schm0

Main Entry:1life Pronunciation:\?l?f\Function:nounInflected Form(s):plural lives \?l?vz\Etymology:Middle English lif, from Old English l?f; akin to Old English libban to live — more at liveDate:before 12th century1 a: the quality that distinguishes a vital and functional being from a dead body b: a principle or force that is considered to underlie the distinctive quality of animate beings c: an organismic state characterized by capacity for metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction. Source: Mirriam-Webster

Originally posted by: Duke87 Originally posted by: SimFox Well I think he is sort of face of the issue particularly in the US so in some way he if not deserve it but at least is somehow justified. an illustration for the topic point: (pic snipped)quote> Okay, sorry, but you're asking for this: "Een Russia, globe warms you!"quote> I'm insulted, and I'm not even from Russia. ...now that we have that out of the way, on the issue of Al Gore and the Nobel prize: Congratulations, Nobel committee, you've just made your prizes meaningless. Seriously, how does what Al Gore is doing count as "peace" work.(?)quote> From the Nobel website (and my earlier posts, in case you skipped them): "By awarding the Nobel Peace Prize for 2007 to the IPCC and Al Gore, the Norwegian Nobel Committee is seeking to contribute to a sharper focus on the processes and decisions that appear to be necessary to protect the world’s future climate, and thereby to reduce the threat to the security of mankind. Action is necessary now, before climate change moves beyond man’s control." Sure, no violence is involved, but if that's all you need, then I could think of several reasons why I deserve a Nobel peace prize. Besides, for all the fuss he's causes, Al Gore hasn't really accomplished much as of yet. And when he was Vice President...quote> Yeah, I was about to make the same point. He should have been President. That would have counted as something. Seriously, what does someone have to do to claim to be accomplished? Furthermore, what do you consider "fuss?" ...of the US, in a position to potentially get a lot of regulations and laws passed on this issue, how many did he get passed?quote> With a Republican Congress, very little is ever done to help the country. Ugatz, that's how many. He routinely criticizes both Bush administrations for their failures, but never mentions the Clinton Administration's failures. Hmm...quote> You're not seriously going to compare the failures of both Presidents, are you? (New thread, perhaps?) I appreciate Mr. Gore's efforts, but I don't think he deserves any prizes of any sort.. at least not at this point in time. He got the prize not because he actually deserved it, but for purely political reasons. After all, if you have a Nobel prize, you can show it off and say "see? I won a prize for this!", and it makes people take you more seriously. Of course, that potentially backfires when they get the award expressly for that purpose, not for what the award is actually supposed to be given for....quote> I'm sure that's what Mother Theresa wanted: a nice, shiny medal. It really is a shame to see not only diminish one of the most significant honors that can be bestowed upon a human being, but to call that person "unaccomplished" and that he didn't deserve it. Perhaps these types of posts were what I was asking for when I posed my question to the thread. *sigh* I would also like to point out, once again, that Al Gore shares his award with the thousands of scientists that made up the IPCC.

Originally posted by: Palpatine001 And I still see this thread going round and round Anycase Al Gore and the Nobel Prize - no comment As for bio fuels to get us off oil and and mitigate climatic change - damn that is a good one I must say So lets decide to starve the world and cut down more of the Amazon...quote> and Originally posted by: coolotter88 yeah, ethanol is extremely bad because it raises food prices across the board and less corn for foreign aid but I mean, we don't really need to care about poor african countries right? they're third world for god's sake!quote> Personally, I think of fossil fuels (or any form of hydrocarbon or polluting fuel source) as a humunguous beaver dam holding back the flood of an energy crisis. Bio-fuels are merely a finger in one of the many holes of the dam. We need clean, renewable energy to propel us into the beginning of the twenty-first century, not stop-gaps. Originally posted by: manticorefan I'm with Barbarossa... But I'll go even farther(and more derisive). Giving Gore the prize was like giving Michael Moore the prize in Medicine for Sicko.quote> I hardly think comparing a Powerpoint presentation with accompanying dialogue to Mr. Moore's (a Michigan native, by the way) sensationalist documentaries is an apt comparison. I still remember the Chinese 'funny money' scandal, with briefcases of cash being transferred in diplomatic pouches from Beijing to the White House. The FBI got sworn affidavits from several people that both Algore and Hillary were involved. But then the whole thing died. Remember Charlie Trie?quote> And yet you act as if no action were ever taken on the matter. A total of 22 people were brought to justice from the charges. Perhaps you're misrepresenting the facts here. Al Gore and Hilary Clinton were never indicted because there was no evidence with which to convict them. There is a fine line between "mentioned in an affidavit" and "indicted" or "convicted." Not that this has much to do with Global Warming, mind you.quote> *sound of hammer hitting the head of a nail* Just Gore's credibility.quote> So, the words coming out of Al Gore's mouth are incredible and not to be trusted? I think credibility lends itself to the subject at hand. I would not find Al Gore very credible if he were to be giving a Powerpoint presentation on the history of gangster rap. In the case of global climate change, his role in the legislative and executive branches of government and as an activist give him the experience and credibility you too quickly dismiss. Ooooh, I'm gonna hear it now! But hey, Hitler was nominated for the same prize in '33, and Arafat won his own Nobel Seal of Approval. It means a lot less in the past 40 years or so. The Peace Prize isn't the Physics or Medicine Prize.quote> [sarcasm]Yeah, you're so right. The Dalai Llama, Mother Teresa, Jimmy Carter, Kofi Annan, Nelson Mandela, the United Nations Peacekeeping Forces, the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, the International Campaign to Ban Landmines, and Amnesty I

