[quote]I guess the bottom line is, is there any evidence whatsoever that you would accept as proving your current position wrong? I've stated my ten year window, you could at least strap on a pair of balls and make a decision.[/quote] When you can point to the inland beach where Holland used to be, or Bangledesh being half the size it used to be. Hell, I'd settle for the day they evacuate Diego Garcia. In short, if there isn't a meter of sea level rise in your lifetime, the whole thin
No, but there is now a slider to let you control how frequent they are. Perhaps it got adjusted during the reinstall. Start a new game and check to see it hasn't been set to "none". The slider is IIRC near the bottom on the left side of the first page of set up.
I gave up on my effort to solve the influence generation equasion for the same reason. There are simply too many interlocking variables to make it easily solvable and I don't feel like putting that much effort into trying to control a dozen different variables to come up with a equasion.
Very much yes. If you are attacking, it would remove the tie rule from play almost completely. The first strike ability makes it so any ship you destroy the first round doesn't get to fire back at all, so if you can kill the DL ship in the first round, you won't lose ANY ships, nor do your ships need to survive getting hit. Also, in the first two parts of the game, the tie rule wasn't exactly the same. The attacker always had pretty much the same advantage that the first strike abilit
I rarely have this problem in sandbox games, because the Dreadlords go down fast if you attack as soon as they show up. In the campaign, though, they are a real problem. There are basically two solutions. The first is the attrition solution given above. Research logistics and cram as many tiny ships into a fleet as possible and just soak up damage and pray you can absorb more damage than they can put out. The second is the bigger hammer. Research huge hulls, miniaturization, a
[quote]I do realize that there are a lot of if's here but I think the one thing that *can* be concluded is that there is no evidence that the atmospheric fraction of emitted CO2 is declining which means that there is no magic bullet that will suddenly come into play and start absorbing greater and greater amounts of our atmospheric CO2 emmisions.[/quote] Depends. In an absolute sense, the ocean *is* absorbing more. It is absorbing less as a fraction of what we emit because o
[quote]So what's the bottom line? Do you agree that the uptake may indeed be declining at 1% per decade as these studies imply?[/quote] It's at least plausible, although it is far more likely the land component is responsible for any decline than the ocean system.
[quote]However perhaps it is a transport issue and not a capacity issue as Willy suggests. If the deep cold water capacity is as Willy suggests then perhaps the slight positive feedback of warming shallow waters is not important. Like I've said many times I make no claims to being a climatologist, I'm picking up all of this as I go along.[/quote] That's not climatology, that's basic chemistry. Nearly all gases are more soluble in cooler solvents, and nearly all solids are more soluble
Also listed in those papers are about a quarter of the CO2 emitted that they can't account for. They have their calculation of what we emit, a calculation of how much is absorbed and direct measurements of what is retained in the atmosphere - and the numbers just don't add up. By nearly 25%. Almost a quarter of what we emit, they can't account for. It's clearly going somewhere, but damned if they know where. The ocean will never get to the actual "saturation" point, where th
Post 241 then. Three pages ago you weren't planning you flashy exit, right? At least three instances of blatant trolling, even taken entirely without context. With context maybe 5 or 6, depending on which mod handled it and how generous they were feeling. Not to mention the language. Any one of those would get the post deleted, beyond that is just keeping score. As I said, by GameFAQs rules nearly all of us would have had at least one post deleted, but yours are by f
[quote]As for taking moderator action against him for going it alone and persisting at it--I don't think so. I've seen that done before. Someone sticks up for himself alone, 5 people don't like him, the mods don't like him, so they take action: because they don't LIKE him. I have yet to see a single moderated chat board whose rules state that you will be censored if your popularity rating goes below a certain percentage. It's called the mods being bigger babies than that guy.[/quote]
[quote]I've already confirmed the private point with this entire thread that I was making to a friend. So I'm outta here.[/quote] Anyone else wonder how much he won betting a friend he could troll an internet board for 13 pages? I moderate for GameFAQS. As a trolling attempt I give this a 7/10. He's fairly good, but he'd be eaten alive on CE or the Religion board.
