taks

you don't have to step on their nest, all you have to do is get close enough that they can sense your presence (vibrations). they are extremely agressive and will come out and attack you just for standing near the nest. 3 feet is about all it takes. taks

cheney and enron? wow, i didn't even realize cheney was in office when the enron scheming began. it was that democrat guy i thought... what was his name... oh yeah, clinton. taks

fire ants are interesting little buggers. they'll climb onto you stealthily and then, once they're all in place, they'll bit all at once. apparently they actually communicate the order so that it happens all at once. one bite by itself wouldn't be bad... it is when there are dozens or so. when i was in florida, it was a game between neighbors. i'd kill 'em one week and chase the rest to my neighbors yard. then he'd kill 'em the next and chase 'em back. i got bit pretty bad once, probably 20 or 30, maybe more, when i was in an apartment complex. fortunately, their bites don't bother me that much (it hurt, but they were gone in a day or so). taks

oooooh... i was thinking like minerals or something. hehe... leave it to an engineer to overanalyze. other than my 401-k, i don't even own any stock. wait, no, i take that back. my brother bought a share of disney for my son when he was born. i think i'm the custodian of that share. yes, one share. my youngest brother, btw, is a stockbroker. taks

what kind of speculator? oh, and i HATE cigars. cigarettes, however, have been my bane for 22 years now. and rum. taks

i am an electrical engineer titled as a senior member of technical staff. of course, i do digital signal processing, so the "electrical" part is a bit of a misnomer since it's mostly math and software that i play with. i'm also a student hoping to find a dissertation topic shortly. grrrr... taks

a king. or at least, no elections. that was GW's point oh so many years ago. IMO, term limits are not necessarily a good thing. there are problems due to the whole "redistricting" fiascos which guarantee incumbents reelection. if the people WANT to keep a leader, they should be allowed. i don't believe GW saw the presidency as anything other than public service, btw... he served two terms and moved on. he is what all politicians SHOULD be. taks

uh, he quite clearly said "doom and gloom" or weren't you paying attention? doom and gloom is the "alarmism" i was speaking of. he said don't trust such alarmists. in other words, you don't have any real additions to this thread other than nit-picking at wordplay. if you think you have some scientific basis for "consensus" and/or maybe "it's settled", please post, otherwise... please get off your high horse and leave the rest of us interested in discussing science alone. for someone that used to be a "principal scientist/physicist" you seem awful willing to just accept what the media claims. in my world, a scientists ears perk up the minute someone says "it's settled" or there's a "consensus." that's how science works. nearly 100 years on and we're still testing the heck out of relativity. science is, by definition, in a perpetual state of "unsettled." taks

i think the leading comment on the black isle boards was "whoever did the forest design should be shot." taks

Considering Roosevelt died in his fourth term... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> a 4th term is still not permanent. GW made it clear that the leader should always be decided by the electorate. taks

well, think of it in terms of his population. what's the estimate now, 2 million active military? or maybe just a million? either way, that results in 10s of thousands of lieutenants and related "sub-commander" types running around. there's no way he can be expected to know what every one of them is up to at any given moment. it's just not feasible. it's aggravated by the fact that his "commander in chief" status is only one of his many other full-time responsibilities. there ain't enough power or money in the world to make me want that job. taks

nah, i doubt swingers will hesitate to switch. in the end, they look for the lesser weasel and bush fit the bill. sorry to kerry supporters, but he simply came across as a hypocrite. the democrats were trying to paint bush as an elitist but kerry is an even bigger blue-blood than bush. heck, he brought his own cameraman to vietnam. oy veh! realistically, however, republicans will have to provide better candidates this time. if mccain is it, i'm voting independent as i don't like him, and i won't stand for either gore or clinton (i've heard a 3rd party may have a chance this tiime). taks

pirate pr0n. taks

when i have a chance. i was actually busy at work yesterday (just got in today) so i didn't have time to post anything. i know this, but my point is that we're discussing the atmosphere warming. therefore, any heat that gets trapped, fully, in the atmosphere will contribute to the warming effect. if ALL of the heat that CO2 can trap gets trapped, then adding more CO2 won't do anything. this is where the logarithmic analogy came from, btw. i think the junkscience page links to better discussions on the precise numbers. again, my point is that the 75% number represents 75% being fully trapped, and 25% escaping to space. if it was 100% being trapped, then CO2 wouldn't be a player anymore. 5-6% is the toxicity level from what i've read. oh, i realize this and i've said as much but in not so many words. bit player at best, even less than any internal bit-player forcings. HOWEVER, this is a big however, there are cycles that are MUCH longer than the standard earth wobbling on the axis induced cycles (ice ages). what causes these large cycles? our position in the galaxy? maybe gravitational shifts influencing the sun? or maybe the sun, by its own little lonesome just has some very long cycles. i think the latter was really more what i was driving at though i wanted to clarify to alanschu that i was not referring specifically to heat, i.e. there are other methods of imparting energy to the planet. it is interesting to look at plots of solar activity over the years, btw. there are 11 year cycles of peaks, but those peaks cycle in magnitude about 20 times or so. sort of a christmas tree effect. and those cycles also seem to cycle. and it all happens in lock-step with past CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere. very telling, but oft ignored by alarmist science. taks

certainly contradictory claims, to say the least. IMO, he's no idiot, though he definitely isn't running for any mastermind titles, either. taks

