< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·
|May-27-10|| ||Shams: "No."
Wait, let me put a finer point on that:
|May-27-10|| ||SamAtoms1980: <OhioChessFan: Is it uncouth of me to ask what exactly is going on here? Does it amount to a game of Risk?>|
Hey, the game has sold a jillion copies, this fundamental flaw and all.
Though my attempt was crude and very thinly veiled, I thought there was a slim chance that it just might work. However, the much larger chance that it would flop was the reality.
|May-28-10|| ||al wazir: Who's next? <Shams>? Go for it.|
It is now 1:04 am, EDT.
|May-28-10|| ||Shams: It is my opinion that nothing will happen unless circumstances force our cooperation. Let's not forget, among the exigencies that compelled the ratification of the U.S. Constitution was the fact that the Colonies couldn't even get their act together to raise money to fight the damn British. People are simply far more afraid of being taken advantage of than they are hopeful of attaining non-zero sum cooperation. |
I therefore propose the following: We give ourselves one week to pass a <BILL OF URGENCIES> detailing: 1.) the calamities that threaten all of us, as well as all the cg members we represent, and 2.) the steps we need to take to create a viable state that can respond to those and other threats.
|May-28-10|| ||al wazir: <Shams> (or should I address you as <Rep. Shams>?): Is that a rule you are proposing? If not, you have lost your turn and <AgentRgent> is coming up to bat.|
These are the rules of LEX:
1. Any number can play.
2. Players take turns in alphabetical order.
3. On his or her turn, a player can propose a new rule or a change or repeal of an existing rule.
4. A proposal for a new rule or for change or repeal of an existing rule is adopted if and only if it is approved by a majority of the participants.
5: A player who fails to propose a new rule or rule change or repeal in accordance with rule #3 on his or her turn within 24 hours loses that turn; and a proposed new rule or rule change or repeal is ratified if and only if it is approved by a majority of the players voting within 24 hours after it is proposed.
6. [I]n the next world game with white pieces, all LEX players vow to vote 1. c4.
It is now 3:35 pm, EDT.
|May-28-10|| ||al wazir: Whether what <Shams> has proposed is a rule or not, it conflicts with rule #5. If we were to adopt it, it would bring on a constitutional crisis. I'm afraid I have to vote "no."|
|May-28-10|| ||OhioChessFan: I find crises exciting, so I vote yes.|
|May-29-10|| ||AgentRgent: I vote Yes|
|May-29-10|| ||SamAtoms1980: I vote "no."|
|May-29-10|| ||Shams: WA State Open this weekend. I'll probably just pop in here once or twice and vote yes on whatever absurdities you all are proposing.|
|May-29-10|| ||al wazir: <Shams>: Unless I have miscounted, it's a 2-2 tie. Your bill of urgencies will have to wait for another season.|
<AgentRgent>: It's up to you now.
It is now 9:39 pm, EDT.
|May-30-10|| ||al wazir: It is now 9:55 pm, EDT. Since we have heard nothing from <AgentRgent>, his turn is over and my turn has begun.|
By now all of you must have at least a glimmering of what LEX is about. It's a model of the democratic legislative and political processes. Or if you wish, it is a model of the British constitution. As you probably know, the U.K. doesn't have a written constitution. Their constitution consists of the entire corpus of British law since Magna Carta. Thus, every time Parliament passes a law, it is in fact amending the constitution, but it must do so within the framework of previously existing law. They do have a sort of supreme court, the "Law Lords," but their role in ruling on the constitutionality of laws is much more circumscribed than that of our Supreme Court.
As I said a few days ago, this is the first time I've tried playing LEX online, so this has been in the nature of an experiment. The conclusion I've drawn from the experiment is that in this mode LEX doesn't work very well. In my experience the game works best when everyone meets in a single room to vote or propose new legislation. (I like to use a whiteboard to keep a written record of the current status of the "constitution" and of proposed changes.) But in order to mimic the real-life legislative process, the participants should be able to get together in private to make deals and to form caucuses and conspiracies. (In a sense it is the ultimate "party game.") Because all communication here has been open, we have not been able to do that. When players are able to meet privately and join in cabals, however, that introduces an element of competition that has been lacking in the present game, and the action becomes quite cutthroat. Some individuals can acquire more power than the rest and the democracy can be replaced by a tyranny. (I think you realized that.)
Another conclusion I have drawn is that the game is far too slow when played this way. That too was a consequence of the way we communicated, since the only way to find out if someone had done something was to log into this forum, and none of us stayed logged in continuously.
