Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #365819 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-08-17 14:02 -0700 |
| Last post | 2016-08-18 18:56 -0400 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 217 — 12 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.advocacy
Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-17 14:02 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-17 21:32 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-17 14:39 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-17 21:49 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-17 16:01 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-17 23:35 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-17 16:45 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-17 23:58 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-17 16:59 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-18 00:16 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-17 17:44 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-18 00:55 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-17 18:14 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-18 01:41 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-17 19:13 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-17 22:17 -0600
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-08-17 17:24 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-18 00:35 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-08-18 03:24 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-18 15:19 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-08-18 09:15 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-18 16:34 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-18 09:39 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-18 16:45 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-18 09:51 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-18 16:59 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-18 10:03 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-18 17:14 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-18 10:26 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-18 17:35 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-18 10:52 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-18 18:25 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-18 11:32 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-18 18:40 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-18 13:02 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-08-18 13:27 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-18 21:21 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-18 14:41 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-18 21:54 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-18 15:28 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-18 23:06 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-18 16:19 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-18 23:28 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-18 16:48 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-18 23:56 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-18 17:09 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-19 00:19 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-18 18:01 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-19 01:34 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-18 18:54 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-08-18 18:56 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-18 19:24 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-08-18 14:30 -0400
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-18 18:38 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-08-18 14:39 -0400
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-18 19:00 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-08-18 14:26 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-18 21:46 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-08-18 15:57 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-18 23:08 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-08-18 19:22 -0400
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-18 23:31 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-08-18 19:21 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-19 03:31 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-08-20 19:50 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-21 04:29 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-08-21 06:58 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-08-21 10:53 -0400
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-08-21 09:20 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-21 16:50 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-21 16:36 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-08-21 14:57 -0400
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-21 19:57 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-21 13:15 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-21 20:25 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-21 13:44 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-21 20:57 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-21 14:09 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-21 21:22 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-21 14:33 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-08-21 18:35 -0400
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-21 22:49 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-08-21 14:31 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-21 14:42 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-21 23:00 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-21 16:10 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-21 23:40 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-21 17:18 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-22 00:49 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-21 18:11 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-08-21 16:10 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-21 23:35 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-08-21 17:19 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-22 00:44 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-08-21 18:41 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-22 15:12 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-08-22 09:37 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-22 17:08 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-08-22 11:15 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-22 18:48 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-08-22 12:07 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-22 19:30 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-22 12:56 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-22 20:03 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-22 13:17 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-22 20:37 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-22 13:40 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-22 20:54 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-22 14:03 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-22 21:09 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-22 14:17 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-22 21:46 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-22 14:48 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-08-22 14:48 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-22 22:29 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-08-22 17:40 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-23 01:16 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-08-23 05:04 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-23 12:47 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-22 12:16 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-22 19:38 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-22 12:51 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-22 20:01 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-22 13:15 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-22 20:45 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-22 13:54 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-22 21:18 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-22 14:29 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-22 21:48 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-22 14:51 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-08-25 08:22 -0400
