Enoch

Tom Waits - The One that Got Away. I love it, if just for the turn of phrase: "I lost my equilibrium, and my car keys, and my pride."

You might do better to take a public speaking class. Most community colleges in the U.S. offer them occasionally. Live feedback from listeners has got to be more effective than just reading about it in a book.

Rahsaan Roland Kirk - Mystical Dreams I'm revisiting this album (Rip, Rig and Panic) after not having listened to it in a few months. Jaki Byard's piano playing is impressing me more than I remember.

Sadly, I've been reading nothing but the BAR/BRI Conviser Mini-Review lately. Studying for the Bar Exam sucks. Why is it that one has to memorize volumes of stuff for the bar, when, in most situations, it borders on malpractice for a lawyer not to look everything up compulsively to double-check his/her recollection?

Sonny Rollins - Pent-Up House

Cold, leftover teriyaki-lime pork on a wheat bun.

Was that Northish or Southish? I need to get to the beach again soon... ..and Hades, if I can post a fugly pic of me on the couch, you can post one. Didn't you post one on the old Frappr? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Long Beach, CA. Was visiting girlfriend's family, who live in Lakewood.

My first visit to the Pacific last year:

Egg Salad Sammich. Egg salad is one of those items where the flavor difference between fancy salt (Kosher or Seasalt) and plain ol' NaCl is dramatically apparant.

Eric Dolphy accomplishes the rare feat of making me wish I could play the Bass Clarinet (as well as the less rare feat of making me wish that I practiced my saxophone more). Beatles: I Want You (She's So Heavy) Possibly the greatest song with a parentheses in the title ever.

Beatles: You Never Give Me Your Money. Abbey Road is cool.

Because that would cause the AD&D advocates' heads to explode. Practicality cedes to tradition here: stats have been a 3d6 since the dawn of Gygax. Also, a mix of positive and negative stats looks weird.

This statement is true. while i disagree with your assertion that this is a true statement, i agree with this: why do i disagree with the first assertion? because "all the arguments that delay progress in a democratic political system" are not necessarily tied to political ideology. your assertion that this is the case presumes that everyone following one ideology does so blindly. i.e. you are assuming people really are sheep and if the party votes one way, everyone agrees and their votes follow lock-step. political infighting is not uncommon. not all democrats agree with the party line, and the same goes for republicans (US system). however, it could probably then be said that a true, one-party system is not possible and the result of political differences within a given party is what gives rise to the multi-party system. i picked strongly disagree with this, but i first selected strongly agree for your very reasoning. the problem, i felt, was that having one party does not solve the basic drive behind ideology in the first place: human will. in the end, everyone looks out for themselves to one extent or another. what is good for joe schmoe, may not be good for suzy normal. even if they have the same fundamental beliefs, they will disagree on many of the details (which may not seem to be details to an outsider). heck, they may even disagree on what is important and not important. this disagreement alone will impede progress in the sense that the question is asking. i think a corollary to what i'm saying is that in the end, heterogeneous ideology, down to the nitty gritty details, cannot exist. as a result, the question itself is flawed. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> That's a fair interpretation, I suppose. When I read "one-party system," I thought of Fascist and Socialist governments where the decision making was done entirely by elites. It seems that you're reading the term more broadly to include democratic systems that happen to be dominated by one party (such as modern Japan). True, but that doesn't mean the speed in the lawmaking process can never be a virtue. As long as there are some cirumstances where it is advantages to act without delay, a system with fewer checks and less opportunity for debate does have an advantage. (For the record, I agree that, on the whole, a more deliberative process is preferable. The offsetting disadvantages you cite by far outweigh the speed factor.)

