Not really. I love Oblivion. I just didn't like Fallout. It seemed too repetitive. Personal opinion and nothing else.Demut said:
Lulz? Meaning agreement or disagreement? Not liking the Fallout series because you're using rifles, pistols, and Fatman mininuke weapons instead of swords, axes, and warhammers? Cheer up; there are numerous hand to hand weapons you can buy, find, or make for yourself (shiskebob comes immediately to mind). Not my choice, of course. I prefer decapitating a deathclaw at 500 yards with my .50 caliber sniper rifle.
In general it expresses amusement. So I guess disagreement.DanConnors said:
Well, there is something we have in common. Though I’m not sure whether I’ll use the AMR this time. Right now I’ve got the regular .308 sniper (not hunting) rifle with carbon parts and a silencer. Also, it’s kebab not kebob ;3DanConnors said:
When I played Gears of War, I killed more enemies with my chainsaw than bullets. Lets just say I like melle butchery better.As for why I do not like Fallout, it's concept is a weak copy of Oblivion, and overall, it's an overkill.Demut said:
Overkill is what I like in the game. Also Bethesda makes both games, so some similarities are to be expected. The .308 sniper rifle is good, but it just doesn't have the stopping power to nail a deathclaw with one shot. One disappointment with New Vegas is I can't use power armor yet, and I'm at level 26. I was forced to wipe out the only Brotherhood of Steel encampment I've found so far, so I may have to be satisfied without it.
Actually it does. Or at least it does if you skilled the way I did and used all modifications. Oh and of course you gotta sneak.DanConnors said:
Forced to? Well, in any case, now you can probably forget about getting power armor. I think that if you don’t get on their good side (giving them ED-E and all that) you won’t be taught how to use it.DanConnors said:
They shot first; it was either kill or die. When I walked into their main base, ditto. Speaking of which I wonder how long this only for folks too offensive, perverse, insensitive & careless discussion can continue. On the bright side I found I can use converted power armor without training. It's protection factor is 20 versus the most common power armor's 25, but it degrades slowly and you can repair it with any form of power armor. The brotherhood sends scouts into the area every couple of days, so I have an inexhaustable supply of spare armor (seven fully repaired sets the last time I checked). As for environmental issues, remember the holes in the ozone layer over the poles? They're still there. Dow Chemicals, the EPA brass, and the Sierra club bigwigs made a fortune selling ozone "friendly" freon at 500 percent what the old freon cost. Those holes have been there for over 4 billion years, and they're caused by the fortunate fact that ozone (O3) is a very unstable form of oxygen (O2). That's fortunate because if it wasn't unstable we would choke to death from the ozone created by all our electrical appliances. The ozone layer is formed by ultraviolet light from the sun striking the atmosphere. Over the poles for 6 months out of the year there is no sunlight, hence the ozone layer there breaks down, forming the famous holes.
The same groups that pumped the ozone holes for all the dough they could squeeze out of them are now going after your gas (and your wallet). The big get together of Greenpeace, Sierra Club, third worlders with their hands out (looking for handouts), Al Gore, and tree huggers in general, got together early this year in Copenhagen. That's where the Russians dropped their bombshell (the faked British "studies"). I say we should watch Florida closely. If the global warmers are correct, huge areas of the state should be underwater in a decade or so. Most of Florida is only 10 feet or so above sea level. The last time I visited the beaches were exactly where they were 30 years before (when I lived there). I sat down with a cheap calculator some months ago and tossed in some real numbers. The results were interesting. CO2 production from all the industries on Earth equals 10 billion tons a year which is less than one percent of the gas already in the atmosphere. The human race exhales roughly half that amount just by breathing. Throw in all the other animal life breathing, and the CO2 produced by that function easily exceeds industrial production. What are we supposed to do when the population doubles? Hold our breath?
@DanConnorsI absolutely agree with you. I did some rough calculations sometime ago and I am a firm believer global warming is a complete sham. I have a hard time convincing people though. Pro-global-warming-eco-terrorism is the IN thing, and tree-huggers always shout me down wherever I voice my opinion. I gave up ages ago. It's good to see someone shares my opinion.However, this is offtopic, and it's better if we continue this in the Community section.
Yeah, I wondered that two posts above in the first paragraph..."only for folks too offensive, etc". With governmental regs the way they are now you have to either laugh or go insane. Yesterday some city in California (where else) banned Happy Meals, unless they contained a serving of fruit and a green vegetable. Tough break for the kids in California. Maybe they can relieve their heartbreak by smoking a joint, because I believe that's been made legal. Back on topic, I wish The Witcher Two well, and I will certainly buy it when it comes out, barring the usual uncertainties that come at my age: death, stroke, loss of sight/hearing, etc.