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-08-25 06:28 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-08-25 10:57 -0400
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-08-26 04:18 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-08-26 10:36 -0400
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-08-26 08:26 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-08-26 11:50 -0400
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-26 09:12 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-26 16:24 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-26 10:02 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-26 17:20 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-08-26 13:21 -0400
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-26 11:48 -0600
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-08-26 14:16 -0400
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-26 16:29 -0600
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-08-26 18:54 -0400
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-27 12:39 -0600
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-27 01:03 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-26 16:20 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-08-26 13:11 -0400
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-26 11:46 -0600
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-08-26 10:52 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-08-26 14:25 -0400
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-08-26 11:40 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-26 08:28 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-21 17:44 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-22 00:51 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-21 18:12 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-22 15:14 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-22 08:36 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-22 15:51 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-22 08:56 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-22 16:00 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-22 09:54 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-22 17:16 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-22 10:23 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-22 17:36 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-22 10:44 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-22 17:50 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-22 10:53 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-08-25 08:32 -0400
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-25 09:23 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-22 17:52 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-22 10:58 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-21 15:00 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-08-18 10:18 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-18 17:44 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-18 10:54 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-18 18:23 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-18 11:29 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-18 18:31 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-18 11:46 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-18 19:10 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-18 12:49 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-18 19:59 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-18 14:49 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-18 22:03 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-18 15:30 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-18 10:51 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-18 18:27 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-18 11:45 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-08-18 09:46 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-18 09:58 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-08-18 14:32 -0400
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-18 18:42 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-08-18 18:58 -0400
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-18 11:45 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-08-18 09:21 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-18 16:52 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-08-18 10:10 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-18 10:25 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-18 10:08 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-17 17:50 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-08-17 14:43 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-17 16:06 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Incubus <incubus9536612@gmail.com> - 2016-08-18 00:58 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-08-18 07:12 -0500
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices William Poaster <wp@dev.null> - 2016-08-18 13:43 +0100
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-08-18 06:20 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-08-18 07:19 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2016-08-18 15:49 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-18 10:02 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-08-19 07:18 -0500
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-08-19 07:41 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-08-21 06:35 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-08-21 10:55 -0400
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-08-18 18:56 -0400
Page 2 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 … 11 Next page →
| From | -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-18 09:15 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8648bde9-7507-4465-9979-4301b26a7108@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #365905 |
