Humodour

No, they don't consider migratory movements, as the causes behind those are too unpredictable to make the factor a constant. What the theory does in retrospective is a different matter. You might want to actually check that out properly. Most population projection models account for immigration because it is a fairly predictable factor over time. Further, as I said generally the high and low projections account for lowest and highest possible immigration rates, while the middle projection uses current immigration trends. Any country that made health and economic policy based on population projections which omitted immigration rates would be up **** creek without a paddle. No. Germany circumventing the Versailles Treaty served the purpose of turning post-WWI Germany into a solidly industrialized country. But that didn't end too well. That's usually the problem with "the ends justify the means" politics, they tend to get exploited quite a bit. I said nothing about the ends justifying the means. I said the one child policy is an example of how restricting reproduction alleviates resource pressure in the future and limits overpopulation. Less people is more sustainable when resources are scarce (see logistic curve), OK? I didn't say it does. I said it could. An idea like VHEMT could easily be marketed favourably (for example by shifting focus from protecting the environment, which a lot of people don't like, to a better world for their children and to having only one child instead of none). You write it off far too easily. The 'beauty' of VHEMT is that it produces benefits without really asking for sacrifice; many people these days don't desire children anyway, and for many others, children are an option that lack of isn't felt as a loss. But I agree as a movement it likely won't see any real momentum, not least because population levels will stabilise and/or fall without its help. Smart thing, according to whom, and with what purpose? No species survives by not expanding. And the purpose of the human race is to survive, not to preserve some idea of natural balance or some equally arbitrary new-age ideal. Where is this mythical pressure for humanity to have exponential population growth? Everything seems to indicate continued population growth leads to more and more problems. Again, see logistic curve. Stop abusing the concept of natural selection - most selective pressures these days are man-made, not natural ones. Humanity will not 'die out' if we stop colonising. Zero population growth means less competition for resources, less selective pressure, HIGHER fitness - in evolutionary terms. There is nothing arbitrary about zero population growth - it is a concept with a very logical basis (less competition means more resources) which produces very real benefits (stronger human rights and higher quality of life). There is no demon that will suddenly pop out and wipe humanity out with swarms of locusts if we have fewer babies. The mistake you are making is equating the theory itself with the models derived from it, and the predictions said models yield. I don't dispute the worth of the evolutionary system, but will take any predictions based on evolution, that in X years people will have wireless interfaces instead of ears, with a grain of salt. That's the practical difference between theory and law. I am not making any such mistake. I am pointing out to you the fairly damn obvious fact that the world is and has been following the predictions of the demographic transition model. Sand: 6 billion is actually fairly sustainable. Right now, less would be better because we have some nasty pressures like political strife, HIV, wars and improper distribution of wealth and nourishment, but in general the Earth is fairly capable of handling a population of 6 (even 10) billion humans whilst providing high human rights and quality of life for all. It would require some large shifts in the way we do things and how we think, though and is more likely to be something we achieve later this century or next century, once the world population has fallen into equillibrium and places like India and China have become fully developed.

I think you understand the issue well, and mirror my personal stance on it. As far as interactivity goes, BG2 was fairly innovative (except not, because Torment surpassed it and was created a year earlier). However, I do not feel that BG2 NPCs were particularly 'atmospheric', though. Torment alone managed to pull off both atmospheric and unique NPCs as well as high interactivity, out of all the IE games. Torment even went one up on BG2, making the interactivity two-way - allowing the player to initiate NPC interaction. Interestingly, I think Sarevok was one of the best implemented BG2 NPCs, probably because of his strong backstory, high uniqueness and the fact that he alone occupied developer time as the only NPC of the expansion. Pidesco: BG1 NPC's had plenty of personality and flair. As Tigranes said, it was in large part due to the voice acting and superb exploitation of extremes and archetypes.

n00b: I make no claim those figures and projections are exact. But they are less hypothetical than you might think, as they do in fact consider immigration levels, and are typically based on high/low/middle projections which examine extremities. Regardless of the ethical acceptability of China's communist government policies, the one child policy certainly served its purpose of lowering TFR and alleviating resource pressure. The politics of it are irrelevant; it is simply an example of the fact that such an idea has pragmatic use. Moreover, as a voluntary movement, VHEMT is capable of producing the same result whilst circumventing such ethics arguments. And yes, I am saying that the smart thing to do is to lower breeding rates: to have 0% growth. That means we still breed, but we do so to replace, not to increase. This VHEMT movement is an extreme (satire or not), but it represents some useful ideas and information, whilst simultaneously helping to speed up the rate of decrease of population growth rate. Finally, obviously such a movement would be ridiculous in a world where population growth rate were negative. Until then, it holds high real-world merit. It might be worth reading the site's FAQ fully, as well, as they seem like anything but crackpots - simply people who've decided not to have kids. I doubt anybody who really wants kids will be persuaded by this site, nor does it the site's intention to do so. If anything, the site seems first and foremost in support of informed and planned parenting, regardless of the eventual decision for or against kids. As for your dismissal (I think?) of demographic transitioning - sounds similar to dismissals of evolution "oh it's just a theory", regardless of high explanatory power and closeness of fit. It's a big picture theory, so wars, outbreaks, and revolutions cause perturbations only locally, being unlikely to change the overall end result (but making timeframe less certain). Rosjberg: they are typically based on maximum, minimum and likely (middle) projections. They are formulated from data on population growth rate, rate of population growth rate, immigration levels, immigration growth rate, total fertility rate, birth rate, death rate, and related data. As you can see, it's not a simple linear projection - the use of the 1st and 2nd derivatives here is very important.

