alanschu

That actually made me laugh out loud. That picture you showed looks nice. Me likey strategy games.

AAR = After Action Report. As long as people find it interesting I'll keep it up. I've slowed down a bit on the updates, but I'll have a bit more time to play in the next couple of days.

Just curious, are people still reading (and more importantly enjoying) the AAR?

It is hard being alanschu. Fortunately I have years of experience. I may or may not (but probably will) investigate these at one time or another.

That's pretty much exactly the same way I felt about Shadowgrounds. I really enjoyed the demo, and I considered buying it. Then I realized that I had enjoyed the demo for what it was, and didn't really feel a huge desire to play much further. I'll have to give this AS2 demo a whirl then.

Remember what happened last time a few states tried to seceed? The US is like a mafia family. As Tony Soprano would say "once you come into the family, there is no gettin' out". <{POST_SNAPBACK}> cept that california is currently the worlds fourth largest economy on its own. And all the eastern states would no longer have easy access to far east companies. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Yes they would. It'd be a bit more costly, but both the Suez Canal and the Panama Canal were created for a reason.

Hey, sometimes it's not who did it better, but rather who did it first. I strongly suggest dropping the Alien game, since it's like, doomed and all that now.

PC Gamer said so.

I'm not sure what you mean here when you use the word robust. I can't make sense of this. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I think you understand the context in which it is being offered. In other words, yes, the AI is trying to win using strategies that are comparable to your own but is also playing based on a "personality" that does not also go for the bottom-line mathematical advantage. If it is not playing "robust", then I simply mean it is going through the motions but not really trying to win (i.e. the easy mode). <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Actually I didn't. I thought you were talking about how it would never play a "robust game with dairy farms" as in, it never use a robust dairy farm strategy.

I will use a silencer. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Not really sure how you silence and explosion.

Why specifically those values? Why 5%, and 15%?

Only if you exclude that evil right-wing corporations, that likely vote conservative since it's the most business friendly, often pony up the billions of dollars to do this research.

I did look it up. 36% of the vote went to Conservatives, 30% went to Liberals. You can accuse CBC of being Liberal lapdogs all you want, but they weren't reporting inaccurate results from the election. Who cares if they didn't win a seat in Alberta. People still voted for them. And no, it wasn't just eastern transplants. As for the rest of Canada saying "no," check this out. Number of Liberal Seats in Newfoundland: 4 Number of Liberal Seats in PEI: 4 Number of Liberal Seats in Nova Scotia: 6 Number of Liberal Seats in New Brunswick: 6 Number of Liberal Seats in Manitoba: 1 Number of Liberal Seats in Saskatchewan: 2 Yukon and Nunavit also have Liberal representation. The fact that they have zero seats is a fault of the First Past the Post Representative Democracy. It doesn't mean that there's zero support for the Liberal Party in Alberta. The Conservatives had SIX percent more votes. Sorry, but the Conservatives weren't even "clearly" the the choice of the majority of Canadians. Do you even know what the word "Majority" means? It means 50%+1. The Conservatives had 36% of the popular vote. The Liberals were just behind them with 30%. I'd like to see some proof that the constituencies laid out across Canada are not created based on population please. I have studied politics. It's clear you don't understand it, based on your incorrect assessment of communism. Get me a link. Are you referring to Ipsos-Reid? Find me an article. Until then, you're just making stuff up in an attempt to prove your point. From 1957 to 1964, Alberta received Equalization Payments. You accuse me of ignorance? Every province contributes money via taxes and whatnot, that go into the Equalization fund. There's no such thing as "paying" the Equalization Fund, because the Government spreads out tax revenues that we'll all pay regardless. If a province receives ZERO money back, then by default they have paid. In fact, even if a province gets some money back, it doesn't mean they received a net gain. If $2 billion of a provinces tax dollars end up going into the Equalization pool, and that province receives back $1 billion, they technically have still "paid" into the Equalization pool. Furthermore, Ontario still typically pays more real dollars (simply because they have an insanely tax base compared to Canada). Alberta pays more per capita. Because Alberta is lucky and lives on Oil. Where'd you get these numbers by the way? Your ass doesn't count. If you want educated people, then that is a knock against Alberta. Because much of Alberta's wealth is because people opt to get into the Energy industry and skip out on little things like school. Besides, employment rate and education rate don't really have a strong correlation. QUOTE: again I get my numbers from stats canada, I figure ill just goto the SOURCE rather then some 3rd party partisan hack job site. Then where did you find it? Post a link with your numbers. If you're going to be stupid and pick and choose what sources you want (including ignoring Finance Canada), you better damn well start citing your information. You can't just ignore something because you disagree with it. Accuse places like the CBC for being Liberal Lapdogs you want, but they aren't going to post INCORRECT ELECTION RESULTS you obtuse twit. If the numbers presented by CBCs election results page are wrong, show us the right ones. At least it will serve to validate your claim that CBC is a bunch of evil, misleading fearmongers. QUOTE: Its exactly a issue of electorial seats. Give albertians a fair and proper number of seats so their vote impacts the direction of Canada and they would stop complaining, plain and simple. They DO! It's based on POPULATION you twit. You claim to studied politics, but have demonstrated zero comprehension of a Parliamentary Democracy. How many seats should they get then? Alberta has 10% of the population, and receives 9% of the seats. Not quite perfect, but pretty close. Ontario has 39% of the population, and has 34% of the seats in the House of Commons. Now my population numbers are based on 2005 population numbers, but the 2006 election was early 2006, so I doubt there's HUGE changes in any of the population numbers. Quebec has 24% of the population, and has 25% of the seats in the House of Commons. I'm not really seeing this huge injustice. Would you like me to go through all of the provinces? Here's the population information I had. It's even from a source you like!!! http://www40.statcan.ca/l01/cst01/demo02.htm QUOTE: And the power arguement is funny, so dont give votes based on power, how about just REALISTICALLY updating the population numbers and asigning seats based on that. That alone would strip the unbalanced power from the East. Prove that they're horribly inaccurate. Constituency borders were redrawn at least as early as 1996. Given that the number of elected representatives went from 301 to 308 in the most recent election, there HAS to have been restructuring of the set up of constituencies.

