metadigital

Cutting down the jungles, like the Amazon, and burning the wood for heat, is one of the major issues to solve. I dred to think of northern South America looking like Saharan Africa, to say nothing of the impact on the globe. And why should China, for example, adopt clean energy practises when the occident refuses to increase their energy production and product disposal costs?

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. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I have already stated that every issue of New Scientist for the last five years, almost without exception, has some further comment to this effect. That's a lot of re-inforcement, on a weekly basis, for a half-baked theory with no support. I see no evidence to the contrary, apart from your exhortations and a single petition signed by 17000 US citizens. Are you really suggesting that burning fossil fuels has not significant effect on the Earth? If nothing else, the insistance on making people think about the consequences of their actions can only be a good thing.

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). <{POST_SNAPBACK}> How far back to you want to go? If you go all the way back 3 billion years, there was zero Oxygen in the atmosphere, and almost every organism was anaerobic. There has also been a period of higher O2 level. Ok, I certainly can't produce proof that global warming is due to human activity or even bad for the planet, but the overwelming evidence supports these hypotheses. But to deny that the weather has changed as a result of greenhouse gas content rising seems to me to be churlish. The data supports this trend hypothesis. You may be correct that it is a coincidence, is within normal variance, or a result of increased solar radiation, or the end of the little ice age, but I disagree with that conclusion. Certainly it behooves us to be prepared, because the last thing 6 billion people need is another event like the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum.

Bingo

I made level 33 without cheating. There are lots of side quests. Kreia adds an XP bonus (50%, I think) when she is a member of the party (which I was pretty happy to sacrifice to not have her butting into my game after the first run through), and when you are granted the Prestige Class you will jump to the next level (great news if you have just acceded a new level when you trigger the Kreia dialogue).

What happens when it reaches 10000? Does someone email it to LucasArts? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I'm pretty sure LucasArts have the finished game and an amazing add on containing new planets, characters, force powers and combat options. All they do is wait for it to hit the 10000 mark and they release it....... Or not............... " <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Yes, the community has to prove its dedication to the game and THE Force.

Precisely: violence is the result of a breakdown in communication.

They sould change the name to "privacy invasion, get a divorce and/or a social works visiting" <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I think that's included in the delux package. I know how they can make a killing -- is there a male version? "

HA! Better games have been made in much less time. 6 year development cycle and this is what I get? You've got to be f*cking kidding. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> You are free to not participate, if that is what you desire. No promise was issued, no warranty implied

I just read your sig and recalled that was the last thing that the G-man says in the first conversation of the game; your explanation is spot on and I whole-heartedly agree with the λ

Well, to add my urinative contribution to this pissing contest, the Australian armed forces have performed in the highest percentile of any in history, in all the battles they have fought. The only problem is the size: the NYPD has more men. "

Don't you mean hormones? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Or even homilies?

Just copy and paste. " Do yourself a favour, go back and play it again, now. Deus Ex is the best cRPG I have ever played. You will see why when you replay it. Where did you get to?

Lots of little hand and finger puppets, then.

Oh, that. Yes, I'm sure I don't need to remind you of the many examples of widely accepted theories throughout History that had most of the scientific community behind them and in the end, were proven wrong. Sorry, no amount of reputed scientists defending a theory are going to turn it into a law without proof. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> That was just to show that the original article, with its mere 17000 signatories, was nothing more than significant statistical blip. Time and evidence will tell whether we can all party on fossil fuels until the price is too much and it is blindingly obviously more economically viable to use other power sources ... or if that is a catastrophic laissez faire mistake of biblical proportions. I for one hope for the former scenario, because I doubt whether anyone is concerned enough to make any significant changes to energy policy.

Methinks the lady doth protest too much ... how do you know conclusively that you have no relatives from that geographic area ...

It would be a tad expensive, as every scene would be CGI. Or little hand puppets.

Well, your review probably included an appreciation for the whiz-bang new video technology, which is impressive. But then, as you say, it does get pretty old pretty quickly. I recommend playing on the hardest setting, because you want to enjoy the fighting all the way through, because I doubt whether you'll play it through multiple times.