On Thursday, August 18, 2016 at 11:19:45 AM UTC-4, Octavian W. Lagrange wrote: > -hh wrote: > > Octavian W. Lagrange wrote: > >> [...] > > > > Thank-you for your one-liner, for you can now never > > truthfully claim ignorance over how you were schooled > > (which deliberately included citations). > > I have a house with 700 rooms. In one of the rooms is > bag full of diamonds. You get to keep the diamonds if > you find them. You get to check every room. > > Hmm.. 700 rooms. That's a lot of rooms. Maybe too many? > > I offer you $1,000 to walk away and not look for the diamonds. > What do you do? In plain English, "A bird in hand is worth two in the bush". Knowing how malicious you are, your _claim_ that there are allegedly some diamonds in some room could easily be a lie. Similarly, that said alleged diamonds weren't hidden. Nor even if located, readily retrieved. Plus said bag wasn't sized. Nor even that they're natural carbon diamonds and not some fake/manmade. Nor the size of the alleged diamonds within them. All of which places a high degree of uncertainty on if the alleged loot is even worth a fraction of the $1K cash on hand offer. For example, one can buy today a hundred carats worth of diamonds for under $30 right here: <http://www.ebay.com/bhp/diamond-powder> So now reverse the tables such that I'm making this offer to you ... just which are you now going to pick? -hh
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-18 16:34 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <fhjagid802gi9.jg@perch.invalid> |
| In reply to | #365915 |
-hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote: > On Thursday, August 18, 2016 at 11:19:45 AM UTC-4, Octavian W. Lagrange wrote: >> -hh wrote: >> > Octavian W. Lagrange wrote: >> >> [...] >> > >> > Thank-you for your one-liner, for you can now never >> > truthfully claim ignorance over how you were schooled >> > (which deliberately included citations). >> >> I have a house with 700 rooms. In one of the rooms is >> bag full of diamonds. You get to keep the diamonds if >> you find them. You get to check every room. >> >> Hmm.. 700 rooms. That's a lot of rooms. Maybe too many? >> >> I offer you $1,000 to walk away and not look for the diamonds. >> What do you do? > > In plain English, "A bird in hand is worth two in the bush". > > Knowing how malicious you are, your _claim_ that there are > allegedly some diamonds in some room could easily be a lie. > > Similarly, that said alleged diamonds weren't hidden. > > Nor even if located, readily retrieved. > > Plus said bag wasn't sized. > > Nor even that they're natural carbon diamonds and not > some fake/manmade. > > Nor the size of the alleged diamonds within them. > > All of which places a high degree of uncertainty on > if the alleged loot is even worth a fraction of the > $1K cash on hand offer. > > For example, one can buy today a hundred carats worth > of diamonds for under $30 right here: > > <http://www.ebay.com/bhp/diamond-powder> > > So now reverse the tables such that I'm making this > offer to you ... just which are you now going to pick? > > OK. You want details. The bag of diamonds is sitting in plain sight in the middle of the otherwise empty room. All rooms are empty save the one with the diamonds. The bag is a 1-gallon ziploc bag filled to bursting with flawless natural diamonds, the smallest of which is 5 carats. There is no danger awaiting you before or after you get the diamonds. There is no trickery involved whatsoever.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-18 09:39 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D3DB32C5.7989A%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #365918 |
On 8/18/16, 9:34 AM, in article fhjagid802gi9.jg@perch.invalid, "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> wrote: > -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote: >> On Thursday, August 18, 2016 at 11:19:45 AM UTC-4, Octavian W. Lagrange >> wrote: >>> -hh wrote: >>>> Octavian W. Lagrange wrote: >>>>> [...] >>>> >>>> Thank-you for your one-liner, for you can now never >>>> truthfully claim ignorance over how you were schooled >>>> (which deliberately included citations). >>> >>> I have a house with 700 rooms. In one of the rooms is >>> bag full of diamonds. You get to keep the diamonds if >>> you find them. You get to check every room. >>> >>> Hmm.. 700 rooms. That's a lot of rooms. Maybe too many? >>> >>> I offer you $1,000 to walk away and not look for the diamonds. >>> What do you do? >> >> In plain English, "A bird in hand is worth two in the bush". >> >> Knowing how malicious you are, your _claim_ that there are >> allegedly some diamonds in some room could easily be a lie. >> >> Similarly, that said alleged diamonds weren't hidden. >> >> Nor even if located, readily retrieved. >> >> Plus said bag wasn't sized. >> >> Nor even that they're natural carbon diamonds and not >> some fake/manmade. >> >> Nor the size of the alleged diamonds within them. >> >> All of which places a high degree of uncertainty on >> if the alleged loot is even worth a fraction of the >> $1K cash on hand offer. >> >> For example, one can buy today a hundred carats worth >> of diamonds for under $30 right here: >> >> <http://www.ebay.com/bhp/diamond-powder> >> >> So now reverse the tables such that I'm making this >> offer to you ... just which are you now going to pick? >> >> > > OK. You want details. The bag of diamonds is sitting in plain sight in > the middle of the otherwise empty room. All rooms are empty save the one > with the diamonds. The bag is a 1-gallon ziploc bag filled to bursting > with flawless natural diamonds, the smallest of which is 5 carats. > There is no danger awaiting you before or after you get the diamonds. > There is no trickery involved whatsoever. > People have done similar experiments where they try to hand out $100 bills. Many people do not take them - either thinking in terms of trickery or WANTING to actually earn what they get. -- * OS X / Linux: What is a file? <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI> * Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu: <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE> * Mint KDE working with folders: <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0> * Mint KDE creating files: <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8> * Mint KDE help: <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8> * Mint KDE general navigation: <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI> * Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs? <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA> * Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux: <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk> * OS / Word Processor Comparison: <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-18 16:45 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ghjxcis802.gf@perch.invalid> |
| In reply to | #365919 |
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 8/18/16, 9:34 AM, in article fhjagid802gi9.jg@perch.invalid, "Octavian W. > Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> wrote: > >> -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote: >>> On Thursday, August 18, 2016 at 11:19:45 AM UTC-4, Octavian W. Lagrange >>> wrote: >>>> -hh wrote: >>>>> Octavian W. Lagrange wrote: >>>>>> [...] >>>>> >>>>> Thank-you for your one-liner, for you can now never >>>>> truthfully claim ignorance over how you were schooled >>>>> (which deliberately included citations). >>>> >>>> I have a house with 700 rooms. In one of the rooms is >>>> bag full of diamonds. You get to keep the diamonds if >>>> you find them. You get to check every room. >>>> >>>> Hmm.. 700 rooms. That's a lot of rooms. Maybe too many? >>>> >>>> I offer you $1,000 to walk away and not look for the diamonds. >>>> What do you do? >>> >>> In plain English, "A bird in hand is worth two in the bush". >>> >>> Knowing how malicious you are, your _claim_ that there are >>> allegedly some diamonds in some room could easily be a lie. >>> >>> Similarly, that said alleged diamonds weren't hidden. >>> >>> Nor even if located, readily retrieved. >>> >>> Plus said bag wasn't sized. >>> >>> Nor even that they're natural carbon diamonds and not >>> some