I wasn't voting against what I believe in. The Conservatives are more in line with what I prefer fiscally. I'm a right-wing economist. The Liberal Party was shown to be misappropriating tax dollars for their own use. Furthermore, they were in power for 13 years, it was time for a change. I also do not feel that the New Democratic Party have a plan that is economically sustainable, and would be devastating to the country. Social issues like Gay Marriage and so on are much, much easier to influence than economic policy when dealing with your member of Parliament. It was interesting, because I had a chance to meet Laurie Hawn (my MP) and talk with him about things that I value from a social aspect.

Your PSU is going to create a current through your case regardless, so I doubt it makes much of an impact with dust.

Would that actually make sense? I'd think firing off an explosive projectile should set off some red flags.

That's not true. You don't know why everyone voted they way that they did. Canadians may have voted for a "socially left of center party," but that doesn't mean that they voted for that party because they were socially left of center. I am socially left of center as well, but I voted Conservative. You can't make your conclusion without knowing why people voted the way that they did. The NDP also do well in the Maritimes.

Deus Ex wanted the option for being sneaky, but still wanted the option of not being sneaky to be perfectly viable.

Guard Dog, the bulk of the votes typically go between the two major Political Parties, the Conservatives, and the Liberals.

Why? Welcome to politics I guess. The issue I had way back in the day is that you seemed to target specifically the Conservative Party for this (in addition to comments such as how surprised you were that things didn't go down the crapper shortly after the Conservatives made it to power). Who's to say you won't get something for it? Is it better to spend more on social spending when the economy is strong (and therefore needs the government assistance less?) and spend less when the economy is weak (and therefore demand for the social services increases)? Economies can shift, and if something happens that results in a downward economic trend, then spending can remain static (and not get cut further), or even increase (depending on how much you follow Keynes' economic theory) with less real penalty incurred on the government coffers.

The only thing I can think of is that design feels that it becomes too unforgiving. Either that or there is some other issue that I'm not familiar with that makes keeping them in the alerted state problematic.

Apology Accepted, Captain Needa.

Uh, that doesn't mean they voted left. And it's not unusual either. It is exceptionally rare for a party to have a majority fo the vote. The Liberal majorities recently haven't been much better, often receiving around 40% of the vote. In the 2004 Election, the Liberal Party received approximately 37% of the popular vote. In 2000, the Liberal Party only received 40.8% of the popular vote, and in 1997, they received 38% of the votes. Were you up in arms because of these results? What are these reasonable outcomes? And does it make sense to spend the money just because we have it? Kalfear asked specifically about theft. Your examples do not indicate anything about theft.

Sorry. I was using it in a way that is common in Computer Science. I was stating that the ruleset IS the abstraction here. Looking now your comment did seem to think that I was talking about abstracting something out of the ruleset. This is likely where things got confused between us. As long as it's all sorted out now. It sort of reminds me of the arguments my roommate and I have, where we realize we're both arguing the same thing, just from different perspectives or because of a miscommunication.

Lets not exaggerate too much. The Conservatives only beat the Liberal party by 6% of the vote. And given that the Liberals did in fact win seats in the prairies, demonstrates that it is in fact an exaggeration that the only votes the Liberals got votes in Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver. Even in super conservative Alberta, 15% of the people still voted for the Liberal Party. They also won the majority of the seats in the Atlantic. Which isn't actually that bad, given that the Conservatives only won by a small margin. I wouldn't call that messed up. The House of Commons is not a regional legislature. It holds the Members of Parliament that represent the people. The regional representation is done by the Senate, and that's where things are insanely screwed up. Uh, I wouldn't say that. Especially since you apparently feel they are "communist." The NDP Party focuses TOO much on the people. So much so that, as you mentioned, they don't have a fiscal policy to make it work. That would be me. And what poll is this? And those statements are political positioning. It's a threat in order to get something done. If Alberta was so pissed off about the political mistreatment from Ottawa, they would have left back when Trudeau implemented the National Energy Program. The "mistreatment" is easy street compared to then. You know what, I have no problem with this. Alberta was lucky enough to live on Oil. The thing is, the ONLY province to never receive money in transfer payments, is Ontario. There was a time that Alberta was receiving money from Ottawa. Furthermore, I do not feel that economic strength should garner significantly more political power. Otherwise, provinces that are typically poorer such as the Maritimes have their voting power marginalized. Furtheremore, where do you get your numbers for transfer contributions? The official site only talks about who receives what. I can't find who contributes what exactly, since it's based on an amalgamation of all sorts of taxes and so on. This is not an issue of electoral seats. As I said, the House of Commons is a Represenation by Population legislature. This should not change. Granting Alberta more power simply because the province makes money is effectively purchasing the power. It gives additional power to the wealthy, which is exactly how the democratic process should NOT be. I am not in favour of giving Alberta more power in the House of Commons simply because of oil and the wealth it provides.