metadigital

Don't bother, here is how to beat it in 15 minutes (You'll thank me later.)

Hmm, well I don't need a VO to play it. I would like to see the rules standardised, though; I see that more as a deal-breaker than a VO! Right now I can create any card I want, and duplicate a dozen of 'em, stick it in my side deck and play. So, I want a Star * card; which adds 1-10 to my total. And I want a side-deck full of them. The way the AI gets around this is to create "random" card draws, regardless of what has been drawn from the "pack". Who knows what a deck of pazaak cards contains: we've never seen one. How many of each denomination of card is there? Do we cut a specific subsection or random sample out? Etcetra. You'd have to codify these things first, otherwise everybody would be researching new and exciting wildcards for their side deck, like a "SuperStar" ** card that adds 1-19 to the total!

Er, that's about becoming a designer, which sort of a different field. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I see your reading comprehension is high. Yes, it was predominantly about game designers, but there were some good general tips, from a known leader in the industry, specifically giving advice. ... 6. Game development is a very team-oriented process, so we

You're forgetting Mike grew up in Harlem with a lisp and a penchant for pigeon racing ... I am quite convinced he is very familiar with the various disciplines involved in street fighting ...

Sure, no-one is pointing fingers, I was just going back to first principles to help make some progress. Because you haven't even started on the other definitions: what sort of grouping these individuals are reacting too. For example, I am (in case you hadn't noticed) quite supportive of the libertarian model for a society: I think it creates more opportunities and better citizens than an authoritarian civilization, even considering the benefits of specific, well-documented roles. (I would use real-world examples like JiT manufacturing methodology generally, and specifically the Japanese kaizen R&D on processes, as evidence.) Still, the point remains that an "individual" in a libertarian democracy will behave radically differently to one in a repressive autocracy.

Maybe if we start flaming each other?

It's hard enough to keep fit (mind and body), raise a family and enjoy a career. That said, if one manages scarce resources, then efficiency brings benefits. It means having a schedule, and sticking to it, no matter what. Just like going to work from nine till five, have a monthly, fornightly, weekly, bi-weekly social gathering for gaming, for a set period of time (with allowances for running over, say a lack of sleep) and it's possible. (Easy to say, try making that happen with a screaming neo-natal depriving you of sleep, or making three seperate sports day return journeys for each child, or ... you get the idea.)

Advice: Zulus are bad. Kill them at the first, best opportunity, do not wait.

Yes, Steve, journalists are reknowned for their rectitude and numeracy.

Well, I would be mindful of confusing individualism with contrariness. That is just as much a prison as being a drone in a hive: always making the opposite decision, because of what society demands. That isn't individualism, either. Even an individual, determined to be isolationist, must interact with the environment: choosing no interaction is a choice, and an interaction (the null hypothesis :D ). Your distinction between absolute and relative individualism presents an interesting inconsistency (more to do with the semantics of the language we use to describe philosophical concepts, rather than the concepts themselves). I would suggest using different words, if the semantics become problematic. What do you mean by individual? Contrary, anarchistic, selfish, egocentric? I think it comes down to the intention behind an individual's actions. If the individual is not acting on their own impetus, for their own agenda (whether that is short-, medium- or long-term), then they are not acting in the spirit of individualism, surrendering to the hive mentatlity.

Steve, I know it can be a good representative sample space (I did statistics at University, and received a high distinction for it); however, I am constantly amazed how statistics are flourished without any of the necessary context. E.g. degrees of freedom, chi-square distribution, null hypothesis, variance, median, mode, entropy, etc, etc, etcetra. How were these 2000 chosen? Did they pick 2000 kindergarten children, or their teachers, or everyone walking out of the JFK aerodrome on a Friday night? What?

And little girls into their mothers, looking to marry their fathers ...

Ha ha! Here's todays winner for the most egregious extrapoloation quoted in the popular press: Sunday Times, 10 Jul 2005: ... Almost two thirds of Americans don't know their national anthem. In a recent survey of 2000 people, 61% admitted they didn't know all the words to "The Star Spangled Banner" ... 2000 is a representative sample of 300 million? How were these 2000 chosen? Etc, etc.

