jedipodo

I wonder why they haven't attached this six points to the manual. "Ok everyone, I have been doing PC's and games for over 20 years now" *Impressive* And, as we can see, you took no harm from it. One of the most impressive advices is "First, make sure you have a damn good PC to run this game with" I think. You hit the nail on the head... I'm missing one single issue which still remained unanswered: What about the bugs being coded into the compiled binaries?

For every movie shown there one Bit has been set in their corresponding value. I don't know exactly which Bit/Value represents which cut scene. But you can easily unlock all of the possible cut scenes by setting all of the values to '255'. [Movies Shown] Movie10=255 Movie 9=255 Movie 8=255 Movie 7=255 Movie 6=255 Movie 5=255 Movie 4=255 Movie 3=255 Movie 2=255 Movie 1=255 Movie 0=255

I run my 6800 GT at AF 4x and AA 8x at 1280x960 with decent fps. I cannot run it at AF 8x and AA 16x though as the fps drops too low then. However with my ATI X800 XT PE, I can run it at AF 8x and AA 16x without breaking a sweat. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Oh and another irritating aspect about the ATI is the gamma keeps resetting in-game. I have to keep going into the graphics settings to adjust the gamma otherwise it gets rather dark. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Same problem here. I hope that they remembered it in the patch, though it is not really a serious bug.

You'r right. So, give the good advice to everybody who asks you, not to watch the prequel trilogy first.

Yes, Nvidia has fully implemented the new SM3.0 standard. But, don't forget that ATI's current SM2.0b is also an advancement of the SM2.0 standard. ATI had to name it different, because their shader model is different from the standard. Nevertheless, it is not unlikely that some of ATI's own innovations (added in 2.0b) will make it into the (next) standard. So, graphics card's special abilities of both manufacturers - not only Nvidia's - have not yet fully taken effect in current games (e.g. SM2.0b's improvements or ATI's compression technique 3Dc

These BWD topics are your hobby horse, aren't they?

The Sith Lords "Darth" names are some kind of stage names, I think. If "Vader" really means "father", how could that be explained in EpIII? Was he so proud that he is a dark father?! And, as far as I know, Vader didn't knew about his offspring when he assumed his name, but I can be wrong.

I wonder what attracts people to anime. Is it for the "beautiful" eyes... ...or is there another reason?

What if it hasn't a meaning at all?

Technically PCI-E 16x is faster than AGP 8x, of course. But the situation you describe is true, though. Many graphics card can't handle the full 16x speed, because they can't receive more texture data than they can process. Using a second card would be a possible (but costly) solution here. Additionally, the games of today don't use the bandwidth feature as much as the memory solution (=loading the complete level into RAM). That is why you still don't see much difference.

Much bandwidth is only useful when game engines start using much bigger 3D-environments where data must be transfered permanently. Another competing approach to implement this is to increase the RAM size of a graphics card. Up to now this was the current trend, because RAM becomes cheaper everyday. Indeed, both of the concepts maxed out in a single graphics card may be a little bit too much power. At least for current games, a card with PCI-Express and 256MB RAM is practically more than you would need.

Regarding our "A-bomb discussion", I've found an article by an Associate Professor of the university of Tokyo. The title is "Why Must Japan Apologize for War While the United States Has Not Apologized for the Atomic Bombing?: Reply to a Young Japanese". Here is an excerpt from it (though I think it could be interesting to read the full text anyway):

Your world view is amusing...

Depends on which definiton you choose. I would say yes. It created fear and awe, it did not specifically target military structure, it killed indiscriminately. Still, the goal was not to create a permanent state of terror, but to demonstrate the power of a new weapon against which there was no defense. Therefore, it was not a terrorist attack, despite all the moral labels you want to apply. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> then it's rather ironic, at the same time, that the people who have invented the new definition of the word terrorism where the ones who dropped the nuke .. of course they won't add such an act under such a label.. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Which redefinition? Terrorist attacks, as we often see them nowadays, happen in times of peace and without that there is a war or a current conflict between nations. They are commited by independent, sometimes even international, groups who don't represent citizens of a nation. Mostly they do this solely for their personal goals, but in their eyes it is all for a "higher" goal, of course...

