Darklord Rooke

Sweet job on KoiRizo I should point out, overuse of ellipses is one of those things translated Visual Novels are constantly ridiculed over. You'll note that fan-translations mostly keep them in, whereas professional localisations (JAST, Sekai, and MG all use fan-TLs so they're not included) strongly limit ellipses use, and here localisations are doing the better job. Take NISA's translations, for example. An excess of ellipses makes me want to kill the first person I see... *looks at Tiag* Japanese Language don't really have rules for ellipses use, so feel free to eliminate them where appropriate in the English. English don't use them anywhere near as freely as the Japanese - we have stricter rules, and a culture which frowns on abusing certain forms of punctuation. Take a look at how often ellipses are used in Western novels and compare that to how often Japanese Light Novels and other Japanese media use them. It's not because Western people don't pause, in case anybody was wondering xD

No.

S.Y. Fuwa. More elegant Enjoy your stay, Cenric.

Yeah. They mentioned using the existing fan-translation as a base when asked in July.

I don't want to be nasty, but having 'native English speakers' check the script means very little apart from 'the most obvious linguistic mishaps will probably (but not necessarily) be caught'. Having people 'live in Canada' is also irrelevant when talking about 'English writing skills'. They do mention that the translators they've brought on board have exceptional translation and writing abilities, but whether you believe that or not is up to the individual. At the end of the day the proof will be in the product they release, we'll just have to be patient and see what they produce... a practice which doesn't apply to those laying down a lot of money for the Kickstarter, but c'est la vie. Like Down said, I don't think people really care overly much.

Peter F. Hamilton is a sci-fi God! I'm buying all his damn books, they're too good

A wise response.

Well... that isn't pleasant reading

A country needs the ability to defend itself and its interests. Unlike what most anti-war people think, the world operates on a competition basis, countries will step on top of one another on its way to try and better them and their people. The only reason the world has been relatively peaceful for the past 50 years (relative being relative of course) has been because the USA has been the only superpower, and has been roving around the planet operating as the world police. It’s a role which has caused them much schtick, but it’s also helped prevent a lot of shit… of course they’ve also CAUSED a lot of shit but I think we all know they’re not perfect. Japan has been relying on America for a lot of things, including defence, but America is waning and Asia is becoming an interesting place. It was America who forced limits on Japan’s military, but America’s been over that for 30 years now. Time for Japan to start look after itself. You want to be a pacifist nation? That's cool, it's modern, it's progressive... it's also suicidal.

It's not going to happen, so it's not. It's a stupid idea by Abe though, and most likely a knee-jerk reaction to something. Off topic for a moment: the new bill passed by Japan's Government is incredibly good news for Japan - limiting your forces in such a way in today's world was a ridiculous idea.

PES is their important franchise anyway, so thank God they're still developing that one. FIFA is balls, viva la PES!

Heh, if Abe’s looking to get rid of worthless degrees he should have started with IT… although I DO understand his desire to rid his country of all lawyers.

Except that is not what the education system is about. Overall the Educational system is outdated and promotes a borderline obsolete, and narrow-minded view of education. The only reason it hasn't been completely overhauled is because it's a mammoth task, not that it's actually works in an efficient manner. This isn't worth losing sleep over, really.

Considering your sources are largely either historians, or stuff from 30 years ago, my sources ARE better than yours. Paragraphs 1 to 5 aren’t relevant. An introduction, Malthus crap, history of Malthus crap, and unrelated statistics. This is a nice example of the misinformation you try and spread. Your source doesn’t contradict my source, and so I haven’t falsified anything. I never stated that it wasn’t possible to grow enough food to feed the PRESENT DAY population, and the statement I quoted didn't say this either. E. O. Wilson said we can grow enough food to feed 10 billion people, and considering our current population has yet to reach 10 billion people it is not contradicted by the statement you posted by Cesar G Victoria. So here you've quoted a biologist who stated the same thing Wilson implied, and then tried to use this as the basis to discredit Wilson? Are you for real, or are you just winding me up? More likely you're just ticked that Wilson puts forward the idea that we're fast approaching the limit in the numbers this planet can actually support, whereas Victoria did not mention this. I haven't produced biased statistics, feel free to point them out if you do find one though. Yes, my being is being swallowed by madness as we speak. The woe I'm currently feeling is indescribable, and bitter regret is filling my heart.