Just a bit of advice on the exercise: the body initially reacts in a contra-indicated manner (meaning: it rebels at the extra work), so you will need some time to teach it that this new regime is in fact the real state, and that all the previous lack of movement was the unnormal state. Give it two weeks, and the second week will be worse than the first few days, as you hit the bottom of your reserves and have to fight to keep up. After that, it's all gravy (metaphorically speaking, of course): you'll look different in the mirror, and you'll get some energy back; you won't need to sleep as long at night, and you'll sleep more efficiently. All good news.

Ooo! 1. Overwelming evidence? I always thought it was accepted wisdom that there is a) no way to untangle the two correlatorily and causally, and b) enough evidence to suggest the reasonable conclusion that both play a significant part. (Just curious, I wouldn't want to mess up your, obviously efficient, filing system ... ) 2. This sounds fascinating ... what dormant genetic traits are were talking about ...

... More of a textbook or manual.

Throw knifes at people. The ones that don't move are perfect.

I wanna be able to convert random creatures into Force Sensitives, sorta like Spock did in that episode where he mind-melded with a mother rock and her baby pebbles, except not.

I tell you you'll all see my point of view sooner or later: compulsory, mandatory reversible (upon satisfying certain criteria) sterilisation at birth, for everyone. It's the only safe way.

That's just the nature of negotiations (and some *cough* *cough* players disorganised styles). Nothing ever seems to be negotiated until the last possible moments, whether it is purchasing a car or reducing SALT missiles.

Works for me. Who cares about graphics, sound and story as long as there's hot lesbian action. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> "

Ah, but during wartime, science should explode! Especially if you conquer a scientific race, like the Germans (so you can steal all their scientists and make improvements on their V2, atom bomb and flying saucer designs to make ICBMs, plutonium fussion bombs ignited by fission and ... er ... SF tv shows).

Personally, I am more comfortable with the notion of perfect free will. Viz., every action can be taken by every actor (on the great stage of life, boom! boom!), and to encompass this, there is an infinite multiverse, where each and every choice made is manifest.

It's all just a Darwinian hangover of the pre-homo sapiens sapiens survival instinct. Seriously, though, you ask why basic interaction is fundamental to our humanness (and possibly even more fundamental than that: perhaps it is hardwired into every organism, from the cyanobacteria to the hive). Perhaps it is an unwritten assumption that the many can do better than the few. Who knows, maybe the sociopaths have got it right

But isn't individualism the opposition to all forms of control, of authority, over the individual? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I wouldn't think so, that's just being obstreperous for the sake of it. I.e., it is quite possible, surely, for a bunch of individuals to agree on a (presumably mutually beneficial) scenario, otherwise you aren't talking about individualism, you're talking about chaotic anarchism. Sure, but are you consciously making a choice? What you seem to be doing is disenfranchising yourself, unnecessarily; it is quite okay to do something that is not beneficial in the short term (or even penalises one) for a long-term benefit. That's what intelligence is for, deciding what is better in the long term, even it it appears to be counter-intuitive at first sight. Otherwise, without intelligence, long-term advantage would need to be hardwired and may not adapt to new circumstances. Again, you seem to be arguing a sort of anarchism, not individualism. I am very happy with my individualism, I consciously choose every action I take (whether it is to pay for a train ticket instead of stealing a ride, or helping someone in the street). It is a self-esteem perpective: I may be choosing between two bad options, but I am choosing. Even if given an extorionate choice, I can still choose the "wrong" option, should I so wish to exercise my individuality. In theory mankind can also build societies which will always support and promote people's growth in a positive way, and this would ultimately be something like an utopia. But isn't this a double edged sword? Determining what is best for someone or something may not be necessarily the best. A society could allow humans to grow unmolested by radical environment, viruses, the chaos that would likely come from lack of structured, ruling hierarchy, etc.; and mankind could grow prosper and safe, but this would cost placing control in others' hands rather than our own. Note that I'm not arguing that absolute individualism is better than the positive aspects a given society can bring. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Again, this is a Hobbesian observation of the "jungle out there", or indeed the conclusion to Eric Blair's 1984.