[QUOTE="shoeman12"]i don't think that will ever happen but i do think the tax should be raised more so its $10 a pack. less people will smoke then. raise the tax more every year till no one can afford to smoke.MrGeezer

They'll just start growing their own, same way they grow their own weed.

The government gets no taxation income from weed. If someonetried to builda large illegal tobacco operation without all that tax, the government would squash it flat in no time.

Sorry fellows, been busy at work! Obviously I needed to word it better, as some people have made some assumptions... as well as some quite funny answers :)

If you are going to shoot someone, the logical answer is to go for the 100% guy. If you go for the 60% guy and hit him, you have guaranteed your death, as the only target left for the 100% is you, and he doesn't miss. If you go for the 100% guy and kill him, then there is only a 60% that the other guy will kill you on his turn.

However, if you miss (whoever you aimed at), the 60% guy now has his turn, and has two targets. If he shoots someone, he is going to have to go for the 100% guy; if he kills you, he has guaranteed his death.

If it gets around to the last guys turn and no-one is down, he has two targets. He will take out the 60% guy, the guy most likely to kill him if he gets another turn.

So the answer is... you fire your first bolt into the ground. The60% guy then really has no choice but to attempt to take out the 100% guy, because he knows he will be that guys first target if he chooses to skip his turn, as the 100% guy gets no benefit if he skips his own turn. If he kills the 100% guy, you get first go in the slinging match between you and 60% guy. If he misses, 100% guy kills 60% guy, and you at least have one shot at him before he kills you.

You still don't have a good chance at survival, but it is your best chance.

Damn mypoorly worded problem. Sorry, you each have a crossbow! Otherwise breaking the crossbow would be a good answer. For further clarity, you can move your body, just not move from the spot you are standing :)

I will come back and give the full answer in a couple of hours, I don't have the time at the moment!

I recalled this puzzle I was presented with once at a show, and thought it was interesting enough to share.

You and two other men have a crossbow. You are standing equal distances apart to form a triangle. No-one is allowed to move, and each of you will take it in turns to fire.
You have never held a crossbow before. Your chance to hit one of the other people is 30%.
The second person has briefly used a crossbow, and has a 60% chance of hitting whoever he aims at.
The third person has mastered the crossbow. At this range and his target not allowed to move, he will hit 100%. If he aims at you, you are dead.

The order of firing is you, the person with 60% accuracy, then the person with 100% accuracy, until one person is standing.

You get to go first; WHAT DO YOU DO?

Banning them outright will lose governments swathes of taxation income. I can only quote what I know about Australia, but I guess things will be similar in America. In Australia, 72% (or something close to that) of the retail price of smokes is taxation, and earnrs the government around6 billion dollars a year. If they banned them, they would have to get that money elsewhere, by increasing general tax rates or implementing other charges.

At the moment, the tax on cigarettes goes up with CPI (an inflation index). I think they should set out a plan to increase the taxes further, adding 20% a year or something. The idea is that some people will quit because the smokes are getting too expensive, but the ones who keep smoking are picking up the tax slack. Less people smoking means healthier people (potentially at least). There are still problems here though; I see some people in low socio-economic brackets who could live a lot better (and care for their kids better) if they didn't smoke, and things will get worse for these people who put their addiction before their families.

I thought about the fact that there are a number of games released this year that are supposed to be excellent titles that I still haven't played yet; Call of Duty 4, Bioshock, Super Paper Mario, Assassin's Creed. I was complaining that I don't have enough time to play them all, but having that many quality games is a good problem to have. It almost guarantees that any time I spend playing games is going to be quality.

As to why people don't finish games, I think it's because you lose the intensity to play after some hours. I've been sitting on a blog about it, because I'm not happy with it, but I'll try and lay it out. The first few hours, your intensity or desire to play the game might be 10 out of 10. Halfway through, maybe it's 8. And you might have another game that you think is going to provide you that 10 out of 10 'thrill', at least for the first few hours, so you might pick that up instead. It's usually the first few hours of a game that are the most enjoyable; that's where the thrill of discovering the games mechanics is.

Here's a cut and paste froma blog I wrote a while ago aboutperipherals.

Body Suit

Next generation or the one after, I see this as definitely being viable as a control method, at least from a technological standpoint. We see these currently used for motion capture. Why not use them realtime instead?. This could really let you do anything (given that developers make good with utilising the control method in their games of course) and make immersion go through the roof. Participate in some athletic events like javelin or discus with your friends or online. Take boxing games to a new level. Actually roam around the 'sandbox' world you are in. Bad guy in your face? Punch, kick or even headbutt that guy out of the park!

Pros :
Immersion. Immersion. Immersion.
Potentially different colours or schemes. Suit up as your favourite mascot!
Force feedback could be included in various areas in the suit for more pinpoint feedback.

Cons :
You actually have to suit up before you play.
You may look rather silly wearing the suit if you have visitors.
They would need to be available in different sizes. This might mean that one suit will not be able to be used by multiple players in one household.
There will of course be multiple sensors in the suit. One broken sensor may ruin your game experience and require (probably costly) repair.
There are likely to be negative implications applied to software that uses this 'controller' to perform actions that replicate illegal or immoral acts in real life.
This control scheme may not suit some existing genres of games.

As I said in the first line, from a technological standpoint, in several years I think it will be a feasible control scheme. However, I think there are too many negatives to make anyone take the risk. But who knows, we got the Wii.