Well, that was a thoroughly unimpressive rant - you combine a significant amount of useless information, wrong information, information without context, with outdated figures to try and paint a certain picture. Let’s go through your analysis shall we? In the conclusion I'll ask you to actually address what we're discussing next time, instead of posting a fairly unrelated essay. Paragraph 1 – paragraph 5 = a lot of waffling being done, nothing of substance here. I'll deal with paragraph 6 last. Paragraph 7 - We have figures… unfortunately outdated and wrong ones. “The United Nations Food and Agriculture association estimated in the 1980s that under optimal conditions the world could support 33 billion people. A more recent estimate, considered more reasonable, is that sufficient food could be produced to support 10 to 15 billion people – if political and socioeconomic conditions are favourable.” Which is in line with what the majority of scientists think. Yes, you're using an analysis 30 years old, estimates have been refined since then. SOURCE: Encyclopaedia of Global Change: Environmental Change and Human Society 2001, Goudie, Cuff et al. Next is this assertion that the UN predicts the population to plateau after 2050. I can tell you this is wrong because I have the “World Population to 2300” UN report in front of me, where they predict a range of possible scenarios up to 2300 and depending on the assumptions made they have produced some figures. In other words, they have a high and low figure, and a medium scenario. You’ve picked the medium scenario, where based on certain assumptions the population is expected to plateau. However, the high figure is a whopping 36.4 billion, just in case you were wondering. But it certainly IS possible that the population will plateau after 2050, sure. It's also possible that it will explode. SOURCE: WORLD POPULATION TO 2300, UN REPORT yada yada yada Paragraph 8 – No context is presented for this information, allow me to present some. “If everyone agreed to become vegetarian, leaving little or nothing for livestock, the present 1.4 billion hectares of arable land (3.5 billion acres) would support about 10 billion people.” - Edward Wilson, Harvard University sociobiologist. He went on to explain that 3.5 billion acres would produce about 2 billion tons of grain per annum, enough to feed 10 billion people but only 2.5 billion Americans (because so much vegetation is dedicated to livestock and poultry.) Once again, this is a common scientific belief. SOURCE: Edward O Wilson – Harvard University sociobiologist. Paragraph 9 – more waffling being done. And etc etc Deforestation results from both, and I’ll challenge you to produce any document to say population growth isn’t a factor. Remember, I didn't say overpopulation was the sole cause, just A cause. Paragraph 6 – “The Earth has the capacity to absorb such numbers” is a statement which not only has nothing to back it up, but goes against the consensus of the scientific community. Then you descend into the notion that if we just concentrated on what we need to survive, we can support more people, which does nothing to address the original argument that ‘quality of life will increases with fewer people’. However, of course if we just focused on survival we can support quite a few more people than currently, we could even build massive towers, hook 99% of people up to medical dispensary machines, lie them down in a pod, and then send them all into a coma. Sure, these people won’t be conscious to experience life, but they will survive, and the Earth will be able to support more people. It’s a nonsensical argument, the ability to feed people is merely one concern of many (like the ability to actually defend yourself.) Conclusion: You seem like you want to argue a different argument, because most of the stuff you’re talking about is not relevant, and when you do address the issue, you bring out either outdated facts, wrong facts, or out of context facts. The population won't necessarily plateau, 33 billion people is an out of date figure (anarchists sure love to embrace the past,) 3.84 billion acres is estimated to support 10 billion people (in line with what most scientists believe,) and unlike what most anarchists wish to believe we have more concerns than just 'food' to actually deal with. You’re trying to paint me as a Malthus enthusiast, so you can launch already prepped arguments at me, which are off-topic btw. You don’t address the original issue, which was that everybody would be more comfortable if there were fewer people. Then you try and argue a stance that poverty is not caused by overpopulation, what point of mine was this supposed to address? I find your knowledge of the world suspect, and your continual habit of going off-topic an indicator that you’re trying to shift the discussion to something you’re more comfortable talking about. Let me make this easier for you – I’m not interested about the ‘evils’ of the Western World, or the causes of ‘poverty.’ In fact, I’m not interested in curing ‘poverty,’ so save your lecture on the issue. What I said was that reducing the population would free up resources, and that misery and pain weren’t always objectively bad. You wanted to engage me on this by talking about stuff completely unrelated, but you have yet to address the actual arguments I was making. Reducing the population can be considered a 'good thing' (whether it's possible to support more or not,) and causing harm to others isn't always a 'bad' thing. I’m incredibly uninterested in the standard points you're trotting out which address completely unrelated issues, but feel free to shout into the winds if you feel like it. Furthermore, the fact that you had to consult your green, anarchy friends, makes me even more certain you know very little of what you're actually talking about, and are just repeating a whole bunch of stuff you read not so long ago. It feels like you're reciting bits and pieces from reports without thinking them through, because most of your stuff is off-topic.

Interesting topic titles on that page: - Why do people buy these games? - Winged Cloud stop doing this please - When will Sakura games finally stop - To people buying this game as a joke – just stop it’s not funny anymore - Ok, this is getting ridiculous They should realise Winged Cloud delight in torturing people. The more they squeal, the more Winged Cloud will stick the poker in and laugh and laugh.