Yay, layman science.See, my main problem with this kind of conspiracy theory is that they dismiss the evidence at hand. Or worse, corrupting it. I mean do you really think that “Greenpeace, Sierra Club, third worlders” have some kind of monopoly on scientific studies? Do you believe that all those scientists secretly agreed upon the same thesis? Or that every single one of them was bribed by the respective governments?But alright, let’s do this from the very beginning. What do you believe is the cause of global warming if not an anthropogenous one? Or do you even deny the claim that the average temperature of the Earth’s atmosphere increased recently?edit: In hindsight, let’s address your argument concerning exhalation in detail so we have at least one thing off our list:• There is a natural, closed cycle in the atmosphere: the carbon cycle. Huge amounts of CO2 are exhaled for example by animals (including us) and processed by plants or released by rotting vegetation in autumn and absorbed in spring. So normally the amount of CO2 would be constant if not for extraordinary events. Since the latest ice age the CO2 concentration was relatively constant around 280ppm for millennia.• Certain events can throw this stable cycle off balance. During the ice ages of the past 800,000 years the CO2 concentration declined to ca. 180ppm just to increase in the warm stage to 280 to 300ppm at max. So even during the ice ages the carbon cycle leveled out, just on a generally lower niveau.• Since the industrial revolution mankind increased the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, even though they only account for a fraction in comparison to the whole carbon cycle. But imagine a tub in which 100 liters pour in each hour and the same amount drains off. When even a small interference makes it so that 101 liters pour in but the outlet is only increased by 0,5 liters than the tub runs over eventually. Of course the atmosphere can’t “run over” but the concentration of greenhouse gases increases nevertheless. This is why the overall increase of over 380ppm today can only be caused by humanity.DanConnors said:
1. Unfortunately "scientific data" is always biased to whoever funds the research.2. Rise in global temperature , and their consequent stabilization has occurred in the past. Many times, in fact. It occurs in cycles, and there is no evidence yet to suggest this one is any different.The last time it happened, humans were still living in caves. I presume they did not cause "global warming" at that point by cooking at fireplaces.Demut said:
Dude, Vilge, did you ever bother to check your arguments? I mean you don’t believe that you are the first one to bring this up, do you? So have you ever looked at what people replied to this objection? I suspect you haven’t or otherwise I wouldn’t have to lecture you about this right now.Look, there are several reasons for climate changes. This also applies to changes in the past. The CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is but one of several influential factors and wasn’t always the dominant one. During some periods the CO2 content was almost constant, for example during the Holocene (until the 18th century), hence it could hardly have played a role in the nevertheless occurring climatic fluctuations. There were also abrupt climate changes during the latest ice age which weren’t related to the CO2 concentration. If you look at other periods, like ones that took place over many millions of years, the CO2 content did change a lot, however, other factors like the allocation of the continents changed as well which can also have a huge impact on the climate. Depending on the time scale different factors could influence the climate dominantly. This can be for instance the solar radiation, the constitution of the earth’s surface or the atmospheric content of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide. In light of the scientific knowledge that during a certain period the CO2 caused by man posed the dominant factor for a climate change, your argument “Climate has always changed and not always parallel to the CO2 content of the atmosphere” is not very helpful and surely no substantial basic for an all-clear.
So what? My question still stands. Do you believe that all those scientists were bribed? You do know that there are also independent research institutes who support this, right?Vilgefortze said:
Carbon dioxide IS carbon dioxide. There is absolutely no difference between CO2 released by a smokestack and that released by breathing. Plants don't turn up their noses and refuse to process CO2 put out by your car for instance. The natural response of the Earth to rising levels of CO2 is an increase of vegetation to handle it. By that I DON'T mean old growth forests; they are extremely inefficient compared to, say, a fast growing wheat field or a forest of pines meant for lumber. Contrary to general belief the Earth's poles do not point in the same direction perpetually. The Earth wobbles on its axis, one complete wobble over a period of 50 to 60 thousand years. The northern hemisphere now is closer to the sun during winter than it is during summer--over a million miles closer. Twenty-five thousand years ago exactly the opposite was the case, and the northern polar icecap was much larger than Antarctica's. The cause of the wobble is conjectural, but the consensus is that it was caused by a large, relatively recent, impact of a comet or asteroid. The impact caused a mass extinction of species worlwide, and ushered in the beginning of ice ages. The point here is that ice ages are a naturally occurring cycle that's been going on for millions of years. As for the theoretical rise in temperature, there are some indicators that should have been seen but haven't. For instance a general rise in the amount of rain fall should take place. Higher temperatures evaporate more water. More rainfall should cause the Earth's desert areas to shrink, which they haven't. As I pointed out Florida shows no signs of submerging under a rising sea brought on by Antarctic ice melting. Finally, if there actually is an acute, dangerous, rise in temperature worldwide, there should be a massive move underway to replace chemical fuel powerplants with nuclear reactors (which release no greenhouse gasses). There isn't; quite the opposite in fact. Meantion nuke power to a tree hugger, and he will promptly have an attack of apoplexy. I wonder what your opinion of nuclear reactors is Mr. Demut?