uh, no. alanschu said 75% absorption, i was just using his number. oh, and alanschu, back a few posts you said "what?" regarding "either it is all absorbed or not" (er, similar)... my point is this, if CO2 is currently only absorbing 75% of the energy it can absorb, then the only other place that energy can be going is back into space, which was my original "space, the final frontier" comment was regarding. however, in other places you have implied that it is not radiated back out into space, which would mean the energy gets trapped in our atmosphere, which means 100% absorption, not 75% (atmosphere = earth for purposes of discussing the warming of the atmosphere! ). an apparent contradiction. either way, if CO2 is at 100%, as the latter case would imply, then adding more CO2 won't trap more heat, as it is already at saturation! also, you keep getting hung up on "heat" or pure "energy" affecting the system. anything in inter-stellar space that collides with the earth, be it particle, radiation (any wavelength) or even just simple asteroids imparts energy to the planet. still moot, as it is only a bit player as i've noted, but an impact nonetheless. taks

oops, he's telling us that those claiming alarmism cannot be trusted. he's not claiming any alarmism, but rational, scientific analysis of the data. big difference. oh, and your pal al is on record saying there's nothing wrong with exaggerating claims in order to garner attention. in other words, it's ok to lie when he thinks the cause is right. taks

i think IWD's story is actually the tightest of all the IE engine games, albeit not nearly as, uh, "in-depth" as the BG games. the reason most people never associate it with "good story" is probably due to the lack of background in all your characters (no joinable NPCs). IWD2 just was... well, it had its moments. given more time it could have been good, i think. taks

why people expect the president to know every detail of every skirmish or confrontation is beyond me. if there is one in the first place. easy to jump to conclusions before all the facts are in. the fact that an investigation is currently underway (two actually) further implies that any potential initial cover-up is now blown. either a screw-up, or some local commander thought it would look bad and followed up with a worse decision to not dig deeper. this is where media presence pays off, i think, in getting to the story behind the story. taks

not sure where you'd get that. you post that you think al's presentation is impressive, yet you fail to mention everything that he leaves out. not very impressive. uh, you were the one asking for dissent. i gave you dissent. do you often run in circles thusly? no, he's telling us that those claiming "consensus" cannot be trusted. deragotory? how so? and didn't al make attacks on republicans, and bush, in his "impressive" slide show? hypocrisy. you dismiss others for making ad-hominem attacks (incorrectly, btw) then make several yourself. you're a hypocrite if anything. oh, and he's a "political hak" that used to be senior scientist of climate studies at the NASA marshall space flight center (read his biography here). and not once did he issue any ad-hominems such as you have done. pot.kettle.black. if you're so interested in discussing the science, why not try discussing it rather than digging into political motives. taks

it is disingenuous at best. what is more impressive is what he leaves out (because it makes him a: look bad and b: destroys most of his claims). if you'd like to see a rebuttal to mr. environmentalist why not try Dr. Spencer's open letter. most of what we've been discussing, btw, is unrelated to whether or not you want to say the science is "settled" or not. mostly basic chemistry, actually. and, for alanschu's benefit, at the bottom of this page, there's a nifty graphic on which wavelenghts CO2 absorbs. there's also a better explanation of the absorption process in the text that accompanies the picture (at this moment, i have not read it in detail... my information was originally from other, varied, sources including wiki). taks

what do you mean if? countries regularly piss away billions, nay trillions and we just shrug it off. heck, half the time the citizenry simply complain that not enough is being spent inappropriately on their favorite causes. oy vey! taks

read what i said, heat wasn't what i was referring to. matter, energy, of any sort. either way, this is a relatively moot point. at least, a minimal player but a player nonetheless. either ALL of the energy is absorbed or not, alanschu. make up your mind. if it is ALL absorbed, then how can we absorb any more heat due to CO2? if the latter is true, then my original point is proved beyond a shadow of a doubt: CO2 increases won't make a difference. if not, then, as i have stated several times now, it is reradiated into space. really man... energy arrives at the earth from a lot of wavelengths. some is shifted after being absorbed by the earth then reradiated. And yes, energy is reflected back into space, but the peak of the EM spectrum that the Sun emits energy at is in the visible spectrum. Which is not reflected by our atmosphere (otherwise we wouldn't see it). Ultraviolet light is also not reflected by our atmosphere). This energy heats the Earth, which as a black body emitter, radiates its own energy at a certain length (it's also the only way energy can leave Earth, since convection and conduction require matter, and there's not much in space) it is, and there won't. NO. man, this isn't rocket science. CO2 ONLY ABSORBS CERTAIN WAVELENGTHS!!! how many times do i have to say this? once it has reached its 100% peak, CO2 is no longer a contributor, and it's not far from there now (CO2 will need to get to toxic levels before it is 100% of its absorption capacity, btw). CO2 is a bit player as it is, and once it is at 100%, it can't contribute any further. this has ZERO bearing on other frequencies radiated by the planet. at certain wavelengths, only. and this amount is only a few degrees worst case (when analyzed by credible scientists). given that the planet has supported life at 10s of degrees warmer than now, i don't think there's any concern here. in fact, given that we are still sort of coming out of an ice age, i'd posit that a few degrees warmer is what we want. taks

i think atari owns all the rights to the BG name and associated properties, but interplay maintained the rights to IWD. however, interplay may own the games themselves. it seems logical then, that herve managed to strike a deal with atari (as sargallath mentioned) to redistribute the games on DVD for some much needed cash for interplay. who knows, maybe he done went and sold off all of his rights to anything D&D related. taks

dang... already done. i was going to suggest you melt down the whole lock and retool all the components within. a little casting job maybe, and some fine machining and you'd have a nifty new lock missing only a few parts! taks