The Ancient Are of War was one of the games that convinced me (at 10) that a good part of my life would be spent sitting in front of them. However, it is not really recognizable as a "real time strategy game" as the deployment and control of troops was far more limited. They were more (IIRC) directed by simplistic AI rather than direct player control. The only real choice the player had was what types of troops to deploy and when to deploy them. Resource collection was also largely absent (at least as a function of the RTS control).
hat's like saying that after you leave a company and cash the paycheck 3 weeks later, that the company is still paying you.
That's like saying 3 weeks and 5 years are the same length of time. This was done to avoid paying taxes...except that it is tax money which is paying both salaries.
(assuming that they're still worth anything.)
He donated a big part of his 2005 compensation because his actions as Vice President increased the value of those stock options by about 3000%.
Cheney has NOT been paid by Halliburton since he began running for VP almost 8 yrs ago.
That's not true.
Vice President and Mrs. Cheney filed their federal income tax return for 2004 today. The income tax return shows that the Cheneys owe federal taxes for 2004 of $393,518 on taxable income of $1,328,678. During the course of 2004 the Cheneys paid $290,855 in taxes through withholding and estimated tax payments. The Cheneys paid $102,663 upon filing their tax return.
The wage and salary income reported on the tax return includes the Vice President's $203,000 government salary. In addition, the tax return reports the payment of deferred compensation from Halliburton Company in the amount of $194,852. In December 1998, the Vice President elected to defer compensation earned in calendar year 1999 for his services as chief executive officer of Halliburton. This amount was required be paid in fixed annual installments (with interest) in the five years after the Vice President's retirement from Halliburton.
If you follow the lineage, Quake was probably one of the more important games, at least from a hardware standpoint (i.e. it started the "you need a graphics card to really play this game...and that's before you get to the online hop in/hop out deathmatch).
Dune 2 was primitive because it was the first "real-time strategy" game. And they had to put that in quotes on the box too, since no one really knew what it meant.
The only thing Warcraft had different was the humor and a fantasy instead of sci-fi storyline.
And Iran has never said they want to exterminate anyone. They do, however, want the maps to change, much like the maps in Eastern Europe/Asia changed at the end of the Cold War. The U.S. wiped the U.S.S.R. off the map, but there was no extermination needed, done, or called for.
Don't forget humans. They've invaded and controlled damn near every ecosystem on the planet, often leading to the extinction of competing organisms. Also, their dependence on using small exposions to enhance mobility is having a hugely negative effect even on the ecosystems where they haven't become dominant.
Zune sucked because even the positive reviews of the device included at least 5 mentions of "you can't....".
When there is a such a well established market leader like the iPod out there, offering a device with less functionality, in the same form, is a losing proposition./squirt.
A theory is described based on resonant thermal diffusion waves in the sun that explains many details of the paleotemperature record for the last 5.3 million years. These include the observed periodicities, the relative strengths of each observed cycle, and the sudden emergence in time for the 100 thousand year cycle. Other prior work suggesting a link between terrestrial paleoclimate and solar luminosity variations has not provided any specific mechanism. The particular mechanism described here has been demonstrated empirically, although not previously invoked in the solar context. The theory, while not without its own unresolved issues, also lacks most of the problems associated with Milankovitch cycle theory.
We aren't talking about paleoclimate changes here. This conversation was not about ice ages occuring at periodic intervals. That's what his paper is about. It is an attempt at an explanation for why there was a change in ice age intervals.
It does nothing to talk about what we are seeing here, which is a rapid change in temperature outside the bounds of historically measured ice age changes. The scale of his research (in the 41,000 to 100,000 year range) is also well outside the bounds of what we are talking about. That is...the changes we are seeing now are happening far too quickly to be explained by such a gradual phenomena.
Finally, and most damning...no where in his paper does he suggest this cycle explains what we are seeing now.
There's plenty of argument amoung people with half a brain who don't have to fight for funding to keep food on the table.
Correct, all the argument is from laypeople who don't do this for a living..or are being paid to argue against it (using faaar more FUD than people who actually build models). You want better models...but think people trying to build them shouldn't be paid for it? How, pray tell, does the science get better if there is not draw for the scientists? That doesn't really compute.
Regardless, take care and I apprecaite the discussion.
The question was to highlight the fact that we cannot model anything that even remotely resembles a climate for a planet.
This is not true....depending on how pedantic you want to get about "remotely resembles". We already have this stuff.
