taks

yeah, the so-called "heat death." it's not so much that the matter will be destroyed (since that's not really possible according to conservation of energy principles), it's that it will be spread out over such a large area that the per unit volume energy/matter will be essentially zero. ugly scenario. taks

that was my thought. i think you could work it such that projectiles lose their forward momentum so that when it stops, everything simply drops to the ground. magic projectiles, however, such as magic missle, would continue, but they'd be potentially targeting something that is no longer there... i.e. they lose their tracking. just a thought. taks

holy cow. i turn my back for a day and it's turned into a star trek convention! taks

that could be true, plano. though, since atari owns BG3 rights, they can hand that off to any developer they choose, and based on the original mess with that, i'd say they had not handed it off at the time. as a result, it may still be up for grabs. as i stated, all i care about is the top-down iso view, with party-based play. for some reason, that seems to me to be the "ultimate" D&D on a PC experience... can't explain why, though it is probably rooted in my history with the old gold box games. taks

if there were a BG3, it would likely revolve around the sword coast (and baldur's gate, obviously), but i doubt it would be directly connected to the bhaal saga (that is, admittedly, done for all intents). i wouldn't doubt if atari is looking around for someone to tackle it, however. simply from name recognition they could get sales. they made a bunch of hub-bub about it a few years back, fired their PR guy for saying too much, published an article about what it would be, then hushed up. they probably didn't have a developer, and now they're waiting to see who has the merit worthy of the name. i wouldn't be surprised if we found out obsidian gets it in the end. either way, all i really care about w.r.t. a BG3 would be a top-down, 3rd person isometric party-based game. i was thoroughly disappointed that TOEE failed to deliver well enough to continue the series. in spite of my criticism of the game, i always felt it had potential to be the next big series... they just needed more time (not that their failure to finish was or wasn't their own fault anyway, more time simply would have made the game more polished i think). taks

that's the key... have all of your party buffed with whatever type of mass-effect spell you want to use. unfortunately, this is not always possible. then you have to resort to "normal" rules! taks PS: i know, it's semi-sort of cheating. hehe...

i'm beginning to use scintillating sphere as well. there are many creatures that this proves more effective with. taks

well, if you play hardcore rules, fireball is deadly... to yourself. since enemies tend to engage directly, it is bad to use the mass-effect spells in general (at least, those that cause damage). slow becomes your friend, as well as mass haste on your own party. single bad guy target spells also become useful as well as the missle storms. my most used spell, btw, is and has always been, magic missle. simple first level spell... taks

sure you can musopticon. but, as you mention, feats that are not available are not there yet, so figuring out what's required for a future feat is sometimes difficult. oh, it is "mentioned" on page 12 (13th PDF page) that metamagic feats occupy slots higher than their normal location. taks

hehe, yet another layer of cache. i wonder if the cache management is automatic and how well does it deal with a miss? at the processor level, cache management still requires a bit of code to utilize properly (called prefetching). i'd assume going to a hard drive this is not the case, however. taks

yeah it does, kinda. there's a tidbit in there that mentions it, though it does not provide much information about how many levels. i think the example was "maximize spell" which is, IIRC, 2 slots. taks i agree, kaftan, that there should be more details in some regards. it's nice that they highlight "differences between D&D," but for some reason, it seems games these days always leave out many details that some of us find important. we'll end up having to scour the web pages to find out each of the feats' intricacies, and more important to me, requirements for use (i.e. dependencies on other feats). since i don't play PnP D&D at all (any more), i don't know these off-hand and it makes it difficult to plan a character beyond about 6th or 7th level. taks

hate to tell you, but i am a scientist. my specialty, btw, is studying signals (signal processing engineer) and how their statistics correlate with known effects. in particular, the methods of relating temperature and CO2 to human forces are based on something called Principal Component Analysis. i'm currently studying PCA's "parent" of sorts, called Independent Component Analysis. so a NEWS article is proof i'm wrong? not only am i not wrong, you're a fool for thinking so. also, i'm curious how a peat bog is evidence of "global warming" and not just standard climate change that occurs regularly? you're wrong. sorry dude. there ya go, call me a moron and i must be wrong. you offered a statement about some extreme scenario without any proof. exactly what clue about meteorology do YOU have if you really think 380 ppm is any threat? we've had fairly recent ice ages over several thousand ppm. duh. the point is that it does that all the time, even when humans were not around. the "logarithmic" statement regards the amount of heat CO2 can trap. it's like a window shade. there's only so much heat CO2 can trap. period. it effects a very specific region of the spectrum that reaches the earth from, mostly, the sun. we're already blocking most of that, btw. as you add CO2, you have to increase the amount to get the same effect. i.e. it is logarithmic. and i'm the moron? this assessment, btw, does not even consider feedback effects that result from increased cloud coverage. that's another ball of wax that even the so-called "experts" have not figured out how to incorporate into their models. or someone that actually understands, and studies, the science. try doing a little _research_ and realize how silly you sound. taks