Fixed! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Thanks, teacher. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I see they're at it again with Resurection of Evil, which is exactly the same plot with a gimped gravity gun thrown in. At least Quake 4 might be good (the previews are promising) -- I don't think Duke Nukem will live up to the hype, though, after changing engines twice (UT2004

Fixed!

Hmm, that's a good point, sounds like an expansion, doesn't it? Dang. If you paid for a Silver or Gold pack, though all the stuff released is free, so those people will not have to pay, for sure.

Rabbits are a tasty part of a nutritious diet.

But we are all brothers and sisters in the The Force ... Such hatred! The Dark Side is strong in this one ... (welcome back from your binge and hangover ... :D )

ARTHUR B. ROBINSON, SALLIE L. BALIUNAS, WILLIE SOON, AND ZACHARY W. ROBINSON Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, 2251 **** George Rd., Cave Junction, Oregon 97523 info@oism.org George C. Marshall Institute, 1730 K St., NW, Ste 905, Washington, DC 20006 info@marshall.org January 1998 Summary To be sure, CO2 levels have increased substantially since the Industrial Revolution, and are expected to continue doing so. It is reasonable to believe that humans have been responsible for much of this increase. But the effect on the environment is likely to be benign. Greenhouse gases cause plant life, and the animal life that depends upon it, to thrive. What mankind is doing is liberating carbon from beneath the Earth's surface and putting it into the atmosphere, where it is available for conversion into living organisms. This is not true. In fact there is good evidence that there used to be a lot more Oxygen in the atmosphere and that this was good for us aerobic organisms, giving us vim and vigour beyond that which we have now. Also, it is true that plants photosynthesise carbon dioxide, but more biomass doesn't mean sustained biodiversity or crop yields; indeed both may fall. The biggest danger is that we don't know how much the Earth can take. It has a history of two stable states, ice ages and the warmer periods like now. One strident warning is Venus; it is not inconceivable that the Earth could be turned into another Venus if given a big enough push in that direction. (It would require a lot, though, so it is not a probable risk.) There are all sorts of planetary systems that might be affected by greenhouse gases, including one I can't remember the name of right now, but is something to do with ionic trasnformations in the atmosphere that will not function if the ambient temperature rises by ten degrees or so. The highest probablility for change is the Gulf Stream, which -- if it stopped working, would make the British Isles (and possibly the southern coastal Unitd States') climate drop by as much as 5

What about these 17,000 scientists? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> You will always find heretics, and in fact science needs them to shake it up regularly. I would be interested in the motives of these 17200 people -- why are they all American, for a start? Don't be fooled by the "scientist" label, either; that doesn't grant them immunity from the fallibilites of regular humans, like pride, arrogance and greed; there were more than enough "scientists" who were prepared to argue that there was not "absolute proof" that smoking leads to lung cancer -- there still are, and from a certain pov, they are correct. (A very pendantic pov, but there are precious few certainties in science: absolute zero and the speed of light and a few laws.) The signatories are agreeing: We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind. There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth. I have been reading New Scientist and Scientific American for the last dozen years or so, sometimes every week, and always occassionally, and they have consistently argued that statements to the effect of this one are wrong and dangerous. For instance: "... The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind. ..." How would a reduction of greenhouse gasses harm the environment? Everyone agrees that there are more greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere now than ever (since the Archean era ended), so reducing them can only take us back to a state we have already been in (simplistically speaking). How would it hinder science? Science does not require fossil fules. Science is the application of ingenuity to a given seemingly intractable problem to provide a useful method to circumvent it. Science is just as valid and vibrant determining a renewable energy system than, say, refining the existing fossil fuels. What's more, at some point we will need to generate power in a renewable fashion, because we won't be near the traditional energy sources (the sun, the oil and gas reserves, the oxygen of the atmosphere, etc). I have no respect for this petition because it is -- even for a circumspect analysis such as this -- disingenuously erroneous.