taks

no, it is not. see, almost all global warming articles and theories start out with the phrase "nearly all scientists agree the earth is warminig and human activity is the cause." this statement is patently false. the "nearly all" statement is just thrown in without backing and the rest of the world just falls in lock step "it must be true, they said it on the news!" most scientists do not agree. i dare you to show any evidence they do. taks

that statement is false, i'm sorry to say. co2 levels were much higher in the past than they are now. even global warming activists admit this... that does not mean that they aren't rising, but they still haven't reached the levels (not even close) of several million years in the past (even more recent than that). taks

hmmm... ok, first, there is a common misconception that evolution is purposeful. it is not. evolution is an accident, for lack of a more descriptive term. this has an extreme impact on the entire discussion, points of which are mentioned within this thread, but not fully detailed. first, why evolution is referred to as an "accident"... essentially, some mutation happens in any number or perhaps only one organism in a sample. realistically, at any given time in any given sample of some organism, there are likely a large number of simultaneous mutations in existence. most of these occur in the "junk" dna, so have little effect on the livelihood of the organism. some, however, occur in areas that impact the development of the organism. in either case, these random mutations either survive or they don't in the face of some otherwise life extinguishing occurrence. in the end, those that have the mutation allowing the organism to survive a fatal situation are the only ones to survive and pass on their genes... an accident at best. many of these mutations are of no benefit to the organism. some may even be fatal, in which case the gene pool will end with that organism. some, however, may be detrimental but not life threatening, e.g. diabetes in humans. the latter is a case of a mutation that has survived simply because humans know how to work around the flaw. those mutations that allowed the organism to survive in the face of an otherwise life threatening situation, however, will obviously carry on. they are the "beneficial" mutations, such as the mutation that allows certain bacteria to be resistant to certain antibiotics. obviously, mutations that have positive outcomes on the organism are more likely to survive than those that have negative outcomes. some may come at a cost, however, by weakening some other aspect of the organism's abilities. if the cost is not life threatening, then the outcome could be overall a weaker organism, but one that has stumbled upon a way to survive in the face of a greater adversity. i think this sums up why evolution occurs. taks

i see... and other arbitrary time frames were not possible without that designation, eh? there have not been credible discoveries of 12 ft. tall humans. sorry, pal, but you're barking up the pseudo-science tree there. taks

the 2nd law of thermodynamics only applies to closed systems... the universe as a whole is not close, therefore there is no violation. the coriolis effect is hardly proof of anything and i'm not sure what you're trying to imply. either way, the whole clockwise/counter clockwise argument is pretty much a myth and is explained here. and i have many counter arguments. take a guess at which of us is basing his opinion on logic and observable fact, not faith. in other words "yup, we still haven't figured it all out, that's why science keeps marching on, continually progressing towards more knowledge." uh, duh. your methods and lack of logic are the reasons i dismiss you. the fact that you type in all caps as if you were yelling is merely annoying, btw. they didn't. also, it's pretty easy to read just about any crackpot prediction and eventually find one that roughly coincides with truth. nostradamus is a great example... even his were very course and actually apply to several possible time periods, yet, out of the thousands of predictions he made there are only a dozen or so that even come close. heck, even today's astrologists have a better hit rate than that. they don't. at least, not with "pinpoint accuracy!" make a vague generalization (purposefully redundant) and half of everything i say will be true at some point in time... and i'm no psychic nor god. just gave you several. sheesh. it's not difficult. taks

careful there faramirk, logic rarely makes sense in the face of ideology taks

what difference does it make? taks

uh, it's always been called the "death tax" and not just by republicans (as long as i can remember). it's just the recent round of political battling over taxes (beginning with bush's first cuts) that put it in the media spotlight. either way, this example really isn't about morals or tricky politicians. calling it an estate tax is just as "tricky" as the death tax. both describe it accurately, but neither convey a moral implication. taks

that's not my point. the romances may have added role-playing options, but those options had nothing really to do with the story at hand. put them in context with the story and there are certainly cases, one i pointed out, that they make sense. but not with BG2 or ToEE. adding romance just for the sake of "more options" is ridiculous. i'd rather the developers spent more time figuring out how to actually make the required role-playing more like real role-playing. there were plenty of dead-end stories and ideas in both games (BG2 and ToEE) that could have been fleshed out better, enhancing the overall story. if you want some meaningful relationship with jaheira, buy the sims and do it that way. taks

this is a key point... my example, BG2, had zero purpose for the relationships. in toee, same story. why include them if they're nothing more than fluff? if someone were to make a cia/spy crpg (hey, that'd be cool), a relationship may be essential to the story as that is often how the other side is "turned" so to speak. in such a context, it would make sense. in such a context, the options would most likely be limited based on the type of antagonist, and the added scripting/dialog would certainly be worth the extra effort for a homosexual option. just examples, however. taks