Models that underpredict change are just worthless.
I would disagree. If a model predicts the opposite of what is happening, *that* would be worthless. Since we are getting closer, they are obviously not worthless.
What's your beef? -- Obviously there's a cycle, and it's possible humans have added (or even subtracted) from various aspects of the cycle. --
It's not "possible", it's all but proven. "Possible" is about as weak a word as you can get. We are seeing unprecedented changes in certain atmospheric conditions. On a general level, we see a correlation between historical changes and climate. Right now we are far outside the bounds on those historical atmospheric conditions.
-- I conserve where I can, and encourage others to do the same. However, I'm not a fan of the whole "global warming" agenda. --
The "global warming agenda" is to build better models...or...what? What is it you aren't a fan of?
-- My personal thoughts are that we are witnessing the transition from one phase of our climate to another, and entirely too many people are jumping to conclusions about what is the real cause. -- But the data would suggest that the "transition" is from a "pre-industrial" atmosphere to a "post-industrial" atmosphere...with a climate that could very well change radically to adapt....even to point of making said climate very inhospitable to the major cause of that quick change...the species responsible for the change.
You seem to think that the "agenda" people are making up data to fit pre-conceived notions. The data was already there (i.e. a warming planet and pretty much out of control changes in CO2 levles). The explanation and the *exact* models is where the work needs to be done.
There is very little argument about what is happening (hotter) or why (us)....well...very little argument in the professional circles...once you get to the layman level..the argument become fierce. BTW, you do know about the rather well confirmed "there's-no-issue-here agenda", yes?
It doesn't have to be 100% accurate, which I never claimed was a requirement. It just has to be good enough, and the current models are anything but that.
The point of the twice-linked story, and the issue that I took with your original comment, is simply this...even given your "climate cabal"...the models are underpredicting the change of this particular aspect (glacial loss) of the problem (climate change to the hotter direction). Given the conspiracy you aluded to earlier, one would think the models would say things are worse than they are. Instead, things are happening faster than the models predict.
While I agree that having better models would be useful, there is indeed (to use your phrase) "cause for alarm". While drastic change is not yet, IMHO, warranted, it's certainly not too early to start doing something, and well past the time to say, "I'm not going to believe anything is happening until the models are perfect." -- It doesn't have to be 100% accurate, which I never claimed was a requirement. --vs-- Is the ice melting faster than predicted with a model that's 100% accurate?
That would seem to be a "requirement", at least in my reading.
You consider waiting for the 100% (perfect) surety of a model before taking any kind of action to be "realistic"?
You do realize that the only 100% (perfect) model for the earth's climate is the earth itself? And it only "models" in real time.
Hence, you have "models" that aren't, and will never be as perfect as you want them to be (before taking any action). That's not in the slightest bit "realistic". -- Is the ice melting faster than predicted with a model that's 100% accurate?
Nope. It's melting faster than the imperfect model used to predict the future. It is melting 100% as fast as the 100% perfect model says it will. Unfortunately, that "model" only works in real time, and despite being terribly accurate, doesn't tell us what's going to happen next.
You call for surety is a call to constant inaction. Do you understand this?
Sure...you said..I'm all for research into global climate, but it's very clear that the models we currently have are not up to the task of telling us if we have cause to be alarmed yet.
Here's a link to an article that mentions how current models don't even predict how quickly glaciers are currently melting. Hence, change is happening faster than the models predict, hence....*ALARM*. Now wake up and try to do something productive today.
However, I'm not a fan of the whole "global warming" agenda.
There is about as much a "global warming" agenda as there is a "gay" agenda. Of course, both are part of the "liberal media" conspiracy.
I'm all for research into global climate, but it's very clear that the models we currently have are not up to the task of telling us if we have cause to be alarmed yet.
This is not true. A good number of them tell us we should have been alarmed a while back and now are approaching the PoNR.
Obviously there's a cycle, and it's possible humans have added (or even subtracted) from various aspects of the cycle.
It entirely evident that humans have contributed to changes in the cycle that are FAR beyond what used to be considered "natural". Think of it more like a tire going downhill as a natuarl cycle. Then put of a motor on it, and you have a motor-cycle. Which is not only a good metaphor for what is happening, but also a good part of our contribution to said acceleration.
