alanschu

Google it and be enlightened.

I'm sure I can dig some things up. I dont' have a lot of time right now, so I'm just going to throw some links at you in the hopes you'll find them interesting. I'm assuming you want evidence of climate change being not attributable to nature, rather than evidence of the UK's weather records. I will try to find something more detailed tomorrow. Greenhouse gas emissions climate change more serious than previously thought sun dimming troposphere warming The consensus seems to be that scientists are worried. Granted, these links are all from the BBC and I'm well aware of the inherent untrustworthiness of relying on one source. As I said, I'll expand when I have more time. From everything I've read on the subject, and I have read a fair bit being interested in it, the most positive thing we can now look forward to is maybe avoiding the most catastrophic effects. It seems we're already too late to actually reverse anything. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I was not interested in the rather repetitive talks about climate change, but your claims about: "Britain has been taking records of the weather patterns since 1659. Studies of it have shown that the increase in the temperature has less than a one percent chance of occuring naturally. The temperature in central Britain has risen by a degree in the last forty years alone. 350 years of continuous records are hard to argue convincingly against." Only the last link really made any comments about long term temperature change, but it was only talking about data that was readily available because of satellite information. As an aside, the global dimming one is rather interesting. If we were receiving less solar radiation, that would have a negative impact on "global warming." Unless we assume that the air pollution is a significantly large block for the natural radiation of the Earth, that it makes up for the decrease in solar radiation.

I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that our ability to asses microscale temperature changes over an insignificant period of time such as 300 years was pretty poor for a bulk of the 4.5 billion years the Earth has been around.

That would be awesome. That way you could work around a bug in the toolset, and when they fix it, you'll get to go back and fix all of your workaround!

Should have went with Alchemy and bypassed magic all together <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I'm doing alchemy as well. Just got my apprentice rank in it.

Joke attempt failed...please try again... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> It wasn't a joke.

Were these climate scientists the same ones predicting an impending ice age a couple of decades ago? Here's my 2 cents: Humanity is narcissistic, and overstates its influence on the planet. Our studies of ice ages show that they are cyclical. And we believe our most recent ice age was 10,000 years ago. Given the large lengths of time between ice ages, this is actually pretty recent. To be honest, given the gigantic length of time the planet has been around, I think that 350 years of British readings is too small of a sample size. At best you can conclude that the planet has warmed up a bit. Causation is a trickier matter, but I think that the human ego would like to think that it is because of humanity, as it means that we are capable of significantly affecting our world. And as a result, we should (hopefully) be capable of significantly affecting our world in a positive way.

Britain has been taking records of the weather patterns since 1659. Studies of it have shown that the increase in the temperature has less than a one percent chance of occuring naturally. The temperature in central Britain has risen by a degree in the last forty years alone. 350 years of continuous records are hard to argue convincingly against. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Could I get a citation please.

Conspiracy!!!!!

@Greasy The "OMG Kim is in trouble" stuff slowly starts to decline. Though there was still a part in third season I think. I imagine she was under contract so they had to find a way to keep her in the show without being boring. On the plus side it is some nice eye candy! Her role declines in later seasons, which means less "OMG Kim is in trouble!" scenes.

Fallout and millions of fans?

I thought so. I think I would have remembered if it was as annoying as Hassat indicated, but I didn't remember that.

I have the ollllllllllllllllllld version of Jagged Alliance 2. I think my install version is literaly 1.00 or maybe 1.01 A common patch I think was to 1.06! Been a while since I played though, so I'm not too sure.

Why would a Hard Drive be necessarily faster if they had more open space? Is the moving of the head onto different tracks really that much of a time waster?

I thought there was a key for change ammo type in SS2 as well.

What version of the game do I need to patch it to (if any)? I suppose I could just check out the link.

I remember playing SS2 with my friend, and I forgot I had tons of AP rounds when we were fighting all the turrets and robots. So he was using anti-personnel rounds (which sucked). Then when we got into fighting tThe Many, I found the AP rounds, and laughed as I gave it to him. At least he could use the AP rounds against The Many now :D Calax, I'm not sure. I wouldn't be surprised if the combat mode was Deus Ex in style. Where a headshot would still do headshot damage. It's just you might not be entirely accurate. I wouldn't worry about shots to the knees equally headshot and whatnot.

The only JA game I have played is the 2nd one! I get the internet tomorrow so I should be able to try that neat fan patch, sans the air strikes again.

The hollow points became goofy though, as there was a magical critical failure hit that allowed you to bypass armor entirely. So my full burst of JHP rounds into the dude wearing Enclave Armor would rip him to shreds. There was almost no need to use AP rounds, as I found it more effective to just hope for the critical. Of course if it was the Gauss cannon than all bets were off. It just shot through whatever it wanted anyways.

I put things like hands and feet on the low end of the totem pole.

But, do I play a CRPG for its combat? I love Fallout for its setting, and atmosphere. It has great wit and great humour. I think my statement is still fair...if I'm looking for a Fallout combat experience, I'll play Silent Storm (or probably Jagged Alliance, as I have found that game again!!!) I play Fallout for many reasons, but (particularly now) combat isn't really one of them. The things I love about Fallout are also easily transferable things, which is why I'm optimistic about Fallout 3.

I still have to play Far Cry. Never did play Prey, nor Invisible War. The thing is, if IW had it, then you'd have to criticize pretty much every FPS style game in years.

When I first played Fallout, I loved the combat for the over the top death scenes. I also remember being down to one health, fighting a death claw, and figuring I needed a critical hit. So I aimed for the head, and boom! At the time it was probably one of the best combat crpgs. But what did it have to go up against? It certainly hasn't stood the test of time (combat wise) IMO. If I'm looking for a Fallout like combat experience, I'll play Silent Storm.

Which would be similar to System Shock. They are still trying to tell a story. Besides, even in a "free roamer," if the key to Door A is in section B, which is behind locked Door B, you're still going to need to get the key to Door B before you can get the key to Door A. As for the hands on the consoles...which game did have that?

If thinks are as bad as these articles make them out to be, then I wouldn't be surprised if people stick with XP, and don't use WMP 11.