Basic regular game withoput campaigns and scenarios IS sandbox mode. paul.
Solitair
). Simple and effective. To break the blockade the defender just has to clear 1 tile around the starbase. This suggestion allows for the capture of starbases and simulates supply and blockade. Paul.
It is very interesting research, but strangely it has not been peer reviewed. I'm surprised that any Europe wide research of this nature was not required to submit papers for peer review. It takes away a very important element. Will have to try that cell phone trick. Paul.
One of the changes to GC2 that I'm very happy about is the removal of waste production. In GC1 a planet not producing ships was wasted. In GC2 any spare production will be converted into credit for the treasury. I'd like to make some suggestions to enhance this further. a) efficiency: I'd like to see the efficiency of the conversion change with tech. Add it as a factor which can be chosen as a race bonus or increased through tech research.
e them. If at a later stage you wish to colonise the planet you can send a colony ship to replace the outpost. Outposts can also be attacked by ships but have reasonable defense (easy prey for battleship and over). Paul.
sign. Paul.
Good luck. paul.
Greywar, I understand the desire to see immediate action. It is an awful situation and one that I would be much happier if some action could be taken on. I'm glad to hear that you also disapprove of similar US inaction and no longer consider it, This is exactly the so
Agreement on the disagreement front then Paul.
While I don't expect the pope to condemn such abuse in every address, I must agree that the Vatican itself has been very poor on its condemnation and openness on this issue. For many years the issue itself was not even acknowledged, despite open condemnation in indivcidual countries. It has rested on the individual countries bishops' to proceed forward with public apologies and regret. While most country's bishops have been vocal in condemnation a numb
Greywar, what do you think the outcry would be if Israel did try to grab the children and one of them was killed? If you look at my last post you will see that I flag a link showing many similar cases of US kids taken abroard where the US does not resort to military action. Why do you expect Sweden to act different from the US. Why are you more critical of them than the US? Paul.
Greywar, there are structures in place to allow for international agreements (not bilateral or trilateral) to be worked out and agreed upon. You argue that these structures are weak and there may be some truth in that, but the bottom line is that the enforcement date is dependant on the date of ratification of the quorate. It's usually set in the treaty to be 3 or 6 months after the required quorum is
No they can't. The start date cannot be set until a quorum has been met agreeing on the treaty. That's the law. It's how EVERY such international treaty is written. And yet again may I say that this is NOT the US's fault. It is purely a consequence of the US pulling out. paul.
Greywar, law enforcement is not something Sweden can do in palestine. Likewise, sending in armed troops is not going to get those children back safely. It's not like the US has a better record in getting abductees returned. Demonising Sweden or Europe for something that is a world problem is not helpful. Try reading this link on the US state department's success rate. Link <br
Greywar, you obviously don't understand the implentation of international treaties. All international treaties do not come intoi force until a majority or quorum have approved them. If you look at any treaty you will see that thye have the treaty signing date and the date the treaty came into force. It's totally standard and normal. You could have realised this with a search in less time than it took you to write your sarcastic reply.
While David did go over the top, he made a very important point, One bad incident does not make the entire population bad. His highlighting of the awful baby cut from his mother is a good example of this. People don't taint the entire US with this behaviour. But to taint all muslims with kidnapping behaviour is wrong. There are plenty of cases every year within the US itself of parents kidnapping their children. As for the
There is a balance in the gases that make up our atmosphere. Look up the material safety data sheets on these gases and you'll find the upper safe limits. For O2 this is around 20%. For CO2 it's as low as 2%. And yes there are lower limts for many gases as well. If O2 fell below about 13% we would be in serious trouble. CO2 does not have a lower limit for humans. As for water vapour, this is NOT a major fraction of the atmosphere. Any such re
I definitely agree that some new laws are required. I'd prefer to see new laws 'rise' to the occasion though as oppossed to see badly thought out laws which step on human rights. I don't want to see our society degrade into a police state of fear mongering and inequality. There are plenty of positive chages that can be made to laws without the risk of human right abuses and there are plenty of existing laws that can be effective used to fight terrorism
Helix, your EPA chart of pollution in 1995 is definitely interesting. It includes Russia as Eastern Europe though and Russia as well as most of Eastern Europe has signed Kyoto. Therefore these countries will be reducing their pollution to 1990 levels or lower (depends on country). Excellent news. Western Europe is reducing it's levels to 8% below 1990. So more excellent news. Japan is reducing it's le
greywar, you have identified a problem between delayed implementation and desired effect. Unfortunately when Kyoto was puit together the US had agreed to it and speedy ratificatino was expected. The reason it's taken so long is because the US has pulled out. Sadly if the US had not pulled out Kyoto would already be in effect and these rainforests would have been protected. Don't misread me, I'm not saying Brazil cutting these forests down is the
Brad, Lets be clear on some point. the US pollutes more gaseous pollutants per person than any major polluter. This includes all the EU countries, Japan, Russia and China. Some oil producing countries are worse per person but their total outputs are much lower than the major polluters. Yes the US gets more GDP per volume of CO2, but this does not make it acceptable. By this logic the US could double the quantity of CO2 it releases so l
Helix, as a scientist who has spent years working with greenhouse gases I find the articles you have quoted to be very funny in their bias and lack of understanding. It's always hilarious how easily non scientists are wowed by scientific data on websites without the slightest idea of the quality of that data. Firstly I feel the need to point out that the CO2 science.org website is a single side of a scientific debate on this issue and not on th
Nice to hear some of the nitty gritty stuff. Sounds like you're motoring along very nicely. Hope your dad is fine, Paul.
Thank you. If I lived in the country I'd send you a christmas present in thanks! Paul.
greywar, cutting the rainforest down in Brazil has nothing to do with Kyoto. if Kyoto was in force it would actually stop this as carbon sinks are included in the Kyoto accord and removing them counts strongly against your emission targets. It's a classic mis-information campaign going on. The sooner Kyoto starts the sooner Brazil has to protect it's rain forests. Kyoto is the only internationally treaty which actually acknowledges and protects