Slashdot Mirror
The Ancient Are of War was one of the games that convinced me (at 10) that a good part of my life would be spent sitting in front of them. However, it is not really recognizable as a "real time strategy game" as the deployment and control of troops was far more limited. They were more (IIRC) directed by simplistic AI rather than direct player control. The only real choice the player had was what types of troops to deploy and when to deploy them. Resource collection was also largely absent (at least as a function of the RTS control).
hat's like saying that after you leave a company and cash the paycheck 3 weeks later, that the company is still paying you.
That's like saying 3 weeks and 5 years are the same length of time. This was done to avoid paying taxes...except that it is tax money which is paying both salaries.
(assuming that they're still worth anything.)
He donated a big part of his 2005 compensation because his actions as Vice President increased the value of those stock options by about 3000%.
That's not true.[pretty good source
Additionally, before he became Vice President, he excercised options worth over $30,000,000.
..."in-transit" energy from 100,000,000,000 stars?
...large amounts of completely non-reflective dust and asteroids?
...a side effect of over-estimating the size of the universe? (i.e. stars like our 5 billions light years away don't exist anymore)
/real questions
//just curious..
That's fine but then where's the Pokemons and Final Fantasies?
And the Wizardry's and Ultima's....or even a nod to Nethack-style games.
If you follow the lineage, Quake was probably one of the more important games, at least from a hardware standpoint (i.e. it started the "you need a graphics card to really play this game...and that's before you get to the online hop in/hop out deathmatch).
Dune 2 was primitive because it was the first "real-time strategy" game. And they had to put that in quotes on the box too, since no one really knew what it meant.
The only thing Warcraft had different was the humor and a fantasy instead of sci-fi storyline.
Someone needs to fix the Wikipedia bit.
Does anyone know the editor over there?
I'd like to take "Why Anecdotes Aren't Statistics 101", if anyone ever decided that was useful knowledge.
It eats your babies.
Maybe you enjoy that in an OS. Myself...not so much.
Thinking only works as well as the facts you start with.
In this case, it's the fact that Iran is a predominantly Shia country.
Shi'a Muslim 89%, Sunni Muslim 9%, Zoroastrian, Jewish, Christian, and Baha'i 2%
[source]
And Iran has never said they want to exterminate anyone. They do, however, want the maps to change, much like the maps in Eastern Europe/Asia changed at the end of the Cold War. The U.S. wiped the U.S.S.R. off the map, but there was no extermination needed, done, or called for.
Please tag your posts, "I'm so scared of brown people I can't think." in the first line.
It will make for easier reading.
Thanks!
Don't forget humans. They've invaded and controlled damn near every ecosystem on the planet, often leading to the extinction of competing organisms. Also, their dependence on using small exposions to enhance mobility is having a hugely negative effect even on the ecosystems where they haven't become dominant.
Zune sucked because even the positive reviews of the device included at least 5 mentions of "you can't....".
/squirt.
When there is a such a well established market leader like the iPod out there, offering a device with less functionality, in the same form, is a losing proposition.
"We're dumping you, you miserable failure, but we'll sugarcoat it so you don't sue us for defamation."
/strike...but...)
FTFY.
(would have used
Often times, these patent reviews come at a time when most of the damage has already been done and businesses are closed/jobs are lost.
Umm, that would be why investing on the front end would lead to a better system.
You probably think it's alright if somebody breaks your leg too as long as they give you a crutch.
Your trolling sophmoric at best.
but...but...but...government is evil and useless. /end idiot libertarian emulation program.
It does nothing to talk about what we are seeing here, which is a rapid change in temperature outside the bounds of historically measured ice age changes. The scale of his research (in the 41,000 to 100,000 year range) is also well outside the bounds of what we are talking about. That is...the changes we are seeing now are happening far too quickly to be explained by such a gradual phenomena.
Finally, and most damning...no where in his paper does he suggest this cycle explains what we are seeing now.
I hate to do it, but...uh....here's the latest news. Looks like the latest models and recent data paints an even worse picture.
There's plenty of argument amoung people with half a brain who don't have to fight for funding to keep food on the table.
Correct, all the argument is from laypeople who don't do this for a living..or are being paid to argue against it (using faaar more FUD than people who actually build models). You want better models...but think people trying to build them shouldn't be paid for it? How, pray tell, does the science get better if there is not draw for the scientists? That doesn't really compute.
Regardless, take care and I apprecaite the discussion.
The question was to highlight the fact that we cannot model anything that even remotely resembles a climate for a planet.