People CUT DOWN the vegetation. Also, until you provide me the link that says old growth forests are inefficient, I will disregard your statement. If I remember correctly, old trees store a lot of stuff inside themselves, hence they're more effective.
Agreed
Agreed. The ice ages are a naturally occurring cycle. The whole point of the Global Warming is to say that this time it isn't occurring naturally. The reason why I support the theory, is that it is better to have "insurance", than it is not.
It's actually scientific name is Global Climate Change, not Global Warming. That means we should measure not the amount of rainfall, but amount of global imbalances. Before you tell me that there are less imbalances too, please give me a link to where you got it from. The only stupid thing about Global Warming, is that experts officially say that at the end of the century the will be from 0.1 to 100 more inches of rainfall.
I'm interested, just what news sources do you read. It's not a criticism, it's just that Economist frequently talks about the need to build new nuclear power plants. Also, the greens (tree hugger is not polite) response is more psychological, and it is changing. When you say the opposite is true, could you please explain it? Were there any recent campaign against nuclear reactors?I just want to highlight one logical aspect of your arguments.You say that global warming theory was created by a bunch of scientists/bureaucrats/politicians (I don't care). People unfortunately believed them, and so you're highlighting some illogical actions by them, to show that global warming doesn't exist. Now you're saying even normal people are against nuclear reactors. Either you're saying that everyone (politicians AND normal people) are faking, or there is obviously different reasons for them not to support nuclear powerplants buildings.
Plants don't convert CO2 to O2 out of the goodness of their hearts. They do it to grow; they combine the carbon from the CO2 with energy from the sun and nutrients in the ground to grow, produce food, lumber, etc. Old growth trees have reached their maximum size, and are constrained from further growth by their neighboring trees. Their photosynthesis is used for maintenance only--to replace fallen off bark for instance. A field of wheat increases its mass tremendously in just a few months, going from seeds to full grown plants. A large percentage of that increased mass is carbon from CO2. If an acre of wheat produces thousands of pounds of wheat a year, and an old growth forest tree only produces a hundred pounds of replacement bark a year, it is much less efficient as a CO2 remover. There have beeen exactly zero new nuclear reactors started in this country in the last 30 years. Ever since the mass hysteria that gripped the land in the wake of the Three Mile Island incident in fact. It was superstitious hysteria; I saw it first hand, as I was driving through the area at the time. I tried to order food at a fast food joint, and the waitress looked at me like I was insane. "You actually want to eat OUR food?" "Why, is it that bad?" "Aren't you afraid it'll be radioactive?" At that point I started laughing, and the waitress got ticked and stomped off. The French have mass produced nuke plants to the point where I now believe over half their electricity comes from them. They have suffered no civilian casualties from reactors in the more than a quarter century they have been operating. The Russians suffered about a thousand deaths and ten thousand casualties from a poorly constructed reactor manned by inept technicians. In that same period in Bhopal, India (not sure of the spelling there) over ten thousand people died and 100,000 were injured by an exploding chemical plant. We continue to build chem plants, but nuke plants are taboo. Superstition. I call them tree huggers, because I don't like them. A tree hugger's style of debate is to shout down (en masse) anyone trying to present a viewpoint differing from their preconceptions. Finally the people behind the whole global warming campaign are doing it for two reasons: money and power. There are some people who, if they had their way, would insure that grocery stores carried only one type of food; food that in their opinion was "good for us". These are the people who are doing it for power. Big oil is backing it (not publicly of course) for money--"We can pump only a billion barrels a year and make more profit than we are now. We won't have to spend half our profits constantly looking for new sources of oil. We'll be set for life!"