in other words, you have no idea what you are talking about. sorry dude, but that just ain't true. there ya go, senseless alarmism ala al gore. hate to tell ya bud but 1) "critical" CO2 levels are actually 6000 ppm. that's the point where it becomes toxic to humans. 2) the impact of CO2 on the atmosphere is logarithmic (this is simple science that even someone like you should try to understand). that is, even if ALL of the 0.6 C in the last century or so is due to CO2 (best TRUE estimates place it at most half of that), it would take nearly 90,000 ppm to double the current influence. i have, apparently you haven't. taks

no kidding. after last night, i have to wonder if detroit was suffering the same disease as the cardinals after the all-star game. if so, then it would seem st. louis has recovered a little better. taks

pujols is probably the best player in the league right now (well, he's actually injured right now... just in general). carpenter has struggled a bit this year, but his form is still there _most_ of the time. he's probably going to get the NL cy young, again. suppan outdid himself in the NLCS, which i definitely recognize, though he has really struggled with his control this year (in spite of a good win/loss record). even weaver has been doing good, and getting better as the season has progressed. unfortunately, the cardinals have not had any stability with their pitching in general, and injuries have taken their toll on the hitting (both edmunds and rolen have been hurt most of the season). you can bet i'll be watching the series. after mizzou blew it last week, and the hams just sort of, well, suck, and the blues are so young they'll be lucky to make the playoffs again, i need something to cheer about. taks

too bad sony computers do not benefit from the same quality as their electronics. i'm a die-hard sony fan when it comes to home entertainment. their tvs are absolutely the best picture quality, and they last forever. their sound systems, while certainly not top of the line, are an excellent deal for the money you pay. they also last forever. i just got rid of my vaio PC at work, though i traded it out for a dell... ugh. frying pan and fire come to mind... taks

they aren't really "replicates." many otherwise unnamed processes are run with svchost as the starter engine (of sorts). this goes for many other programs, too. i.e. each svchost process is (probably) unique controlling a different service. you can browse around your services (in control panel typically under "administrative tools" or similar) and see how every one is started. for example, my network connections app has a "path to executable" line like this: C:\WINNT\System32\svchost.exe -k netsvcs so svchost is running netsvcs, but the same executable is run for my COM+ application (probably with different input parameters). taks

agreed volourn and pop. that the OC in NWN was sort of boring is really immaterial to the concept of including elements within the OC for NWN2. it serves the purpose of back-story, and sets the stage for the new content (possibly). besides, from the 10,000 foot view (~3000 meters for you euros), the OC in NWN wasn't that bad, it just wasn't very well executed IMO. taks

yeah buddy... another pennant for the cardinals. i couldn't scream because my in-laws were in bed, but i was screaming inside, where it counts!!! they're probably doomed against detroit, but they made it. taks

which is exactly the point i made, and reiterated in the post previous to this. pop's original comment, to which i was referring, was that objectivism completely ignores others over self, which is only true on the surface. whether or not that's what he intended with the comment is another matter, but that's how it came across. personally, i tend to behave similarly to meta's last comment. though that may only be because some form of society provides a definite benifit to me... which is selfish, of course. taks

i wasn't referring to altruism. i made it very clear that the needs of others were important, though necessarily connected to the individual's own gain. i even gave an example... taks

i suppose you have to believe for the latter to be true. taks

pretty good assessment, meta. seems you pay attention to such things. i disagreed with pop's assessment that an objectivist cannot consider others. on the surface, this is how objectivism comes across, though there is a subtlety that you won't get simply from a little reading. concerns for others are very important to an objectivist, though his motives for said concern are based on self-interest. i think ayn believed that _most_, if not all, people were actually sort of "closet objectivists" simply because their motivations are rooted in their own self-interests more often than not. the difference being that someone calling himself an objectivist openly admits his motivations (most of this my own opinion, btw). for example, people that do a lot of charity work often talk about how good it makes them feel to help others (not all, of course). that said, most of my "roleplaying" in games is based on a similar philosophy. as a result, i have a very hard time playing any alignment on the extremes (lawful good), or evil (evil deeds to not make me happy). i usually end up either chaotic good, neutral good or true neutral. that way, i don't mind walking into an empty house in the wilderness and lifting the potions of cure critical wounds out of their chest! taks

but the problem is that many women are just plain hawt, and we men are just plain dogs on the prowl. it is a good standard to have, but a tough one to meet when testosterone is involved. reminds me of the south park episode last night... kindergarden teacher having an affair with stan's brother, 3 or 4 year old boy genius, and all the cops said "is she hot?" the reply "she's the kindergarden teacher!"... "yeah, she's hot"... "niiiiice." taks

keep in mind, many of the unreported deaths NOW, were the same types of unreported deaths THEN. i.e., as much as our current estimate is off (likely, IMO), estimates prior to the war were probably off as well. we didn't have nearly as much media in iraq at the time, nor US troops, and saddam's infrastructure was never truly optimal for handling their own issues anyway. taks