Here's a thread for riddles, I guess, because maybe this game might last a while.
So I'll start things off with a classic. I'll just quote it.
Quote:A group of people with assorted eye colors live on an island. They are all perfect logicians -- if a conclusion can be logically deduced, they will do it instantly. No one knows the color of their eyes. Every night at midnight, a ferry stops at the island. If anyone has figured out the color of their own eyes, they [must] leave the island that midnight. Everyone can see everyone else at all times and keeps a count of the number of people they see with each eye color (excluding themselves), but they cannot otherwise communicate. Everyone on the island knows all the rules in this paragraph.
On this island there are 100 blue-eyed people, 100 brown-eyed people, and the Guru (she happens to have green eyes). So any given blue-eyed person can see 100 people with brown eyes and 99 people with blue eyes (and one with green), but that does not tell him his own eye color; as far as he knows the totlas could be 101 brown and 99 blue. Or 100 brown, 99 blue, and he could have red eyes.
The Guru is allowed to speak once (let's say at noon), on one day in all their endless years on the island. Standing before the islanders, she says the following:
"I can see someone who has blue eyes."
Who leaves the island, and on what night?
There are no mirrors or reflecting surfaces, nothing dumb, It is not a trick question, and the answer is logical. It doesn't depend on tricky wording or anyone lying or guessing, and it doesn't involve people doing something silly like creating a sign language or doing genetics. The Guru is not making eye contact with anyone in particular; she's simply saying "I count at least one blue-eyed person on this island who isn't me."
And lastly, the answer is not "no one leaves."
I've done my best to make the wording as precise and unambiguious as possible (after working through the explanation with many people), but if you're confused about anything, please let me know. A word of warning: The answer is not simple. This is an exercise in serious logic, not a lateral thinking riddle.
Let me add one detail to avoid any possibility of this being a lateral thinking puzzle. Nothing in there says anything about when they have to answer it. In other words, it could take days.
Okay you should have a breakdown of this. Basically a "martial artist" with a whole dojo full of students he trains in mystical "chi" energy said he could beat any normally trained (as in, they defeat you using punches and kicks and stuff instead of chi) martial arts expert. Someone took him up on it, and well, the results speak for themselves. Note that beforehand you'll need to endure some painful pretend martial arts where all his students get flung around by his magic. Ah the power of delusion... Sure would have been nice if he could perhaps levitate someone or have done anything to them that isn't adequately explained by them just willingly dancing themselves.
Stuff like this is funny to me, but the sad fact is he'll make up excuses just like everyone who has to face such brutal reality about their super powers.
So IGN has this list up of hardest games. I'll give them most of the titles on that list as I've played the majority of them.
Then they go and put Megaman on there. Now, if they put any entry from the Zero series in there, or the later X games (like 5 on), I'd have their back. They put the FIRST one in there though.
Yes, it didn't have save points, but hard? Perhaps, but nothing nearly approaching the level of those other games. Megaman actually got EASIER from there for a while. The first X game was noted as being almost offensively easy in fact. Megaman is an interesting series mainly because in the current era, they seem to have substituted ridiculous difficulty for innovation. The current Megaman games are way harder than the old ones.
What should they have put in there? Well, I for one submit that Super Mario Bros the Lost Levels (Japan's SMB2) would be a great contender. That game was HARD.
Jeux-France as translated by Google Wrote:Sony Computer Entertainment organized as envisaged a launching at midnight of PlayStation 3 on a boat which accosted with the foot of the Eiffel Tower in Paris, with a thousand of machines available to the sale. The event unfortunately attracted only one score of people on the quay, and 4 to 5 people maximum on the other event organized simultaneously with Fnac of the Élysées Fields in Paris. One will note the unexpected presence and rather amusing of Microsoft come him also with his boat Xbox 360!
Although they haven't released the details yet , Some theorize that John Connor is going to have sex with Kyle Reese Mom ,Within time Kyle Reese will grow and be sent back in time to Shag Sarah Connor and in the process make John Connor his own self inbred Grand father.
I think T4 will follow the other films practice of aging Connor as the years go by , T1 Connor was a Zygote, T2 he was a young boy , T3 he was a young man, Albeit In T4 he will probably be older man which gives the possibility of a different actor then nick Stahl or Edward furlong. Who should be the older John Connor?
So I hear in the news, because this is apparently important, that Captain America is dead. Wow, that's a twist. Civil War and everything huh? Neato. Then, a few days ago, I hear that he's going to "get better" because people who actually read further in that comic say there's something about him recovering "in secret".
You see people, THIS is why no one takes comics seriously. They have these valuable intellectual properties and are totally convinced they can't make money without them (which may be true, but then again...) so they never actually kill any of these guys off! Even the bad guys are kept around, and they often just "let them go" at the end of some battle, even if the bad guy just KILLED A 3RD OF THE PLANET, because killing them "would make me no better than that guy", or some idiotic philosophy like that, and well philosophy is all well and good but you know that they are coming back to kill again and wouldn't you say it's wrong to allow those future deaths just to maintain some childish sense of super hero innocense? Look, either you grow up and don't worry about marketting, or you stop complaining when people say comic books can't be taken seriously as good narrative. Now, I've actually seen some interesting comics, some weird Japanese black and white affairs my friends have, which do something the big publishers would never consider doing. They END! They actually have an overarching plot that sees the characters wandering into the sunset and people actually die or retire FOREVER, major changes happen! Stuff! None of this eternal "lessons learned" then forgotten INSTANTLY as everything returns to the status quo.
You want to kill off a hero or villian? Do it, and don't bring them back! If you want to get me to ever actually read your comics, here's a thought. Try something NEW! Slowly retire your old heroes, one by one, as major changes happen, and bring brand new stuff into your worlds! I mean, HOW old is Batman at this point? Am I to believe this geriatric is still fighting crime? Bring in a new guy, like in Batman Beyond. They had a good idea there. In fact, go beyond THAT. I'm sick of the "universes" of heroes. Entire storylines that are so convoluted that they really can't do very much at all anyway. How about retiring the whole darned universe at some date in the future, and then creating brand new property after property, planning out a storyline, and retiring those in good time. I might see a constant supply of heroes going in and out on the shelves in stores, instead of "oh, look who's being dramatically wreslted to the ground by Superman this time".
What I'm saying is this. There's a reason no one cares about comic books. Kill off your old characters and start doing something new!
We have lots of technology to deal with the waste now that we didn't have before, including, for example, recycling the waste material into usable fuel again and transmuting the material into something safe. 3 mile island was safely contained. Chernobyl used methods no longer in use. Leaks aren't really a concern any more. I personally would have no problem with having one in my backyard, as they are run safely and more cleanly than coal plants. Further, the fuel is relatively plentiful and doesn't polute.
Why aren't we using nuclear power to solve our energy and polution problem? I mean it's not perfect, there's the cost of building it and it won't solve the problem of vehicle fuel needs, but it's a major step.
Fact is, there's environmentalism guided by science, and environmentalism guided by some love of the "earth mother" fueled by nothing but emotion. This whole problem with nuclear energy, at this point, can be relegated to hairy hippies who don't know what they are talking about.