Originally posted by: mikeseithYou should be happy we do live in a greenhouse. Without the greenhouse effect we would all be dead now...quote> I think most of us got the gist of what he was saying. Nobody denies that the greenhouse effect plays a very essential role for life to exist on our planet. I don't think Barbarossa's comment was meant to recommend we live in a cold and barren vacuum, devoid of heat. Originally posted by: Barbarossa Well, good for him, but in a way it is an insult to the thousands of scientists who did all the work. I agree it is something to bring more attention to the issue, but it is also another "I created the internet" type of thing. He didn't DO anything. It kind of falls flat for me. I support climate change and his film did nothing to reinforce my opinion. Barbarossa quote> As far as reinforcing one's opinion, I don't think that was the intent of his film. I view his film as a snapshot of scientific research, one which puts the facts in a presentation that is plain and understandable. If anything, he has entrenched the anti-Al crowd and has spurred several "documentaries" that purport junk science or attempt to debunk the facts presented in "An Inconvenient Truth." And, unfortunately, not everyone in the country (the U.S.) watches PBS, surfs the Sierra Club website daily, or subscribes to (and reads) a major newspaper. The typical American is content to watch American Idol, surf the web for the latest shots of Britney Spears' crotch, or subscribe to US Weekly. *sigh*) As far as Al Gore is concerned, I believe he has done something: he's brought environmental issues to the forefront of politics and to the television sets of a global audience. Perhaps, some might say, more than any other before him. Every man has his faults, and I'm sure we could find similar flaws in limitless variety in countless other positions of power, popularity and/or influence. To dislike the man for his popularity (or misstatements) alone is one thing, but I believe Al Gore embodies a leader who has brought the movement to a new level. Most likely, history will remember him as a significant figure of influence who took his status as a politician and activist and used it to bring awareness and discussion to the global environmental issues of the day. Just my two pennies. Furthermore, the Nobel was shared with the IPCC. From the above link: THE NOBEL PEACE PRIZE FOR 2007 The Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided that the Nobel Peace Prize for 2007 is to be shared, in two equal parts, between the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and Albert Arnold (Al) Gore Jr. for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change. Indications of changes in the earth’s future climate must be treated with the utmost seriousness, and with the precautionary principle uppermost in our minds. Extensive climate changes may alter and threaten the living conditions of much of mankind. They may induce large-scale migration and lead to greater competition for the earth’s resources. Such changes will place particularly heavy burdens on the world’s most vulnerable countries. There may be increased danger of violent conflicts and wars, within and between states. Through the scientific reports it has issued over the past two decades, the IPCC has created an ever-broader informed consensus about the connection between human activities and global warming. Thou

Originally posted by: Psycho_Teddy-- Edited. You are breaking the rules by flaming others. Keep bad comments to yourself. - Mikequote> Sometimes you just have to roll with the punches, Teddy. Fight fire with facts, that's my motto. May I suggest a moderator lock, since this thread seems to be going to hell in a handbasket, here?quote> Boo! -- No, this thread will not be locked. quote> Yay! Long live the Global Warming thread! Back on topic, what does everyone think of Al Gore and the Nobel Peace Prize?