that's why i followed it up with "within the context of the game." i'm sorry, but stomping around in a dungeon is not really something to be considered alongside some sort of romance. furthermore, i did point out two other supporting arguments. the one argument does not necessarily stand well by itself. taks

couple thoughts... one: why do you need any sexual option in a crpg? assuming we're referring to common formats (steampunk, fantasy, etc.) i see no real need to have homo or hetero relationships. they really weren't an issue until the BG2 "romances" and even then, they served little point. i think it makes more sense in a pnp atmosphere, but on a crpg the concept of "role playing" is weak anyway. i'd rather see a game put more focus into things that truly have meaning in the context of the game. two: why would anyone sitting at home by themselves playing a computer game want a romance with an NPC in a crpg? the jaheira thing actually kinda bugged me. three: keep in mind, implementing such options increase the complexity of scripting/dialog geometrically. there suddenly has to be various avenues for your PC to interact with just about everyone else. in the end, there's no real value added. again, i'd rather see a development team focus their engergies into something that really makes sense in the context of the game. taks

i played it on the commodore 64. it was cool, but a major fed-ex fest. the NWN version is similar though i don't really remember much. that's the rumor... i'll play it eventually. given the lack of any quality rpgs (i refuse to buy the latest and greatest bugfest known as dungeon lord) currently on the market, new material is my primary goal. taks

i agree. maybe riddles related to earlier parts of the game. i had issues the first time i got through to the knower, btw, for the same reason. blew my wad on goodies and was out of luck. had to cheat in some gold just to move on. taks

immunity to crits makes sense for demons and undead types. their life-force is not driven by their physical existence. it is merely a vessel for it in the material plane. when you do kill them off, it is because the body they've manifested their existence in has just gotten to the point it is no longer able to support them. they then are sent back to their home plane. at least, that's the best rationalization i can muster. it is still annoying that a single immunity can really ruin the game, or at least make it unwinnable. the problem was that besides critical immunity, i think he also had a rather high damage resistance. i was hitting for a few at a time and he'd whack me for 50. it was insane. taks PS: in that game, by the time i got to the knower i did not have enough dough to buy his banishment. blew it on too many weapon upgrades

i have it but have not played it... more of the same i heard. i only bought sou to get the content and allow DL of more modules. i'm working the original pool of radiance now. taks

you ought to try hotu, eldar. overall, the game is pretty good in spite of the weak ending. yes, i totally agree, kaftan. it was rather anti-climactic somehow. there's also a few issues with certain player types... i tried to play the kukri-master "epic character" build to no avail. he was unkillable. immune to crits and a kukri just didn't have enough oomph (i did it at 40th level) without crits. overall, however, i have played through it many more times than the OC (uh, i still haven't finished the OC). oh well... taks

it's not that the device manager doesn't know the difference, it's that AGP is PCI! same difference, just a slightly different electrical/mechanical configuration. any new mobo has one AGP slot and typically 4 or 5 PCI slots. PCI-E is new and not very well supported, though that will probably change. rest assured, if you have an AGP graphics card, it is in an AGP slot, as the interconnect is not compatible with any other form factor. taks

but they are not an english speaking country... it would probably be hard to say they speak any one language given all the dialects that exist within chinese cultures. taks

that's bull. IE lasted almost 4 years AFTER the first game release. the J engine, based on screenshots and dev comments, was more advanced than that used by Troika on ToEE. there still does not exist a fully rendered, ISO, party based engine. the only mods they'd need would be graphics resolution. taks

oh, not 2004 xmas, 2003 xmas, but JE said that it probably needed another 6 months. that means the J engine was probably first brought to the drawing board in early 2002 or thereabouts. the "evidence" is based on his discussions on when they began developing J. taks

i just posted it... where the heck did you get 5 years from for j in the first place? NWN was released 3 years ago (not 2, typo). run the numbers. taks

no it's not... NWN engine is about 5 years old... the j engine is around 2 or 3 years old. taks PS: an engine is always significantly older than it's actual release date. NWN has been out for over 2 years now, but was in development for 5 years prior to release, with several engine changes. the j engine was slated for an xmas release in 2004, with about 2-3 years of total development time. by the time NWN2 is released, that engine will already be 3 years old...

not if they owned the license outright... i got the impression there were no payments to be made other than royalties from the games they sold, which were apparently up to date. the deal with BG was structured much differently because of bioware's involvement. taks

because the NWN2 engine is most likely similar to the aurora or odyssey engine... whereas the j engine is the standard ISO with full 3-D rendering and party based system... taks