assuming that one does not subscribe to chaos theory or similar (ie all actions, regardless of magnitude, have a definite and measurable impact on their environment, and thus on all other things).

Therefore, there must be some "middle ground" of neutrality between the active concepts of hindrance and help to quantify that passive action.

If one requires an example. Let us assume Subject A is locked in a cell. Subject B, directly outside the cell, has the ability to unlock the cell. By your reasoning, the non-intervention of Subject B (in not unlocking the cell) would be classed as hindrance, as Subject A is not helped in escaping the cell. However, if we examine the situation that would exist if Subject B were removed from the equation (ie Subject A still locked in the cell, no-one outside to unlock it), we see that the result is the same. Subject A is still unable to escape. In this instance, one cannot say that Subject B is hindering Subject A, as he does not even exist, and so one would create an absurdity. Clearly then, in the first example, Subject B's action (or, more importantly, inaction) neither help nor hinder the efforts of Subject A, and are merely neutral to them.

Moving from philosophy into science, one sees many examples in the chemical/biological/physical realms. One obvious such demonstrable would be pH testing of materials. To suggest that an item must be either acid or alkaline (and more importantly, if one is not acid, it must be alkaline, and vice versa) is clearly incorrect, as there is a state of neutral between the two. The same principles apply, and indeed one can more obviously demonstrate the paradox created by two mutually-exclusive yet quantifying states.

I thank you.

 

[Guest]

Hmmn, an almost flawless presentation by Stu-

However, removing subject B from the equation removes the concept of help or hinderance completely, and therefore does not apply.

The fact that subject B is outside the cell introduces the possibility of intervention. The actions of subject B then determine whether he is a help or hinderance (I'm assuming we're looking at this from the point of view of subject A).

Once Subject B is in a position to affect the situation, he becomes, in the eyes of subject A, a help or a hinderance.

 

[Durzel]

Very nice Stu

SoWaT makes a valid point in this particular instance. If Subject B is able to help but chooses not to do so, surely his actions are prohibiting Subject A's escape, thus hindering him. If, as SoWaT says, Subject B is removed from the equation entirely then (assuming there are no other entities present) there is nothing in the vicinity who can either help or hinder Subject A - thus the comparison is null and void.

Clearly the result is still the same (ie. Subject A is not helped) - but since in the first case there exists a mechanism (Subject B) that can help or hinder Subject A, removing Subject B has the effect of removing the potential action(s) that could be evaluated as being either helpful (positive) or a hinderance (negative). In essence, the situation were Subject B not present would be entirely neutral.

In a nutshell I've just reiterated exactly what SoWaT said, but it wasted another 5 minutes so who's complaining.

 

[old.TUG]

||\\//||[(o)][(o)][(o)]

 

[Perplex]

Originally posted by SoWat
The actions of subject B then determine whether

Surely thr point of Stus statement was Subject Bs inaction?

There is no course of action that B can take to make the situation of A any worse (given the currently accepted actions of freeing him, or merely doing nothing as he is doing at this very moment whilst he decides, and all the time he has been standing there up until this decision moment) The only course of action within our agreed parameters is that B can free him, meaning that he can help him.

To say that by doing nothing, and hence leaving A in the exact same situation as before, is like saying that if you don't give me £10, you are hindering my financial status. Or that by not letting me sleep with your girlfriend, you are hindering me. This notion quite simply can not be entertained. A is locked in a cell, and regardless of whether B was there or not, there was no indication that A would not be locked in a cell for much longer.

If however B had agreed to set A free, but then had decided not to then this could be seen as a hinderance, as A had expected to be freed by B, but in fact B changed his mind. A had gone from a state of impending freedom to imprisonment due to direct inaction of B

 

[Nighty-]

Gay

 

[Guest]

Lemme get my head round that one.

OK,
We have to assume that SubjectA has a desire to get out of his cell. The wishes of SubjectA are the perspective for all subsequent events.

If Subject B is not outside the cell, then he is completely out of the equation. He's not helping, hindering, or neutral. For him to be neutral, he would have to be involved, or aware of the situation.

If Subject A wants out of the cell and there's nobody there, he is neither being helped or hindered by the person that isn't there <muffled scream>. As soon as Subject B appears outside the cell, he becomes the mechanism through which SubjectA can, or cannot, get out.

If he refuses to help, then SubjectB is hindering SubjectA in his desire to get out. If he opens the door, then he is helping. In this instance, there is no middle, or neutral, ground.

If SubjectA didn't want to get out, then the opposite would apply.


Hmmmn, I'm not sure, but I think I've argued myself into the opposite point from where I started

 

[Mr B]

I never did nothing.

 

[Perplex]

aaaaaargh, no

Subject A is in a cell. For whatever reason, he is inside a cell. Whether he would like to get out or not is totally irrelevant. It's just as relevant as whether he'd like an ice cream sundae or not. Would you say then that because B has not provided him with an ice cream sundae, that he is hindering him? No. The desires of A are totally besides the point.

The only fact that matters is that he is inside a cell. If B walks past and opens the door he has taken action in direct relation to A, in setting him free. That is help.

If he walks straight past without doing anything, he has not altered As state at all. A is still in the cell, just as he was before B walked past.

You can’t spend your entire life being upset about things that could have happened, but had no reason to happen. It would be like crying every morning because the milkman decided not to leave a million pounds on your doorstep. Why should he? Did he promise to? Surely he knows that I’m in financial straits and need the million pounds. No, and no.

 

[Guest]

I think we should just leave the fucker in his cell.

 

[Durzel]

There is no course of action that B can take to make the situation of A any worse (given the currently accepted actions of freeing him..

It doesn't work like that

If B made his presence known to A and subsequently decided not to release him, then clearly he is hindering A even more than he is already by being imprisoned in the first place. If B never existed, then any action - positive (helping him escape) or negative (ignoring his pleas) cease to be a part of the equation - thus A is still hindered with regard to being imprisoned, but he knows that there has as yet been no one around who could free him, thus he is only as hindered as the predicament he already finds himself in.

Subject A is in a cell. For whatever reason, he is inside a cell. Whether he would like to get out or not is totally irrelevant. It's just as relevant as whether he'd like an ice cream sundae or not. Would you say then that because B has not provided him with an ice cream sundae, that he is hindering him? No. The desires of A are totally besides the point..

If Subject A desires to leave the cell, and makes this wish known to Subject B (assuming for the moment Subject B is actually able to release him - ie. has a key) then should Subject B refuse to release him - he is hindering him, plain and simple. The matter is complicated somewhat by socialogical factors - namely the expectation that rational human beings should endeavour not to cause others harm intentionally. If we're talking pure science as Stu has been, then - arguably - one entity's inaction has no bearing or relevance on the other. When you introduce the concept of awareness into the equation you automatically create a mechanism whereby blame/hinderance can be apportioned. If Subject A knows Subject B can help him, and he/she chooses not to, then he is hindering him - from Subject A's perspective at least. As soon as Subject B makes his presence known he is already a part of the "escape mechanism" equation.

 

[old.roobus]

Durzel

This is mental masturbation. Does that mean you have hairy hands?

 

[Wij]

It's simply a question of your definition of 'hindrance'. It's a complex English word, therefore it may seem like a tricky philosphical problem. In reality most modern philosophers would tell you you're just struggling to define a word. A pointless task since most people have their own definitions of words like this to a certain extent. There is no such property as 'Hindrance' in the world, only as a construct in your head.

Get a dictionary or accept a difference of opinion.

Ludwij Wijenstein

P.S. b33r and pr0k p13 !!!!!!!!!