Originally posted by: coolotter88 CO2 is not a toxin.quote> I was wondering when you'd show up. Since we're splitting hairs: TOXINMain Entry: tox·in Pronunciation: \?täk-s?n\Function: nounEtymology: International Scientific VocabularyDate:1886 : a poisonous substance that is a specific product of the metabolic activities of a living organism and is usually very unstable, notably toxic when introduced into the tissues, and typically capable of inducing antibody formation An example of carbon dioxide having toxin-like properties is what is known as hypercapnia. From the article, hypercapnia is " a condition where there is too much carbon dioxide (CO2) in the blood. Carbon dioxide is a gaseous product of the body's metabolism and is normally expelled through the lungs." (Not quite a toxin, but close. ) Further on in the article: "...It may also be caused by exposure to environments containing abnormally high concentrations of carbon dioxide ..." TOXICMain Entry:1tox·ic Pronunciation:\?täk-sik\Function:adjectiveEtymology:Late Latin toxicus, from Latin toxicum poison, from Greek toxikon arrow poison, from neuter of toxikos of a bow, from toxon bow, arrowDate:1664 1 : containing or being poisonous material especially when capable of causing death or serious debilitation <toxic waste> <a toxic radioactive gas> <an insecticide highly toxic to birds> 2 : exhibiting symptoms of infection or toxicosis <the patient became toxic two days later> 3 : extremely harsh, malicious, or harmful <toxic sarcasm> Too much carbon dioxide is harmful to the environment, specifically concerning it's effects on atmosphere and it's role as a greenhouse gas. Source: Venus. Definition Sources: Mirriam-Webster Online Furthermore, I was not merely referring to carbon dioxide. There are plenty of other pollutants that contribute to global warming, acid rain and other harmful ecological and environmental problems.

Well, I think the focus of global dimming is to bring more attention to the issues, since the theory surrounding the dimming process basically masks the effects of global warming. The fact remains we are pumping a deadly amount of toxic gases into the atmosphere.

Originally posted by: ShortStraw This thread is veering all over the place, heh.quote> Dig up the old threads on this from last year. This is nothing.

Originally posted by: Psycho_Teddy Allow me to further explain my point. Listed below are links to two different sites on the NOAA website. The first is a map for Air quality for the US, the second is a temperature readout, in ferenheit. Take note of the ares with poor air quality, and those with high temperatures, and you will see quite a trend. Ohio, North and South Carolina, and Colorado, all have fair and poor air quality today, and also abnormally high temperatures today. I hope this drives the point home, here. The Air Quality map: http://www.weather.gov/aq/ The Temperature map: http://www.weather.gov/climate/ [EDIT: When you look at the air quality map, have a looksee at the 11am reading, then mouse over to 5pm, you will notice that the Dayton/Springfield area of Ohio (southwest Ohio) as some of the highest concentrations in the nation right now, and we are setting record temperatures today] Enjoy...quote> Global mean temperatures have increased since temperatures were recorded. Perhaps this is not an isolated event, just relegated to Ohio, North and South Carolina and Colorado? I live in Detroit, and last week we had temperatures in the 80's which set records as well. They had to abort the Chicago Marathon because of over-exerted racers due to the record-high temperatures, and one man died of heart failure during the race. 250+ people had to hospitalized because of this phenomenon. Originally posted by: saltandsauce the way it has been is temperature increases for whatever reason then carbon dioxide follows it due to the increased number of animals and such this is the same case now temperature goes up first THEN carbon dioxide emissions plus hybrid cars are the leading polluter of smug take the bus like a scaffquote> If you could cite a source, I would gladly look into this completely ridiculous falsehood. Originally posted by: confused04 Please refrain from using "American" as a negative term, its offensive and ignorant. Second... ignorance is not limited to Americans, I have found that it is global and European policies are highly quite misleading anyway.quote> I second this motion. Not all Americans are bumbling idiots who believe in destroying the environment. (Not so sure about your comments on Europeans, however. I believe that Europe has it's own share of environmental pundits on both sides of the issue.) I do agree that sourcing would really help any arguments made. ...High temperatures reduce air quality. If you note air quality versus season, air quality decreases in the summer due to the temperature. I don't exactly know the mechanism at this instant, but many of the chemicals that cause low air quality form at higher temperatures and in the presence of high UV (photo-oxidation of ozone).quote> Higher temperatures mean more people using their car and home air conditioners, which in turn demands more energy to be produced, both of which release more smog and other toxins into the air. [SOURCE][SOURCE] (Here's an excellent non-profit dedicated to such air-quality issues.) Originally posted by: Psycho_Teddy So if high temeratures cause the decreased air quality, an

*kicks dead horse* *shrugs*

Found an interesting article: Are scientists overestimating -- or underestimating -- climate change? Part III

Shouldn't this topic be called the "Race Back to the Moon?" The U.S. cares more about oil than it does about space exploration. We'd rather lose trillions of dollars in foreign countries than explore and expand our universal knowledge.

The latest release from E3 has Gamespot saying this about SC:S: "...This will result in a smaller population than prior SimCity games, and you won't be building cities with tens of thousands, let alone hundreds of thousands, of people. But you will need to worry about their wants and needs..." According to this article, you will be able to track every single Sim. What do you think the largest populations will be? Is such a small focus a good or a bad thing? Have you wanted to micromanage every single Sim? Some may say, "Less is more." How do you feel about this particular aspect of SC:S?

Finally, someone started the Abiotic vs Peak Oil discussion thread on Simtropolis. I've been waiting for months!