fake/manmade. >>> >>> Nor the size of the alleged diamonds within them. >>> >>> All of which places a high degree of uncertainty on >>> if the alleged loot is even worth a fraction of the >>> $1K cash on hand offer. >>> >>> For example, one can buy today a hundred carats worth >>> of diamonds for under $30 right here: >>> >>> <http://www.ebay.com/bhp/diamond-powder> >>> >>> So now reverse the tables such that I'm making this >>> offer to you ... just which are you now going to pick? >>> >>> >> >> OK. You want details. The bag of diamonds is sitting in plain sight in >> the middle of the otherwise empty room. All rooms are empty save the one >> with the diamonds. The bag is a 1-gallon ziploc bag filled to bursting >> with flawless natural diamonds, the smallest of which is 5 carats. >> There is no danger awaiting you before or after you get the diamonds. >> There is no trickery involved whatsoever. >> > People have done similar experiments where they try to hand out $100 bills. > Many people do not take them - either thinking in terms of trickery or > WANTING to actually earn what they get. > But in this case, the "earning" would be searching the rooms, and a fear of trickery would lead to taking the $1000 dollars.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-18 09:51 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D3DB35B8.798A0%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #365920 |
On 8/18/16, 9:45 AM, in article ghjxcis802.gf@perch.invalid, "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> wrote: > Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >> On 8/18/16, 9:34 AM, in article fhjagid802gi9.jg@perch.invalid, "Octavian W. >> Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> wrote: >> >>> -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote: >>>> On Thursday, August 18, 2016 at 11:19:45 AM UTC-4, Octavian W. Lagrange >>>> wrote: >>>>> -hh wrote: >>>>>> Octavian W. Lagrange wrote: >>>>>>> [...] >>>>>> >>>>>> Thank-you for your one-liner, for you can now never >>>>>> truthfully claim ignorance over how you were schooled >>>>>> (which deliberately included citations). >>>>> >>>>> I have a house with 700 rooms. In one of the rooms is >>>>> bag full of diamonds. You get to keep the diamonds if >>>>> you find them. You get to check every room. >>>>> >>>>> Hmm.. 700 rooms. That's a lot of rooms. Maybe too many? >>>>> >>>>> I offer you $1,000 to walk away and not look for the diamonds. >>>>> What do you do? >>>> >>>> In plain English, "A bird in hand is worth two in the bush". >>>> >>>> Knowing how malicious you are, your _claim_ that there are >>>> allegedly some diamonds in some room could easily be a lie. >>>> >>>> Similarly, that said alleged diamonds weren't hidden. >>>> >>>> Nor even if located, readily retrieved. >>>> >>>> Plus said bag wasn't sized. >>>> >>>> Nor even that they're natural carbon diamonds and not >>>> some fake/manmade. >>>> >>>> Nor the size of the alleged diamonds within them. >>>> >>>> All of which places a high degree of uncertainty on >>>> if the alleged loot is even worth a fraction of the >>>> $1K cash on hand offer. >>>> >>>> For example, one can buy today a hundred carats worth >>>> of diamonds for under $30 right here: >>>> >>>> <http://www.ebay.com/bhp/diamond-powder> >>>> >>>> So now reverse the tables such that I'm making this >>>> offer to you ... just which are you now going to pick? >>>> >>>> >>> >>> OK. You want details. The bag of diamonds is sitting in plain sight in >>> the middle of the otherwise empty room. All rooms are empty save the one >>> with the diamonds. The bag is a 1-gallon ziploc bag filled to bursting >>> with flawless natural diamonds, the smallest of which is 5 carats. >>> There is no danger awaiting you before or after you get the diamonds. >>> There is no trickery involved whatsoever. >>> >> People have done similar experiments where they try to hand out $100 bills. >> Many people do not take them - either thinking in terms of trickery or >> WANTING to actually earn what they get. >> > > But in this case, the "earning" would be searching the rooms, and a fear > of trickery would lead to taking the $1000 dollars. > Ah, looking at what you say they are "flawless natural diamonds" -- not sure there is such a thing, and not sure how much it costs to get them cut. I also do not back the diamond industry... but I would likely spend some time looking for them anyway. I assume the value is likely more than the $1000... without doing research I assume a lot more. :) -- * OS X / Linux: What is a file? <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI> * Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu: <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE> * Mint KDE working with folders: <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0> * Mint KDE creating files: <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8> * Mint KDE help: <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8> * Mint KDE general navigation: <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI> * Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs? <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA> * Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux: <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk> * OS / Word Processor Comparison: <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-18 16:59 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <fhjxcvid802.a@perch.invalid> |
| In reply to | #365922 |
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 8/18/16, 9:45 AM, in article ghjxcis802.gf@perch.invalid, "Octavian W. > Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> wrote: > >> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>> On 8/18/16, 9:34 AM, in article fhjagid802gi9.jg@perch.invalid, "Octavian W. >>> Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> wrote: >>> >>>> -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote: >>>>> On Thursday, August 18, 2016 at 11:19:45 AM UTC-4, Octavian W. Lagrange >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> -hh wrote: >>>>>>> Octavian W. Lagrange wrote: >>>>>>>> [...] >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thank-you for your one-liner, for you can now never >>>>>>> truthfully claim ignorance over how you were schooled >>>>>>> (which deliberately included citations). >>>>>> >>>>>> I have a house with 700 rooms. In one of the rooms is >>>>>> bag full of diamonds. You get to keep the diamonds if >>>>>> you find them. You get to check every room. >>>>>> >>>>>> Hmm.. 700 rooms. That's a lot of rooms. Maybe too many? >>>>>> >>>>>> I offer you $1,000 to walk away and not look for the diamonds. >>>>>> What do you do? >>>>> >>>>> In plain English, "A bird in hand is worth two in the bush". >>>>> >>>>> Knowing how malicious you are, your _claim_ that there are >>>>> allegedly some diamonds in some room could easily be a lie. >>>>> >>>>> Similarly, that said alleged diamonds weren't hidden. >>>>> >>>>> Nor even if located, readily retrieved. >>>>> >>>>> Plus said bag wasn't sized. >>>>> >>>>> Nor even that they're natural carbon diamonds and not >>>>> some fake/manmade. >>>>> >>>>> Nor the size of the alleged diamonds within them. >>>>> >>>>> All of which places a high degree of uncertainty on >>>>> if the alleged loot is even worth a fraction of the >>>>> $1K cash on hand offer. >>>>> >>>>> For example, one can buy today a hundred carats worth >>>>> of diamonds for under $30 right here: >>>>> >>>>> <http://www.ebay.com/bhp/diamond-powder> >>>>> >>>>> So now reverse the tables such that I'm making this >>>>> offer to you ... just which are