It really depends on what you want to do with it. Will the emphasis be on interpersonal relations, or kicking ass and taking names? Do you want strong stealth options? Lots of different sciency skills? As a general template, I'd go with: Strength Endurance: Better name than the D&D "Constitution." Also, consider combining this with Strength into a general "Athleticism" stat if brute force melee combat isn't going to be a strong option. Reflexes: Sorta like Dexterity/Agility, but more precise. Should govern involuntary actions only. Deliberate action (like lockpicking, # of APs in combat) is better thought of under the rubric of skills. Concentration: Captures some of what's in SPECIAL's Perception (noticing things) and D&D's Wisdom (patience, study skills, etc.). Would also have a strong influence on ranged combat skills. Empathy: A general measure of interpersonal relations. I like the name better than "Charisma," which I think works better as a skill. Highly empathic persons aren't necessarily charismatic, but they can usually learn it. If the game is going to be particularly talky, you might add a separate category for physical beauty. Intelligence: I hate it, but you probably need some kind of barometer of general academic capacity, memory, and the like.

Is this because he named you "Sue?"

... and now the other one (because I'm avoiding work): For sheer laughs, I liked the "famous people" filter. Apparantly, I am the political average of Robert Redford, Bono, M.L.K. jr., and Adam Sandler (??!).

One of the later Megaman games (I think it was #4, but it could have been #6) has a "Gravtiy Man" level that featured frequent gravity reversals. I was quite disappointed that the power you get when defeating Gravity Man did not, in fact, let you reverse gravity at will. (Yes, I know that would destroy the level design of the rest of the game, but it would've been so cool!)

Your political compass Economic Left/Right: -0.63 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.59 As for the quiz overall, I'm not a big fan of the phrasing of the questions. For example: This statement is true. Anyone who understands anything about political theory should 'Strongly Agree' with this sentiment. Of course, that's not what they're really trying to ask. They really want to know how "significant" and worthwhile you think this advantage is. Most people probably do answer the question in this light, but when designing a survey, you never want to trust that your audience will correct your mistakes for you.

Am I the only oddball who liked Zelda 2 better than the first one? (Except for the ending. The road up Death Mountain was sadistically difficult.)

Do you actually enjoy reading them? In my experience, 98% of the 'funnies' in American newspapers are no longer funny once you reach the age of 11. (Exceptions: Doonesbury and Zippy the Pinhead)

I know-- I was agreeing with you. Sorry if it was a bit confusing; I suppose I should've quoted the original post instead of yours.

There are a lot of black players and fans. So maybe you sould actually know something about a topic before you post in it. I don't care too much though, if you want to look like a moron, fo right ahead. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> The only people I know who've played rugby are, in fact, rich white kids who picked the game up at elite northeastern universities. Soccer in America is generally the province of Latin American immigrants and the aforementioned rich white kids, too. But that's entirely beside the point. Assuming that the thread is referring to both sports, I'm a New York Giants fan.

Clique-ish behavior is too engrained in human nature. There would still be social elites and social outcasts, it would just be based on something other than beauty.

Exactly. Computer equipment makes the list of things that go in your car, not the moving van.

How to make good pot roast (no pot required): Take a 2 lb. Chuck Roast. Rub it with a mix of kosher salt, cumin, and ground mustard seed. Get a pan (preferrably cast-iron) ridiculously hot. Brown the roast on both sides (2-3 minutes each. This will make a lot of smoke, so crack a window). Do not clean the pan (yet). Put roast aside. Dice up an onion, a carrot or 2, and a couple cloves of garlic. Reduce heat on the pan to med-high. Add some oil and cook the veggies. Once the onions are nice and soft, turn the heat all the way up and add half a cup of red wine. (Can replace with stock, juice, or any tasty liquid.) Add a handful of raisins and simmer until the liquid is almost gone. Remove from heat. Get 2 big sheets of heavy-duty aluminum foil. Put half the sauce down in it, then the roast, and then the rest of the sauce. Double-wrap this and put it on a baking sheet. Cook in an oven set somewhere in the 175-200 area (farenheit) for 3.5 hours. Then take it out and let it rest for another half hour. Cut off a corner of the foil to drain the juices into a measuring cup (you can use them as gravy as-is, or add something to thicken if you prefer), then crack it all open and enjoy (the raisins are the best part). And I will shortly be eating a peanut butter and jelly sandwich. On toast.