A paradox can be described as a statement which can be neither true nor false. The statement "I always lie" cannot be true, but it can be false. So it is not a paradox. I think that "the master teaches the student who teaches the master" is a case of doubt because it isn't exactly defined what they teach each other. But in the way it is intended it should be a paradox, though.

This wasn't a real experiment but a thought experiment concluded from a theory. Of course, it cannot be in reallity, that the cat is dead and alive at the same time! Imagine you are in the place of the cat. You should know whether you are alive or not, shouldn't you...?

Yes, but only if He exist under our reality (which is constructed on logic). Outside our reality, such logic may be irrelevant, therefore it may be possible for God to be all-mighty and not all-mighty at the same time. Being both all-mighty and not all-mighty at the same time is of course logically impossible, which means that if such an ultimate being does exist, it cannot exist under a reality built on logic, which is pretty much the entire point of the argument in the first place. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I think this paradox presents a common human problem. Many people believe that everything which is thinkable can exist. But the universe, as we observe it, we are living in, tells us a completely different story. "All-mightiness" has never been found in it. And because of this fact, a serious definition of "all-mighty" isn't even possible. For example, who has ever defined that "all-mighty and not all-mighty at the same time" is a property of "all-mightiness"?

Which unfortunately would make him/her/it not all-mighty, which in turn more or less proves that God cannot be all-mighty (under our reality blah blah). <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Correct me if I'm wrong: In your opinion, such a being must be able to be both, all-mighty *and* incapable at the same time, to be all-mighty at all?

The "rock-being-bigger-than-He-can-lift" paradox, actually, isn't a paradox. Somebody who is all-mighty could put an end to his all-mightiness whenever he/she/it wants to.

Please, read the SW database entries of the Leviathan, the Sith Fighter and the Star Forge carefully! There one can find at least four different statements that substantiate these so-called "wild speculations".

Four more points for discussion: - The Rakatan computer interfaces are different from the Leviathan's ones. - Rakatan technology is said to be connected to (or maybe even driven by) the Force. Are the Leviathan class starships supposed to have this ability? - The Sith Fighter model seems to be this much referred to "alien design". Excerpt from the official SW database: - My theory: The developers of the cut scenes gave the Republic only the small weak looking vessels and the Sith the bigger capital ships, due to a much more simple identification who are the good guys and who are the bad guys.

which is pretty sick, when you think about it. To make myself clearer: 100,000 civilians were targeted and killed. Soldiers know what they're signing on for; civilians do not. Of whom do you think the 56-60 million casualties are comprised of...? To make my point clearer: The half of them - about 30 millions - had been civilians, including approx. 200,000 people beeing killed by two U.S. nuclear bombs enforcing the immediate end of the hostilities. Is this a terroristic attack in the meaning of the word "terrorism" of today? The vast majority of soldiers at this time have never been asked for signing on for military service, they were forced to. Of course, murder on civilians definitely are war crimes and shouldn't be commited by anyone. But in the final evaluation of causualties they shouldn't weigh more than the regular soldiers who had been victims, too. In my opinion "Men and women who are soldiers may die, but civilians are worth more" is a morally problematic view, especially in the context of WW2.

Oh, only 100,000 plus the cancer/leukemia/radiated patients. That makes it all better. ...ahh, why are we even arguing? It's over and done with and everyone's dead. Hooray. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> We are talking about an event of World War II, a war in which only 60 millions people got killed. I also don't know why we are arguing about it. It is way off topic.

No, the U.S. nuclear program was founded as the response to a (supposed/feared) German program. Yes, Americans carried off technology(e.g. the V2 rocket project) and hired German scientists to work for them (e.g. Wernher von Braun). But on the other hand I know for sure that Soviets took German technology, scientists and their families with them home (and that anything but voluntarily...). The Soviets were the masters of industrial espionage. Really, it is not a secret that in the beginning the Soviets have copied U.S. air planes, computers and the first uranium bomb. *surprised* You have never heard of this?

Propaganda. Your number is *much* to high. Even the sum of the citizens of both towns didn't exeed 500,000. As far as I know, about 100,000 civilians died from the direct blast (or within months). And some others died from cancer decades later. But definitely not *everybody* died! The Japenese were ready to surrender? The ideology of this times left no room for a give-up. My interpretation of your "defensive tactics" is that you would simply wait until the enemy has died by himself. To be honest, do you think that they had sent Kamikazes to sign their surrender? (ok, sorry for polemics here " )