…meanwhile over at vance's house...

@dinosaur:

Yea, I remember those days too.  The best game out there was a text based Star Trek game called Space Wars because of possible copyright infringement.  It took about one minute to make a single move or fire a torpeedo.  If you warped into a sector with more than two Klingon ships, you’d better use phasers and knock them out in a single salvo or you may not get a second chance.

We had that game on our high school PDP-8 computer.  The key was to do a scan of the entire universe so you knew where the klingon’s were.  We had a grid made the represented that universive size, and could determine the number of units to warp to each occupied space.  Also used photon torpedos to pick off individual klingon ships instead of phasers that used lots of power.

I believe we did clear the galaxy once, but it was a lot of work to do so!

I accept your peace frenchman, and your humble surrender.

:P

We are brothers after-all! :D

The correct term for moi is ‘culturalist’.

Crap! With you guys doing Germany, USA, and UK in a row, I’m gonna have to repaint my whole BOTB game! Oh well, time to find the paints again…  :wink:

@Imperious:

I would love to see a video of a chimps playing AA…each wearing the various helmets or caps of each nation in full regalia.

Imagine a chimp japanese admiral or Tojo looking fellow?

I wish somebody here had access to chimps ( other than WOTC).

oh well…

I think you are on to something.  :-D
Remember those Gremlin movies? I could just imagine chimps acting like that getting out of control and turning the game into a live action version where they start blowing each other up. :evil:
You should write and direct it and then get the staff from WOTC to star in it. :lol: :lol:

Yes and no, Stuka.  It would only make vetoing a budget a thing of the past, in other words, it would streamline the budget process.  But ONLY if the Congress decides to spend MORE then they get in taxes.  Bear in mind, if Congress decides to actually, don’t faint now, spend ONLY what it has without a deficit, then it only needs a simple majority and a signature instead of a super majority AND a signature.  Likewise, if the budget has no deficit, then a veto can still be over-ridden by a super majority.

The whole idea is to make it SOO hard to go into debt that most times the country will operate above board.

In fact, I’d like to see legislation that states that 10% of all taxes MUST be invested in local government or domestic corporate bonds. (Relatively secure, helps the country or countrymen.)  Eventually, the feds should have enough invested throughout the land that they will never need to tax the people again.

Furthermore, that’s not so outlandish an idea.  Many governments domestically and abroad are buying mutual funds to supplement their income so they can ease the tax burden.  Why can’t the feds?

Wow, I’m particularly surprised at O’Reillys list of extremes.  If those thoughts are actually running through his head, then some of the statments actually impress me.  But I guess he knows enough about extremes - I watched his show once or twice, and that was about all I could take.

But the O’Reilly clothing line is absolutely fabulous!  Now you too can look chic and live the “life O’Reilly.”

And, by the way, it’s God’s fault.  If there’s anyone to blame, it’s Him/Her/It/They/Us.

Thanks ZZZ, nuff said.

@cystic:

At the same time, one could probably get an ob/gyn, a psychiatrist and a statistician together for a retrospective study - even if it’s a simple questionaire. … It could simply analyze feelings, thoughts etc. … Clinical depression is evaluable, as is anxiety, PTSD, and one can measure drug intake if your state/province has a DPIN system. Other out-comes too might be evaluated in terms of 3, 5, and 10 year morbidity, mortality etc. (i do believe some have been done with some equivocal data).

True, with the first. Though the problem with questionaires is that you have to be extremely careful with the wording. I fear that any study on this can very easily be manipulated by the according interest group who launched it. So, you could make a study testing depression etc., but that then must be done to women who have given birth, have aborted, have not been pregnant, and no question should somehow relate to pregancy.
Then, after evaluated for these three different groups, you could start to make some statitics out of that.
But, i fear that the above-mentioned statistics did not pay enough attention to that, something i conclude from the “30% to 60%”, an error i can not accept when having 1000, say “datapoints”.