Neem is a mnemonic drug that works by “tagging” experiences and mental input with a set of unique sensations that contribute to the formation of state-based memories. Neem gummy chews come in a variety of fruit avors shaped like extinct old Earth animals. Neem gives characters a 20 bonus on COG Tests to recall information they learned while on Neem (see Memorizing and Remembering, p. 176). The drawback to Neem is that memories they accumulate while under the drug’s in uence have no emotional association. For example, a character who witnessed something horrible happening to a friend or who had a ght with a romantic partner while on Neem would feel no emotional connection whatsoever to what happened.
NATURE, by descending gradually from great to small, from strong to weak, coun|terbalances every part of her works. Attentive solely to the preservation of each species, she creates a profusion of individuals, and supports by numbers the small and the feeble, whom she hath left unprovided with arms or with courage. She has not only put those inferior animals in a condition to perpetuate and to resist by their own numbers, but she seems, at the same time, to have afforded a supply to each by multiplying the neighbouring species. The rat, the mouse, the field-mouse, the water-rat, the short tailed field mouse, the fat squirrel, the garden squirrel, the dormouse, the shrew-mouse, and several o|thers, whom I mention not, because they belong not to our climate, form so many distinct and separate species, but so analogous to each other, that, if any one should happen to fail, the gap in the genus would hardly be perceptible. It is this great number of neighbouring species which hath given to naturalists the idea of genera; an idea which can only be employed when we view objects in general, but which vanishes whenever we consider nature in detail.
Men at first gave distinct names to objects which appeared to differ from each other; and, at the same time, they gave general denominations to objects that seemed to be nearly similar. A|mong a rude people, and in the infancy of all lan|guages, there is hardly any thing but general terms, or vague and ill-formed expressions for objects of the same order, though very different from each other. An oak, a beech, a linden-tree, a fir, a pine, a yew, would, at first, have no other name but that of a tree; afterwards the oak, the beech, and the yew, would all be called oak; when these were distinguished from the fir, the pine, and the yew, the three latter would be called fir. Particular names could only be in|vented in consequence of a minute examination of each different species; and the numbers of these names are augmented in proportion to the extent of our knowledge of Nature: The more we examine her, proper and particular names will become more frequent. When natural ob|jects, therefore, are represented to us, under ge|neral denominations, or by classes and genera, it is recalling the darkness peculiar to the infant state of human knowledge. Ignorance is the parent of genera; but science will for ever con|tinue to create and to multiply proper names; and I shall never hesitate in adding to their num|ber, as often as I have occasion to delineate dif|ferent species.
It is argued - though currently the arguments are filtering only slowly into the academic literature - that folksonomies are preferable to the use of controlled, centralised ontologies [e.g. 259]. Annotating Web pages using controlled vocabularies will improve the chances of one's page turning up on the 'right' Web searches, but on the other hand the large heterogeneous user base of the Web is unlikely to contain many people (or organisations) willing to adopt or maintain a complex ontology. Using an ontology involves buying into a particular way of carving up the world, and creating an ontology requires investment into methodologies and languages, whereas tagging is informal and quick. One's tags may be unhelpful or inaccurate, and no doubt there is an art to successful tagging, but one gets results (and feedback) as one learns; ontologies, on the other hand, require something of an investment of time and resources, with feedback coming more slowly. And, crucially, the tools to lower the barriers to entry to controlled vocabularies are emerging much more slowly than those being used to support social software .