[quote]Practically-speaking, I don't think they differ much, if any. But you have to understand, the first thing an evolutionist will try to do is categorize you into a "demonized" group, and then simply demonize and attack you over and over again rather than have an actual debate. Their two demonized groups are "creationists" and "ID'ers." Actually, it is a single demonized group "creationists," and they lump ID'ers in with that group. I am most certainly not a crea
[quote]Now that's an interesting number I don't recall seeing estimated in any of my pop science consumption. Some smart folks should add an info box to the Wiki page for fossil giving us a version of the Population Clocks. Are we over a million coprolites yet?[/quote] Don't read too much into my numbers, I was basically using numbers out of my ass to illustrate a point. The only reason I picked the last half-billion years was to limit the discussion to fossils of large, complex life
More specific to the question: I think they were planned at one point but never made it into the game. As far as I know there are no neutral specific weapons or defenses and never have been, they just forgot to change the text.
[quote]Does your population increase per turn go up with more influence? So if I build a diplomat building and increase my influence on a planet will the pop increase faster?[/quote] No. Population growth is linked to morale, not influence. the only way influence is getting you more population is flipping planets. [quote]If I build influence starbases do they only have an effect in their immediate area or are they added to my "total influence" as well?[/quote] I don't
[quote]Meanwhile, these others haven't argued anything in their own words, they just copy and paste some wall of text. In fact, I'd bet my left testicle that they don't even understand what they are cutting and pasting.[/quote] You just lost. Kindly remove the forfeited section of anatomy, and you being you I'm afraid we may need photographic evidence. Pics, post-haste! [quote]But you see, here's where you are wrong. When I've cited someone, I've cited an evolution
First, those aren't naval vessels, they are commercial freighters. Hell, most aircraft carriers are well under 80k tons and 900 feet in length, and the (American, who else?) exceptions are all nuclear powered. In comparison, the freighters being discussed are all 170k tons and 1400 feet long, compared to a Nimitz class carrier of 101k tons and 1100 feet long. Second, the point of the article is not that 16 freighters put out as much carbon as all the autos in the world, it's that
[quote who="Agent of Kharma" reply="282" id="2488727"] Ten yard penalty here. Since we are not allowed to reference anyone else's work, neither are you. You cannot use Darwin or Gould, you must use solely your own work. FOOL! They *ASKED* me for those references! [/quote] Not really, no. You brought them up, we simply asked you to provide links to what they actually said not your interpretive paraphrasing of what they said. Under the rules you've decid
The number in the brackets is the ratio of your influence on that planet to the next highest foreign influence on it. If that gets above 4.0, there is a chance your planet could switch sides to that empire. This is commonly called "flipping". As far as I know, there is no definitive influence tutorial. I looked into it at one point, and influence is just a god-forsaken disaster of interconnected factors and unexplainable components that no one will ever completely solve it without cra
I'm blowing the whistle and throwing a penalty flag. [quote]Yeah, I keep asking for things that haven't been delivered too. I asked someone to show me how a simple machine is constructed step by step according to evolution. All I got was a steaming mass of horseshit for one attempted explanation, a "you expect me to actually try to explain how my theory works? screw you!" as another response, and text pasted from some stupid web site as another response, which I cann
[quote]LOL. So you are attacking the fact that I think critically and think for myself, and you are defending appeal to authority, bandwagon jumping, and general support of the establishment and status quo. Furthermore, you back this up with personal attacks? I guess I win by default then.[/quote] Your entire argument is an appeal to authority - and apparently you're using your own authority, as you won't even reference anyone else's work, or supply data oth
[quote]This is why it's not such a good idea to go around puffing up your chest simply because we beat up on a pissant of a country, particlarly when we haven't even demonstrated the ability to finish the job. You end up pissing off one of the few true friends that you have.[/quote] I think we're looking at a distinct disconnect here; there is a vast difference between "defeat militarily" and "successfully invade, occupy, and pacify". I don't think you can really argue that Iraq had n
[quote]LOL. So you are attacking the fact that I think critically and think for myself, and you are defending appeal to authority, bandwagon jumping, and general support of the establishment and status quo. Furthermore, you back this up with personal attacks? I guess I win by default then.[/quote] Your entire argument is an appeal to authority - and apparently you're using your own authority, as you won't even reference anyone else's work, or supply data oth
GalCiv2 Forums