you now going to pick? >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> OK. You want details. The bag of diamonds is sitting in plain sight in >>>> the middle of the otherwise empty room. All rooms are empty save the one >>>> with the diamonds. The bag is a 1-gallon ziploc bag filled to bursting >>>> with flawless natural diamonds, the smallest of which is 5 carats. >>>> There is no danger awaiting you before or after you get the diamonds. >>>> There is no trickery involved whatsoever. >>>> >>> People have done similar experiments where they try to hand out $100 bills. >>> Many people do not take them - either thinking in terms of trickery or >>> WANTING to actually earn what they get. >>> >> >> But in this case, the "earning" would be searching the rooms, and a fear >> of trickery would lead to taking the $1000 dollars. >> > > Ah, looking at what you say they are "flawless natural diamonds" -- not sure > there is such a thing, and not sure how much it costs to get them cut. I > also do not back the diamond industry... but I would likely spend some time > looking for them anyway. I assume the value is likely more than the $1000... > without doing research I assume a lot more. :) > The diamonds are already cut by masters. And none of them are cursed.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-18 10:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D3DB387A.798AB%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #365925 |
On 8/18/16, 9:59 AM, in article fhjxcvid802.a@perch.invalid, "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> wrote: >>> But in this case, the "earning" would be searching the rooms, and a fear >>> of trickery would lead to taking the $1000 dollars. >>> >> >> Ah, looking at what you say they are "flawless natural diamonds" -- not sure >> there is such a thing, and not sure how much it costs to get them cut. I >> also do not back the diamond industry... but I would likely spend some time >> looking for them anyway. I assume the value is likely more than the $1000... >> without doing research I assume a lot more. :) > > The diamonds are already cut by masters. And none of them are cursed. I make a perception check in the first room. :) -- * OS X / Linux: What is a file? <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI> * Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu: <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE> * Mint KDE working with folders: <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0> * Mint KDE creating files: <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8> * Mint KDE help: <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8> * Mint KDE general navigation: <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI> * Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs? <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA> * Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux: <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk> * OS / Word Processor Comparison: <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-18 17:14 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ghjcb.00amf@perch.invalid> |
| In reply to | #365929 |
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 8/18/16, 9:59 AM, in article fhjxcvid802.a@perch.invalid, "Octavian W. > Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> wrote: > >>>> But in this case, the "earning" would be searching the rooms, and a fear >>>> of trickery would lead to taking the $1000 dollars. >>>> >>> >>> Ah, looking at what you say they are "flawless natural diamonds" -- not sure >>> there is such a thing, and not sure how much it costs to get them cut. I >>> also do not back the diamond industry... but I would likely spend some time >>> looking for them anyway. I assume the value is likely more than the $1000... >>> without doing research I assume a lot more. :) >> >> The diamonds are already cut by masters. And none of them are cursed. > > I make a perception check in the first room. :) > Not allowed. Either take the money or search for the diamonds.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-18 10:26 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D3DB3DC3.798B5%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #365932 |
On 8/18/16, 10:14 AM, in article ghjcb.00amf@perch.invalid, "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> wrote: > Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >> On 8/18/16, 9:59 AM, in article fhjxcvid802.a@perch.invalid, "Octavian W. >> Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> wrote: >> >>>>> But in this case, the "earning" would be searching the rooms, and a fear >>>>> of trickery would lead to taking the $1000 dollars. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Ah, looking at what you say they are "flawless natural diamonds" -- not >>>> sure >>>> there is such a thing, and not sure how much it costs to get them cut. I >>>> also do not back the diamond industry... but I would likely spend some time >>>> looking for them anyway. I assume the value is likely more than the >>>> $1000... >>>> without doing research I assume a lot more. :) >>> >>> The diamonds are already cut by masters. And none of them are cursed. >> >> I make a perception check in the first room. :) >> > > Not allowed. Either take the money or search for the diamonds. > I am searching... that is what a perception check is for. You, as the GM in this scenario, need to let me know what I find. :) -- * OS X / Linux: What is a file? <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI> * Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu: <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE> * Mint KDE working with folders: <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0> * Mint KDE creating files: <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8> * Mint KDE help: <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8> * Mint KDE general navigation: <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI> * Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs? <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA> * Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux: <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk> * OS / Word Processor Comparison: <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-18 17:35 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <fhjgsod802.gaji@perch.invalid> |
| In reply to | #365936 |
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 8/18/16, 10:14 AM, in article ghjcb.00amf@perch.invalid, "Octavian W. > Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> wrote: > >> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>> On 8/18/16, 9:59 AM, in article fhjxcvid802.a@perch.invalid, "Octavian W. >>> Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> wrote: >>> >>>>>> But in this case, the "earning" would be searching the rooms, and a fear >>>>>> of trickery would lead to taking the $1000 dollars. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Ah, looking at what you say they are "flawless natural diamonds" -- not >>>>> sure >>>>> there is such a thing, and not sure how much it costs to get them cut. I >>>>> also do not back the diamond industry... but I would likely spend some time >>>>> looking for them anyway. I assume the value is likely more than the >>>>> $1000... >>>>> without doing research I assume a lot more. :) >>>> >>>> The diamonds are already cut by masters. And none of them are cursed. >>> >>> I make a perception check in the first room. :) >>> >> >> Not allowed. Either take the money or search for the diamonds. >> > I am searching... Then you have committed to search them all. Or not. Your choice. Either way, by searching the first room you will have forfeited the $1000. > that is what a perception check is for. You, as the GM in > this scenario, need to let me know what I find. :) > Nope. I don't tell you which room the diamonds are in. You have to do the work. You can quit at any time if the burden of checking each room becomes too much for you. But the fact remains that you are guaranteed the payoff by searching all 700 rooms.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-18 10:52 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D3DB4403.798C4%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #365937 |