I also have that Apocalyptica CD. Then again, I have all their CDs.

If you can't see how at least Sulik is more interesting than the majority of BG2 characters, it's hopeless even discussing it with you. Ehhh I suppose it is semantics. BG2 NPCs certainly had interjections, but personally this alone does not make them interesting to me. I thought Cassidy, Sulik, Marcus and Skynet were superb NPCs; I found myself adoring them far more than any BG2 NPCs. Even the BG2 NPCs I thought were actually done well (Minsc, Jan, Viconia) were rather forgettable once the game was over. Interestingly, BG1 NPCs were a different matter - BG1 Minsc, Jaheira and Imoen for example were thoroughly memorable.

Satire hey? The funny thing is, the more developed and educated people get, the less they breed. You may not be aware of it, but by 2042, Europe's population will decrease by 10%. The West in general is experiencing a steady population growth decrease, and that extends to Asia (including China and India). Meanwhile, places like China have used lesser forms of this movement to try and improve living conditions and resource availability (by decreasing population growth) - see one child policy. This is an extremist group, certainly, but like many extremes, it has much merit in moderation. 0% population growth and decay should be the eventual aim of any civilised and developed society (replacement, not addition). While I do not support VHEMT in full (and myself plan to have 2 kids), they offer a good method of rapidly curtailing population growth as a means to achieve zero growth. I personally believe that effort should instead be focused on dealing with the aging population produced by population decrease (which I see as inevitable). It is also worth noting this group is opposed to terrorism and force; it does not support violence or suicide. Asia (inc. India and China) will stabilise at around 0% growth rate for the 2050 to 2150 period. Europe will fall below its population of 1950 by 2150. Japan will fall to its 1970's level population by 2050. Australia and Oceania will continue to increase at a modest growth rate, doubling in size by 2100 Latin America will experience just slightly above 0% growth rate for the 2050 to 2150 period. Northern America (Canada and the USA) will stabilise at 0% growth for the 2050 to 2150 period. Africa and the Middle East will continue to increase rapidly, albeit at a slower rate for the 2050 to 2150 period Overall, it looks like Earth's population will peak at the 10 billion mark for the 2050-2150 period. 2050 world population: 9 billion. 2150 world population: 9.8 billion. More information on demographic transition here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_transition

Actually, Pop really has no defensible position at all; he's judging CrashGirl's post on what he thinks she thinks, not what it actually says or implies. Moreover, I don't see how enjoying Witcher-style female NPCs precludes one from preferring and enjoying Torment-style female NPCs even more.

I doubt the monitor is causing PC problems. It is possible though that the monitor itself is locking up - it has it's own microchip(s) to control some basic functions.

Sorry, what's so wrong here? These people are offering a partial solution to helping the environment which hinders us and them the least, yet so many of you are blowing your tops about it? If you ask me it is not they who are the "retards".

Mother frecking blaaaaaaaarhg drusnk.

[quote name='H

This was the older model. I bought it in the university classifieds for $300 AUD. AMD Athlon XP 3000+ 512MB DDR1 RAM Geforce 4 Ti 64MB graphics card 2*50GB HDs Ah well, lucky I bought another similar system for $200 the same way... although it has a Voodoo 3, lol.

Really? I generally preferred KOTOR1 and 2 NPCs to BG2 ones. Some could have been deeper in KOTOR1, but I still feel they were all-round more interesting and interactive than BG2 NPCs.

I would argue it is was still very effective. Did it have a benefit over standard design? Yes. Is anything more effective that could replace it? No. Therefore, there's really no argument as to whether or not it was of benefit (cost hardly even factors into it).

That's awesome, but I bet the crew got a headache.

Shoe phone.

Well, so far, it seems that you are in the minority on this particular forum. Really? I got the impression a lot of people on this forum get a sad face when they think of Vista.

Nightwish is good.

Before you listen to Gorth, think of the floods of users Alpha Protocol and Aliens are sure to release. What better way to respond to the 100th "teh alein queen is hot??" poll than the medium of dance? Come, children! Studies show the following emoticons are also an effective n00b-management tool: 3) 4) 5) / 6)

The Tactics mod is outdated and its difficulty enhancing capabilities have since been surpassed by other mods which play fair and rely on highly advanced AI instead of using cheep methods such as taking the party's items and/or giving opponents absurd abilities/resistances. See SCSII for an example of a modern AI enhancing mod. BTW, Arkan, this might also interest you: Flaming Swords in BG2. Just thought I'd pop in and say it's good to see you're still around, aVENGER.

Why would they avoid that? It's the perfect way to unfold it. I'm with Arkan.

But I thought game CD-keys used the DEC alphabet to avoid confusion of G, I, O, and Q with C, 1, 0, and O, for example?

Possibly, but I reckon it'd work much better if it was Anders. It seems to be gearing up for that, too, including Anders/Starback dynamic.