But to sum it up, I think it's time to end the experiment. I therefore propose the following new rule:
6. This game is now over.
All who vote in favor are winners. I vote "yes."
|May-31-10|| ||SamAtoms1980: I vote "Yes"
From very early on I could see two things:
(1) There would likely be "pork-barrel politics" involved and that would probably be needed to get anything done
(2) A good illustration of why, in our actual Congress, it is so hard to get things done
But on an open forum, where everybody can see everything that gets proposed, it keeps the "pork-barrel politics" and backroom deals from getting going
I also propose the amendment that all winners go out for a barbecue. But, please, let's stay away from the pork barrels...
|May-31-10|| ||al wazir: <SamAtoms1980: I vote "Yes"> Damn, I was hoping to be the only winner . . .|
Aut Caesar aut nihil. (Maybe that should be "Et Caesar et nihil.")
|May-31-10|| ||al wazir: It's 11:49 pm, EDT. Finitus est ludus.|
|Jun-01-10|| ||AgentRgent: <al wazir: It is now 9:55 pm, EDT. Since we have heard nothing from <AgentRgent>, his turn is over and my turn has begun.> Was out of town for several days on vacation, hence why I voted against the silly 24hr rule... ;-P|
As for ending the game.. I vote NO (mostly to be contrarian).
|Jun-01-10|| ||OhioChessFan: Well, now that I know the point of the game......
I vote yes.
|Jun-03-10|| ||SamAtoms1980: <al wazir: Finitus est ludus.>|
Ludus? Or iocus?
|Dec-01-11|| ||theodor: <<al wazir>: It's 11:49 pm, EDT. Finitus est ludus.> I think it's better to say: ''ora venientibus - ossa!''|
|Jan-05-17|| ||Gregor Samsa Mendel: You seem to know something about physics. Is this a major deal?|
|Jan-30-17|| ||al wazir: <Gregor Samsa Mendel>: I don't know. It's not my field. |
Yes, if the claims made here are true it could be important. But I'm suspicious of them, because every university has a press agent (usually called something like the Office of Scientific Information or the Dean of Research) responsible for publicizing advances and touting them as breakthroughs. They rarely live up to the boasts. Usually the hangup is in commercialization. This particular article claims that commercialization will be straightforward, but that doesn't mean it's true.
I also wonder about two things: speed and stability. One of the articles I looked at said that the NDR was observed when voltage pulses were of order ten microseconds, but not with shorter pulses. That doesn't seem especially fast. Existing transistors can be switched in times as short as a picosecond. The other question is how long the "dangling" bonds, mentioned in the same article, can last. Does oxygen bond to them? If so, exposure to air will cause devices to fail.
I don't normally use my forum, so I'd prefer not to extend this discussion.
|Mar-12-17|| ||johnlspouge: Hi, <al>. Rather than post about|
exp( ix ) = cos( x ) + i sin( x )
on Rogoff, where the noise level is unusually high of late, I thought to respond here. I can see two ways of proving Euler's identity. One is the Taylor expansion (through which I discovered and proved the identity myself as a kid); the other is to note that the right side satisfies
f( x ) * f( y ) = f( x + y )
which has the sole (measurable and therefore) continuous solution
f( x ) = exp( cx )
The constant c = i is easy to find.
I believe that a mathematical proof of either solution requires something close to calculus, e.g., the second solution requires properties of continuous functions.
So, I am curious: what elementary solution were you proposing?
|Mar-26-17|| ||al wazir: <johnlspouge>: Answer is at your forum.|
|Sep-07-17|| ||thegoodanarchist: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_th...|
I am sorry, but I cannot help but think this is a subtle "tell" to indicate that you are basically misrepresenting who you are, in order to prank the credulous for amusement.
And the dog avatar is a not-so-subtle tell.
And that any day now you will announce the winner of a $10K prize for some person on cg.com who proved all of this speculation of mine to be correct.
But I could be wrong, and the link is for the purpose of explaining your avatar.
|Sep-15-17|| ||al wazir: <thegoodanarchist: I cannot help but think this is a subtle "tell" to indicate that you are basically misrepresenting who you are, in order to prank the credulous for amusement.> A plausible guess, but wrong. The only valid conclusion you can infer from that cartoon is that I prefer not to disclose my identity.|
I happen to like golden retrievers. My family used to have three of them. (So every night was a three-dog night)
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·