as Mike above said, this is NOT the new Open Gaming License. This is a special, Quality Controlled, 4th edition compatible license, not the 4.0 version of the OGL.

Wizards stated this is a reply to a bunch of publishers of OGL material piggybacking poor products onto D&D 3.0 / 3.5 under OGL. They want more control of what is tied in with the D&D brand name for the publishers who create content intended to go into a D&D game, not just generic fantasy or other games built using their system. This allows publishers to use their special mark for D&D 4.0 compatibility, but the license is a bit more restrictive. I do think when we get the new OGL, It'll be better managed. I hope they talk about power design and such, and instead of having to convert from modern, their OGL SRD talks about different settings (Like, different skill / feat sets for fantasy/modern/etc....

"What should scare everyone is these WAGs (Worshipers of Al Gore) want to spend MANY TRILLIONS on the THEORY that the earth MIGHT be warming A COUPLE OF DEGREES over the next FEW DECADES!!! And you thought the war was expensive!"

I think that people have a really poor grasp on what exactly 'A few degrees' actually means, in terms of a global mean temperature. Climate change is not -Just- warming - Some areas experience cooling. So a two degree rise could mean a rise of as much as 4 degrees for an areas average temps. And possibly 6 degrees difference between adjacent areas in the atmosphere.

Two degrees can have a large impact on specific weather phenomenon. The problem is that some of these examples sound silly and alarmist, but a lot of people won't give any credence to global climate change until we see, say, a foot rise in sea level, or hurricanes hitting Houston, or other equally strange phenomenon. By the time these sorts of extremes manifest in coming decades, if people finally sit up and notice these effects, then we'll be that much farther behind in changing them. The Earth's weather system does not react -now- to what we put in the atmosphere, it is a gradual and continual change, and when you mess up the equilibrium of these cycles, they could take centuries to correct themselves, and even then they'll likely stabilize at a different location.

You know who else said 'uh...' every 5 seconds?

... That's right. Too many pioneers of the steampunk genre for me to list in this paltry little post, that's who.

It's _Authentic_.

All of you people who have faith in the scientific method and want more studies - Sure, I don't really think reasonable people have a beef.

I think there are really people who deny GCC's existence. I don't equate it to holocaust denial, but there are people who do ignore the evidence for their own reasons.

But I think that there is a vast difference between groups who want to study ALL the angles of global climate change and everything that influences it from a scientific standpoint, and people who want to spout talking points debunking it, shout about how this new scientist's interest in other factors is more proof against human involvement... These are two completely different groups of people, and if people who talk about honest scientific inquiry into non-human, non CO2 influences want to be taken seriously, they need to stop letting people who are ignoring the peer-reviewed scientific consensus and just want to make human involvement in GCC disappear stop hiding behind them. In America, half of the problem is the mainstream media's insistence on giving equal credit and page-time to viewpoints that are scientifically not REMOTELY seen as equal, and creating a false sense of schism and controversy.

When groundbreaking new evidence with really good data comes along to knock us off the #1 cause list, I have faith it'll be seriously looked at.
But for now... Temperatures all over are changing, up and down, even if mean temperature isn't growing.

Didn't anyone look at http://www.boingboing.net/2008/03/26/slides-from-wonderfu.html?

As if that's not enough, I see two other things going on - A constant maneuvering of the goalposts by people who oppose the scientific consensus for non-scientific reasons. First, it was whether GCC existed. Then it was whether C02 made a difference. Then there are people who state that it doesn't matter, or that GCC will have financial benefits to people. I don't care who can grow new crops when GCC screws up their climate, it's not worth projected 10%+ species destruction.

Now it's whether humans caused that CO2. And apparently, now 'bad people created thousands of years of ice core data and paid off a huge percentage of the world's scientists as an excuse to tax us more'. I guess that for some people this is a logical conclusion, but It -Sounds- like the new goalposts that we keep getting as this 'Debate' goes on.

I can't see how someone can make that claim that people concerned about GCC are profit/politically motivated, when the people who have a CLEAR financial interests - Companies that do business based off of C)2 producing technologies, the businesses that will be impacted if we DO make a real effort to regulate CO2 emissions - Are not considered to be financially motivated. That's intentionally blindfolding yourself to argue a weak point.

To me, it looks like a massive number of people who do worry about climate change and want to reduce emissions have nothing to gain from it, other than not saddling future generations with a different looking climate.

Even if you don't buy human involvement, there's all kinds of pragmatic reasons to reduce emissions... Energy independence and air quality are probably the most obvious. But it comes down to, if we are the cause of climate change, -Even if we do something right now-, global average temps are going to likely rise 3 degrees in the coming centuries, CO2 won't stabilize for 100 years and sea levels will rise (slowly,) for a thousand. I'd rather act now than wait and let the potential problems get WORSE.

Ramen.

While that looks totally gross in a passing glance, it doesn't seem that bad once you take a closer look.

Now, if it had been -pins-...

That's inspiring. I still have a certified 'junk bin' (somewhere) full of neat looking odds and ends I was once planning to make tabletop wargaming terrain out of (old lamp domes, broken toy parts, and all sorts of stuff, with some work, make great bunkers, commercial structures, etc)

"optimal way to approach this" in what world?

And, their use of the term 'digital fingerprinting' makes me wonder if their plan is to try and catch and check every packet, or look for 'tags' on liscensed content packets?

I mean, it really doesn't sound feasible. There must be network overhead for this... IE, loss of speed?

I hope no-one at AT&T is wondering why their subscribers are leaving, after all of this nonsense.

This is really cool, but I wish they didn't try to do so much so quickly for the show. I always feel like these shows are very, very simplified. It'd be nice to see them talk about, say, what he means by 'physical security', and I wish the need for drama didn't overstate relatively simple solutions, while making some of the tougher tasks they perform seem trivial.

If you're familiar with some of these concepts, you can see them bleed through, but there isn't really depth into them on the show, per se. I hope it does well enough to warrant further episodes, however.

Noooooooooooooooooooooooooo!

Uttering w00t upon pwning the other team will never be quite as cool, this day forth...