Originally posted by: chickenfunk 1. What are the advantages/disadvantages of a railway system? 2. What is the best way to lower commute time and traffic 3. What do airports do? 4. Whats the best way to promote hi-wealth commercial? (Both services and offices) quote> 1. It provides your Sims with another mode of transport, and also your freight. The disadvantages are that most of the time your freight ends up transported via road, clogging your streets. I suggest downloading the road modifiers that ban trucks from passing. 2. Transportation options. Have lots of them, especially bus and in your denser areas elevated rail, ground light rail and/or subways. Also, make sure to utilize highways and avenues for your busiest areas. 3. They increase commercial traffic. 4. Lots of parks, good transportation networks, and a high level of education do the trick every time. Oh, and of course providing water and electricity.

Originally posted by: gil363 I've heard many times when some movies or shows used the (SimCity 3k and 4) Large Fire and Police Stations' query sounds. Some Examples are: - Royal Canadian Air Farce, (If u don't know, it's a comedy show in Canada) I'm not sure which episode .. - The most recent Superman movie (I'm sure I heard the police sound) That's all I remember for now.. Just noticing things! quote> Most sound bytes and sound engineers pull from huge databases of recorded sounds, a lot of which are freely available and used by industry professionals alike. I would probably conclude that the sound of a siren is pretty generic, so you might find the same "sound" in many audio sources. There's a particular sound byte that has been used in many famous movies, including every single Star Wars and Indian Jones (to name only a few of the hundreds of films it has appeared in.) It is known as the "Willhelm scream" and you can read about it here: http://www.hollywoodlostandfound.net/wilhelm Also, check this video out to see a sample of it's appearances throughout the decades. and

That's why I hardly ever zone 1x1 lots. They only appear after an existing population has moved in. Besides this annoying initial feature, they are unrealistic: who lives in a house on 52' x 52' lot? There are places in America where such neighborhoods exist, but they are very rare. Most of the tight subdivisions just outside of Detroit have plots that are very similar in size to 1x2 lots in SC4. Besides, everyone needs a backyard.

My C4BHWO/OR Project. Tarkus is looking into it, but design is spread too thin among not enough people. There's only a few dozen or so really talented people still working on this game. Who knows if I can amass enough knowledge quickly enough.

Originally posted by: jplumbley I dont understand this..... Why do you guys keep asking for things? Buggi disappeared months ago and hasnt been seen since. This is dead!! quote> Personally, I find it interesting what people would like seen added to the game. That's all.

I want to make some parking lots. I've expiremented with making them transit enabled, which is nice, except for the fact that it makes stop signs every single tile. I'm interested in making working parking lots of every size from 1x1 to 4x4 (16 total) with different base textures. But I want to see my Sims park in the parking lot and walk to work from the parking lot itself. How do them to do that?

Originally posted by: catweazle_touchwood My suggestions: 1. Single rail 2. Canals with navigable water 3. Water at different heights 4. Weather 5. Better menu-handling 6. Info about the city/region, just like in SC2000 when you click on the major's house 7. Cars not fading so fast 8. Diagonal streets 9. More diagonal buildings 10. More diversity in rural buildings BTW, I'd like to know what the Top 10 at this moment is? quote> 1) Definately doable. Ask in the Modding-Transport Networks -- NAM Requests thread. 2) You can make canals at sea level, but a working water mod for above that requires modifying the game's code. 3) See above. You can fake it with various mods, though. Do a search on the STEX for "ploppable water." 4) You can technically make it rain, lightning, and cause a tornado. 5) There are ways around this, but making the menus more navigable is a tedious process at this point in time. This is another thing that requires modifying the code or having multiple pieces with only one icon (such as in the NAM). 6) There are region census mods available, as well as some other ones. Choose whichever you'd like and install it. 7) This has been discussed, but nothing definitive has been shown to make the cars stick around longer. These already exist in the current (and previous) version of the NAM. 9) Either make your own or ask for more in the Modding -- Open Discussion -- BAT Request thread. 10) There is a lot of interesting rural-themed content on sc4devotion.com. Check them out if you haven't already.

Looks like a bug of some sort. Do you have any mods that affect population or education?

Hmmm, maybe Maxis made this bug on purpose... perhaps in the event that someone would want to take away the concept of RCI zoning altogether... now who on earth would want to do that?

That's like buying Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas, not even playing a minute of the game, and loading up a 100% profile. What's the point? Enjoy the game, make your own cities.

Nerdly: It's not a hardware error. The installer can't read the disc. I suggest buying a new copy of SC4:Deluxe and a new computer. Even though it's completely off-topic, my first computer was a P2-133, which I overclocked to 144 or something silly like that. Ahh, the days of modems and dialup and DOS and Windows 95 (and 3.1!!!!) The computers we used in elementary school were Apple IIe's with tape drives and floppy drives. Yes, we actually used to play games off of cassette tapes, if you can believe it. That's when I learned to program with BASIC and simple batch programs. Ahh, the good old days.