213374U

No, we're simply better off - people and the world are by and large the same; we have simply gotten better at logistics and management. We have set up modern societies in a way that people have no reason to get up in arms and demand the head of the king (literally), or the invasion of some neighbour country, depending on how skilled the person in charge is at handling the mobs. People presently have their basic needs covered, and then some. If that arrangement fails, people revert to their violent, selfish selves. Morals and enlightenment are great, but they won't fill your stomach or protect you from cold. It's curious, because you mention that yourself. Places that fail to meet the criteria for what is a "modern society" are notoriously backwards, and violence is rife. Er, why do you think that is? Because people there haven't had their eyes opened to the wonders of international legality, fundamental human rights and democracy? Or because, you know, there isn't enough food or power or land for everyone? After thousands of years the #1 problem is still the same: resources are limited. Human populations always expand beyond what their resources would allow, and trouble follows. So, where do you live that people have evolved beyond lying, cheating and murdering when they believe they can get away with it? I'd very much like to move there. Edit: I lol'ed

Yeah. After ten thousand years of cultural evolution (read: constant warring), we have finally learned... PR!!! Don't be too impressed with modernity, though. People are still people.

Is that a trick question?

is you making an effort to be an ass everytime you posts? we are guessing you is. Aw, jeez. For you and Google-impaired vol: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=gay+purchasing+power edit: this gromnirspeak thing is tricky!

And despite all the replies in the thread, only one seems to support the Palestinian side. ...welcome to the Obsidz boards...

What numbers have to add up? Alanschu said the characters were bisexual so the cost of including a gay romance can't have been that much, appealing to more people without a significant extra effort. It's not purchasing 10 copies, either, but DA on top of other stuff. But apparently BIO decided to cut the gay romance from ME2, so then again, maybe not.

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009/11/26...ted-Guests.html Nice job, agent Horrigan. *salutes*

I remember reading that the gay segment of the population has an insane purchasing power. The lack of a gay romance may or may not be a turnoff for (gay) customers, but it looks like Bio chose not to risk it. A sensible decision if the popularity of regular romances is anything to go by. Ethics? Equality? Artistic statements? More like market forces...

And that's exactly what I meant - it's impossible to reasonably extrapolate that to a global scale, because we lack an understanding of cloud dynamics. And, as you no doubt know, water vapour accounts for ~95% of the greenhouse effect. Good! Then what is the validity of these models? It's not just that chaos governs how the climate works, it's that we don't know all the variables there are and in some cases (such as could and solar dynamics), we just don't understand them. So instead, placeholder "parameters" are introduced in the model. But on the other hand, we are *obviously* to assume that this temperature increase trend will continue for the foreseeable future, and any number of other effects and problems are theoretically derived from that. Pretty much because we choose to believe so. Again, I have to disagree that "but it's chaos" is good enough an excuse to pass shoddy science as sound evidence for policy-making. Substitute "Chaos" with "God", for effect. I couldn't say it better myself.

The "basic science" has been proven? What, you mean at the Laws of Thermodynamics level, right? Because other than that, all we have are incomplete theories and computer models that require constant fine-tuning to match observed data. Normally, you are supposed to get your model working before you call it a "theory", and certainly before said theory starts being a basis for policy. Simply because from an epistemological standpoint science can't prove things in the sense a theorem does, it is no excuse to start lowering the rigour standards for science. What ARE the consequences, at any rate? And how have those been extrapolated? Understanding why the ice caps are melting is essential to make adequate contingency plans and evaluating the worth and feasibility of permanent solutions. Without any kind of reliable predictions, what, exactly, are we to prepare against? Or do we just assume a worst case scenario, and start evacuating all coastal cities? Because, you know, this costs money.

Because discussing consequences without understanding causes is pointless.

Those progressions are from 1970 to present day. The Arctic ice cap is what, 1M years old? The mechanisms behind the observed shrinkage are NOT understood, so attempts at making accurate predictions are futile. So, again, it's good to know about relative and absolute extremum before drawing conclusions. If you mean "the ice seems to have receded since we have satellites", nobody's going to contest that. But you went on to claim that it's undisputable proof that "global warming" is a reality. Anyway, I look forward to my summer resort in Antarctica being finished.

No, the only classes that require a story feat are Neverwinter Nine and Shadow Thief. You sure you meet all the requirements? Your BaB isn't the same as your AB. http://nwn2.wikia.com/wiki/Arcane_Archer

Local extremum and dynamic equilibrium are nice concepts to understand, among others, before pontificating about this like some folks do. Not to mention making predictions. Um, but you do. And even then, you should be careful. Because, apparently, "melting" is misleading - some areas are melting, and in some others, the ice is becoming thicker.

I seriously hope this wasn't the deciding factor for your purchase.

"trial timed run this saturday" PFT?

That's nothing. We have a Minister for "Equality". The power problem has a relatively easy solution. Technology exists to make alternative sources possible, and production costs will be the determining factor for change. But look around you - everything is made from oil derivatives. And for that, we don't really have feasible (from an economic pov) alternatives.

My ignorant... what?

n/m

A cause for concern, you say? Depends on whom you ask.

Actually, it will.

Sure, fine. Are you going to switch to tofu burgers too? Because, you know, bovine livestock is the next target of the climate change adherents. Cow farts will kill the planet, I tells ya! You win. That always makes me wonder - why isn't it Chinese or Indian "scientists" warning about this post-modern armageddon? In the case of a possible mass crops failure scenario (one of the woes of this environmental DOOM), they would get the short end of the stick for sure.

Being biased against German soldiers isn't an issue today? Well, perhaps where you live it isn't. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be, at any rate. And no, I'm not without bias myself. I'll thank you to point out when my biases are clearly distorting my judgement, because it's not something that can't be corrected, or to be proud of. Yeah, while you're at WP, look up either/or fallacy. And do read the first paragraph of the very article you're linking to, where it says that it was agreed after the war that the Wehrmacht wasn't a criminal organisation per se.

Um, right. All non-resistance Germans were Nazis. Good luck with that, professor. Aaaand style over substance. Aaaand hipocrisy. Aaaand cherrypicking. Aaaand