On 8/18/16, 10:35 AM, in article fhjgsod802.gaji@perch.invalid, "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> wrote: > Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >> On 8/18/16, 10:14 AM, in article ghjcb.00amf@perch.invalid, "Octavian W. >> Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> wrote: >> >>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>> On 8/18/16, 9:59 AM, in article fhjxcvid802.a@perch.invalid, "Octavian W. >>>> Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> wrote: >>>> >>>>>>> But in this case, the "earning" would be searching the rooms, and a fear >>>>>>> of trickery would lead to taking the $1000 dollars. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Ah, looking at what you say they are "flawless natural diamonds" -- not >>>>>> sure >>>>>> there is such a thing, and not sure how much it costs to get them cut. I >>>>>> also do not back the diamond industry... but I would likely spend some >>>>>> time >>>>>> looking for them anyway. I assume the value is likely more than the >>>>>> $1000... >>>>>> without doing research I assume a lot more. :) >>>>> >>>>> The diamonds are already cut by masters. And none of them are cursed. >>>> >>>> I make a perception check in the first room. :) >>>> >>> >>> Not allowed. Either take the money or search for the diamonds. >>> >> I am searching... > > Then you have committed to search them all. Or not. Your choice. > Either way, by searching the first room you will have forfeited > the $1000. Well, I make a perception check. What do I find in the first room? >> that is what a perception check is for. You, as the GM in >> this scenario, need to let me know what I find. :) > > Nope. I don't tell you which room the diamonds are in. You have > to do the work. I am. I am going to room one and making a perception check. You are not a very good GM. :) > You can quit at any time if the burden of checking each room becomes too much > for you. But the fact remains that you are guaranteed the payoff by searching > all 700 rooms. Yeah, but this game is going to be slow and boring. -- * OS X / Linux: What is a file? <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI> * Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu: <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE> * Mint KDE working with folders: <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0> * Mint KDE creating files: <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8> * Mint KDE help: <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8> * Mint KDE general navigation: <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI> * Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs? <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA> * Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux: <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk> * OS / Word Processor Comparison: <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-18 18:25 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ghbjc.slfo93@perch.invalid> |
| In reply to | #365940 |
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 8/18/16, 10:35 AM, in article fhjgsod802.gaji@perch.invalid, "Octavian W. > Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> wrote: > >> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>> On 8/18/16, 10:14 AM, in article ghjcb.00amf@perch.invalid, "Octavian W. >>> Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> wrote: >>> >>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>> On 8/18/16, 9:59 AM, in article fhjxcvid802.a@perch.invalid, "Octavian W. >>>>> Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>>> But in this case, the "earning" would be searching the rooms, and a fear >>>>>>>> of trickery would lead to taking the $1000 dollars. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Ah, looking at what you say they are "flawless natural diamonds" -- not >>>>>>> sure >>>>>>> there is such a thing, and not sure how much it costs to get them cut. I >>>>>>> also do not back the diamond industry... but I would likely spend some >>>>>>> time >>>>>>> looking for them anyway. I assume the value is likely more than the >>>>>>> $1000... >>>>>>> without doing research I assume a lot more. :) >>>>>> >>>>>> The diamonds are already cut by masters. And none of them are cursed. >>>>> >>>>> I make a perception check in the first room. :) >>>>> >>>> >>>> Not allowed. Either take the money or search for the diamonds. >>>> >>> I am searching... >> >> Then you have committed to search them all. Or not. Your choice. >> Either way, by searching the first room you will have forfeited >> the $1000. > > Well, I make a perception check. What do I find in the first room? > You tell me. I wasn't with you. >>> that is what a perception check is for. You, as the GM in >>> this scenario, need to let me know what I find. :) >> >> Nope. I don't tell you which room the diamonds are in. You have >> to do the work. > > I am. I am going to room one and making a perception check. You are not a > very good GM. :) What did you find? > >> You can quit at any time if the burden of checking each room becomes too much >> for you. But the fact remains that you are guaranteed the payoff by searching >> all 700 rooms. > > Yeah, but this game is going to be slow and boring. > Not for me. Just me know when you find the diamonds.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-18 11:32 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D3DB4D33.798CF%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #365943 |
On 8/18/16, 11:25 AM, in article ghbjc.slfo93@perch.invalid, "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> wrote: >>> Then you have committed to search them all. Or not. Your choice. >>> Either way, by searching the first room you will have forfeited >>> the $1000. >> >> Well, I make a perception check. What do I find in the first room? > > You tell me. I wasn't with you. I found the gold. Or diamonds. Or whatever. Wow... that was easy! >>>> that is what a perception check is for. You, as the GM in >>>> this scenario, need to let me know what I find. :) >>> >>> Nope. I don't tell you which room the diamonds are in. You have >>> to do the work. >> >> I am. I am going to room one and making a perception check. You are not a >> very good GM. :) > > What did you find? Found the prize. But I turn around and there is a goblin trying to steal my stuff. I shove it in a bag of holding and it suffocates. Whew. >>> You can quit at any time if the burden of checking each room becomes too >>> much >>> for you. But the fact remains that you are guaranteed the payoff by >>> searching >>> all 700 rooms. >> >> Yeah, but this game is going to be slow and boring. > > Not for me. Just me know when you find the diamonds. Found them! -- * OS X / Linux: What is a file? <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI> * Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu: <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE> * Mint KDE working with folders: <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0> * Mint KDE creating files: <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8> * Mint KDE help: <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8> * Mint KDE general navigation: <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI> * Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs? <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA> * Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux: <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk> * OS / Word Processor Comparison: <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-18 18:40 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ahjdfo30.a@perch.invalid> |