This is not true....depending on how pedantic you want to get about "remotely resembles". We already have this stuff.
Models that underpredict change are just worthless.
I would disagree. If a model predicts the opposite of what is happening, *that* would be worthless. Since we are getting closer, they are obviously not worthless.
What's your beef?
--
Obviously there's a cycle, and it's possible humans have added (or even subtracted) from various aspects of the cycle.
--
It's not "possible", it's all but proven. "Possible" is about as weak a word as you can get. We are seeing unprecedented changes in certain atmospheric conditions. On a general level, we see a correlation between historical changes and climate. Right now we are far outside the bounds on those historical atmospheric conditions.
--
I conserve where I can, and encourage others to do the same. However, I'm not a fan of the whole "global warming" agenda.
--
The "global warming agenda" is to build better models...or...what? What is it you aren't a fan of?
--
My personal thoughts are that we are witnessing the transition from one phase of our climate to another, and entirely too many people are jumping to conclusions about what is the real cause.
--
But the data would suggest that the "transition" is from a "pre-industrial" atmosphere to a "post-industrial" atmosphere...with a climate that could very well change radically to adapt....even to point of making said climate very inhospitable to the major cause of that quick change...the species responsible for the change.
You seem to think that the "agenda" people are making up data to fit pre-conceived notions. The data was already there (i.e. a warming planet and pretty much out of control changes in CO2 levles). The explanation and the *exact* models is where the work needs to be done.
There is very little argument about what is happening (hotter) or why (us)....well...very little argument in the professional circles...once you get to the layman level..the argument become fierce. BTW, you do know about the rather well confirmed "there's-no-issue-here agenda", yes?
Woohoo, now we're making progress.
It doesn't have to be 100% accurate, which I never claimed was a requirement. It just has to be good enough, and the current models are anything but that.
The point of the twice-linked story, and the issue that I took with your original comment, is simply this...even given your "climate cabal"...the models are underpredicting the change of this particular aspect (glacial loss) of the problem (climate change to the hotter direction). Given the conspiracy you aluded to earlier, one would think the models would say things are worse than they are. Instead, things are happening faster than the models predict.
While I agree that having better models would be useful, there is indeed (to use your phrase) "cause for alarm". While drastic change is not yet, IMHO, warranted, it's certainly not too early to start doing something, and well past the time to say, "I'm not going to believe anything is happening until the models are perfect."
--
It doesn't have to be 100% accurate, which I never claimed was a requirement.
--vs--
Is the ice melting faster than predicted with a model that's 100% accurate?
That would seem to be a "requirement", at least in my reading.
Sorry if I'm being too realistic.
You consider waiting for the 100% (perfect) surety of a model before taking any kind of action to be "realistic"?
You do realize that the only 100% (perfect) model for the earth's climate is the earth itself? And it only "models" in real time.
Hence, you have "models" that aren't, and will never be as perfect as you want them to be (before taking any action). That's not in the slightest bit "realistic".
--
Is the ice melting faster than predicted with a model that's 100% accurate?
Nope. It's melting faster than the imperfect model used to predict the future. It is melting 100% as fast as the 100% perfect model says it will. Unfortunately, that "model" only works in real time, and despite being terribly accurate, doesn't tell us what's going to happen next.
You call for surety is a call to constant inaction. Do you understand this?
Sure...you said..I'm all for research into global climate, but it's very clear that the models we currently have are not up to the task of telling us if we have cause to be alarmed yet.
Here's a link to an article that mentions how current models don't even predict how quickly glaciers are currently melting. Hence, change is happening faster than the models predict, hence....*ALARM*. Now wake up and try to do something productive today.
HAND!
However, I'm not a fan of the whole "global warming" agenda.
There is about as much a "global warming" agenda as there is a "gay" agenda. Of course, both are part of the "liberal media" conspiracy.
I'm all for research into global climate, but it's very clear that the models we currently have are not up to the task of telling us if we have cause to be alarmed yet.
This is not true. A good number of them tell us we should have been alarmed a while back and now are approaching the PoNR.
Obviously there's a cycle, and it's possible humans have added (or even subtracted) from various aspects of the cycle.
It entirely evident that humans have contributed to changes in the cycle that are FAR beyond what used to be considered "natural". Think of it more like a tire going downhill as a natuarl cycle. Then put of a motor on it, and you have a motor-cycle. Which is not only a good metaphor for what is happening, but also a good part of our contribution to said acceleration.