| In reply to | #365948 |
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 8/18/16, 11:25 AM, in article ghbjc.slfo93@perch.invalid, "Octavian W. > Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> wrote: > >>>> Then you have committed to search them all. Or not. Your choice. >>>> Either way, by searching the first room you will have forfeited >>>> the $1000. >>> >>> Well, I make a perception check. What do I find in the first room? >> >> You tell me. I wasn't with you. > > I found the gold. Or diamonds. Or whatever. Wow... that was easy! > The 700 choices did not overwhelm you? How did you ever decide on which room to start with?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-18 13:02 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D3DB6275.798F7%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #365951 |
On 8/18/16, 11:40 AM, in article ahjdfo30.a@perch.invalid, "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> wrote: > Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >> On 8/18/16, 11:25 AM, in article ghbjc.slfo93@perch.invalid, "Octavian W. >> Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> wrote: >> >>>>> Then you have committed to search them all. Or not. Your choice. >>>>> Either way, by searching the first room you will have forfeited >>>>> the $1000. >>>> >>>> Well, I make a perception check. What do I find in the first room? >>> >>> You tell me. I wasn't with you. >> >> I found the gold. Or diamonds. Or whatever. Wow... that was easy! > > The 700 choices did not overwhelm you? How did you ever decide > on which room to start with? Started with the closest... if two were equal went to the left. This might change if there were other factors you have not described. I have been treating this as a tabletop role playing exercise because, well, otherwise the whole discussion just got too boring. I have also been running a group of kids (and adults) through some adventures and experimenting with my own system. I started off with a more free-form magic system... where I had a system to determine how much magic cost and they had some they could do and some they could not. They ended up using magic LESS than if they had a set spell set. Yes, in some ways it was more limiting but it pushed creativity to know how to use those tools. This was true for adults and children. Limits and rules help to push creativity and encourage use. Of course, with some things the rules work best when they are interrelated. Look at what people can do with bash - a fairly few number of commands are used frequently, but they are combined in ways that allow a lot of creativity. Hmmm, I should learn bash more and build a spell system off of it. :) -- * OS X / Linux: What is a file? <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI> * Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu: <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE> * Mint KDE working with folders: <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0> * Mint KDE creating files: <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8> * Mint KDE help: <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8> * Mint KDE general navigation: <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI> * Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs? <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA> * Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux: <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk> * OS / Word Processor Comparison: <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-18 13:27 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4b9b5216-651d-4211-a526-3514a45ef8e8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #365972 |
On Thursday, August 18, 2016 at 2:02:53 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: > On 8/18/16, 11:40 AM, in article ahjdfo30.a@perch.invalid, "Octavian W. > Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> wrote: > > > Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > >> On 8/18/16, 11:25 AM, in article ghbjc.slfo93@perch.invalid, "Octavian W. > >> Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> wrote: > >> > >>>>> Then you have committed to search them all. Or not. Your choice. > >>>>> Either way, by searching the first room you will have forfeited > >>>>> the $1000. > >>>> > >>>> Well, I make a perception check. What do I find in the first room? > >>> > >>> You tell me. I wasn't with you. > >> > >> I found the gold. Or diamonds. Or whatever. Wow... that was easy! > > > > The 700 choices did not overwhelm you? How did you ever decide > > on which room to start with? > > Started with the closest... if two were equal went to the left. This might > change if there were other factors you have not described. > > I have been treating this as a tabletop role playing exercise because, well, > otherwise the whole discussion just got too boring. I have also been running > a group of kids (and adults) through some adventures and experimenting with > my own system. I started off with a more free-form magic system... where I > had a system to determine how much magic cost and they had some they could > do and some they could not. > > They ended up using magic LESS than if they had a set spell set. Yes, in > some ways it was more limiting but it pushed creativity to know how to use > those tools. This was true for adults and children. Hmmm... "interesting".. having to work a little harder made them more 'creative'. LOL! > Limits and rules help to push creativity and encourage use. Except when the OS is Linux based, right? (cue up back peddling) > Of course, with > some things the rules work best when they are interrelated. Look at what > people can do with bash - a fairly few number of commands are used > frequently, but they are combined in ways that allow a lot of creativity. > > Hmmm, I should learn bash more and build a spell system off of it. :) No sh*t <eyeroll>.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-18 21:21 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <fhjasdf093.g@perch.invalid> |
| In reply to | #365972 |
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 8/18/16, 11:40 AM, in article ahjdfo30.a@perch.invalid, "Octavian W. > Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> wrote: > >> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>> On 8/18/16, 11:25 AM, in article ghbjc.slfo93@perch.invalid, "Octavian W. >>> Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> wrote: >>> >>>>>> Then you have committed to search them all. Or not. Your choice. >>>>>> Either way, by searching the first room you will have forfeited >>>>>> the $1000. >>>>> >>>>> Well, I make a perception check. What do I find in the first room? >>>> >>>> You tell me. I wasn't with you. >>> >>> I found the gold. Or diamonds. Or whatever. Wow... that was easy! >> >> The 700 choices did not overwhelm you? How did you ever decide >> on which room to start with? > > Started with the closest... Once again, how were you able to choose from among so many choices without being overwhelmed and just giving up?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-18 14:41 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D3DB79A4.7991D%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #365981 |
On 8/18/16, 2:21 PM, in article fhjasdf093.g@perch.invalid, "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> wrote: > Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >> On 8/18/16, 11:40 AM, in article ahjdfo30.a@perch.invalid, "Octavian W. >> Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> wrote: >> >>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>> On 8/18/16, 11:25 AM, in article ghbjc.slfo93@perch.invalid, "Octavian W. >>>> Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> wrote: >>>> >>>>>>> Then you have committed to search them all. Or not. Your choice. >>>>>>> Either way, by searching the first room you will have forfeited >>>>>>> the $1000. >>>>>> >>>>>> Well, I make a perception check. What do I find in the first room? >>>>> >>>>> You tell me. I wasn't with you. >>>> >>>> I found the gold. Or diamonds. Or whatever. Wow... that was easy! >>> >>> The 700 choices did not overwhelm you? How did you ever decide >>> on which room to start with? >> >> Started with the closest... > > Once again, how were you able to choose from among so many choices > without being overwhelmed and just giving up? Again: closest and if equal I went to the one on the left. Then I got really lucky and the very first room I checked had the gold. Why the desire to rehash this? -- * OS X / Linux: What is a file? <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI> * Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu: <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE> * Mint KDE working with folders: <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0> * Mint KDE creating files: <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8> * Mint KDE help: <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8> * Mint KDE general navigation: <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI> * Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs? <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA> * Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux: <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk> * OS / Word Processor Comparison: <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-18 21:54 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <adfhjei9.agt@perch.invalid> |
| In reply to | #365986 |
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 8/18/16, 2:21 PM, in article fhjasdf093.g@perch.invalid, "Octavian W. > Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> wrote: > >> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>> On 8/18/16, 11:40 AM, in article ahjdfo30.a@perch.invalid, "Octavian W. >>> Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> wrote: >>> >>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>> On 8/18/16, 11:25 AM, in article ghbjc.slfo93@perch.invalid, "Octavian W. >>>>> Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>>> Then you have committed to search them all. Or not. Your choice. >>>>>>>> Either way, by searching the first room you will have forfeited >>>>>>>> the $1000. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Well, I make a perception check. What do I find in the first room? >>>>>> >>>>>> You tell me. I wasn't with you. >>>>> >>>>> I found the gold. Or diamonds. Or whatever. Wow... that was easy! >>>> >>>> The 700 choices did not overwhelm you? How did you ever decide >>>> on which room to start with? >>> >>> Started with the closest... >> >> Once again, how were you able to choose from among so many choices >> without being overwhelmed and just giving up? > > Again: closest and if equal I went to the one on the left. Then I got really I don't mean your methodology of picking. I'm asking how did you face so many choices without freaking out? > > lucky and the very first room I checked had the gold. > > Why the desire to rehash this? > Because you keep avoiding the issue of the number of choices. Didn't you have an anxiety attack at the idea of potentially having to go through 700 rooms?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-18 15:28 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D3DB849E.7992F%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #365989 |
On 8/18/16, 2:54 PM, in article adfhjei9.agt@perch.invalid, "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> wrote: ... >>>> Started with the closest... >>> >>> Once again, how were you able to choose from among so many choices >>> without being overwhelmed and just giving up? >> >> Again: closest and if equal I went to the one on the left. Then I got really > > I don't mean your methodology of picking. I'm asking how did you > face so many choices without freaking out? Same way you eat an elephant... one bite at a time. And at some point you might decide enough is enough. Or the elephant meat starts to spoil. :) >> lucky and the very first room I checked had the gold. >> >> Why the desire to rehash this? > > Because you keep avoiding the issue of the number of choices. It could have been one. If could have been one million. The way you set it up it does not matter OTHER than if the number is more than makes it worth it to give up the initial prize. Which, if we want to bring it back to tech, this is not a bad thought. The prize of using Windows or OS X is high... you likely will be productive very quickly. With OS X you likely will be more so but have limits (such as games), with Windows less so but more chance of malware and it is cheaper and you can do niche things you cannot easily do on a Mac. With Linux (looking at the GUI tools most you) you have a bunch of choice with no real prize in sight other than the cost being cheaper. As long as you think the others are worth the cost why even look at Linux (for most users... we are geeks here and there is pleasure in just looking for us). Then when you do look you see one distro... then another.... then another... and you quickly see the pattern: lots of options but not many actual choices in terms of getting tasks done. This is why when we focus on tasks there are not many examples of Linux handling it better. > Didn't you have an anxiety attack at the idea of potentially > having to go through 700 rooms? Hmmm, if this was the real world I might very well... but I do have an autonomic nervous system disorder that leads to panic attacks. :) -- * OS X / Linux: What is a file? <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI> * Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu: <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE> * Mint KDE working with folders: <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0> * Mint KDE creating files: <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8> * Mint KDE help: <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8> * Mint KDE general navigation: <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI> * Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs? <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA> * Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux: <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk> * OS / Word Processor Comparison: <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 … 11 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.advocacy
csiph-web