Saw it. Was amusing as hell xD I get discouraged when I have to fiddle with patches and stuff these days as well. I'm always tired and sore these days, and I just want stuff to work

This is why visual novels on PC are such a poor way to target the reading audience. PC's are confusing and fiddly

Sources ey? [David Suzuki] Source: LYBIO.net I’m going to give you a system analogous to the planet and that’s a test tube full of food for bacteria. So the test tube and food is a planet and the bacteria are us. Now, I’m going to introduce one bacteria cell in and this is going to divide every minute, that’s exponential growth. So at time zero at the beginning there is 1 cell. 1 minute, there are 2 cells. 2 minutes, there are 4 cells. 3 minutes, there are 8 cells. 4 minutes, 16 cells, that’s exponential growth. And in 60 minutes the test tube is completely packed with bacteria and there’s no food left. So we have a 60-minute growth cycle. When is the test tube only half full? Well, of course, the answer is at 59 minutes, even though it’s been chugging along for 59 minutes, it’s only half full, but 1 minute later, it will be completely filled. So that means at 58 minutes, it’s 25% full, 57 minutes, it’s 12.5% full. At 55 minutes of the 60-minute cycle, it’s 3% full. At 55 minutes one of the bacteria says, hey guys, I’ve been thinking, we got a problem, we got a population problem. The other bacteria would say, Jack, what the hell have you been smoking man, 97% of the test tube is empty, and we’ve been around for 55 minutes. And they’d be five minutes away from filling it. So, say, bacteria are no smarter than humans at 59 minutes they go, ‘Oh my God, Jack was right! We’ve got 1 minute left, what are we going to do? Well, don’t give any money to those economists that are saying we got to keep growing all the time, give it to those scientists, so they massively inject money into the scientific community, guess what? Unless in a minute those bacterial scientist invent three new test tubes for the food that would like us finding three more planets that we can use, what happens at 60 minutes, the first test tube is full. 61 minutes, the second is full, 62 minutes, all four are full. By quadrupling the amount of food and space, we buy 2 extra minutes. Our home is the biosphere. It’s fixed and finite. It can’t grow. And we’ve got to learn to live within that finite world. Every scientist I have talked to agrees with me: We’ve already passed the 59th minute. Not how I remember things. False. I have provided an explanation, you just chose to ignore it, which isn’t really my problem. As I stated above, the market’s solution to CO2 emissions was nuclear, it was the interference with market mechanisms which has lengthened the coal industries grip on things. This isn't really in question. I suppose I could produce 10 or 20 articles from economists and scientists describing why the market mechanism is the best way to deal with climate change.,and increasing investment in renewables. It’s very easy for me to grab articles to cite this, the debate was just had in Australia not 2 years ago with learned people from everywhere explaining this very position. In fact, 89% of economists in Australia believe market mechanisms are the best way to increase investment in renewable energy. This was a time when Australia's Government wanted direct action, btw. It’s such a common argument that it’s not credible to state there’s no evidence or sources to back up this position. Mainly because I do not repeat the overpopulation hypothesis of Malthus. It’s a logical fallacy to dismiss the idea of overpopulation by arguing it was incorrectly claimed in the past. However, people like to do it to dismiss current arguments because they are incapable of arguing their position through logic and facts. Like the person you linked to above. In times gone by scientific understanding and technology weren’t at an adequate place to calculate, or even estimate, how many people the Earth could sustainably hold. All they were able to do was observe the population increasing rapidly, observe the consequences, and make some arguments based off this. It is not surprising that these estimates were wildly off-base, but it was based off a valid observation - that the world's population was increasing at a rate which is not sustainable. Today’s scientists, however, have weighed the space needed to sustainably grow food to feed billions of people, the space needed for landfill, the effects of pollution which would result, the need for space, the effect on wildlife, the effect on fauna, the effect on oceans, and have made far more accurate observations. Then extrapolated these into guesstimates of how many people this planet could sustainably accommodate, most concluding about 10 billion. Some less, some more. There are a number of factors and assumptions that have gone into these calculations, but in effect, unless technology makes an incredibly rapid and giant leap forward, in areas such as waste management and growing huge quantities of food in labs, we’re approaching the boundary if we haven't already past it. Some scientists aren’t very worried because they’ve predicted the number of people in the world to decrease after 2050, others don’t share this optimistic view. At the end of the day, however, the opponents to overpopulation don’t really have much going for them which is why they continue to try and argue the past. It is the consensus of most of the scientific community that overpopulation is indeed a ‘thing’. If you want to take the word of historians over such people, then that’s your problem. But all this is moot. Whether we are past the boundary of how many people the Earth can hold or not, it is an undeniable fact that the welfare of people, animals, and the planet would benefit from fewer people in the world. Less strain on resources will result in a benefit. So even if the Earth can hold 100 billion people if we share, everybody will benefit if there are fewer. The world's wealth is horded by 10%, but the progress of humanity is being driven by that 10%. So, once again, I don't see the issue why people dying out from starvation is objectively a bad thing. It won't impede progress, it will free up resources, the animals and the environment will be appreciative. Thus, there are benefits. If you look at your friends essay in an objective light, you might realise how light on substance it actually is. I haven’t disagreed with you that it is indeed the workers that provide society it’s drive, I have merely pointed to history and asked why it’s the working class in capitalist societies, and even the working class in medieval times succeed so much more than the working class in socialist societies. You dodged the question, like you dodge many questions and instead hide behind articles and essays you probably don’t understand are incredibly lightweight. Let me put it this way, capitalist societies and socialist societies both have workforces, how come Capitalist societies produce so much more than socialist ones? Drive progress so much more than socialist ones. It shouldn’t be hard to answer. Nothing you say is getting through because you have an incredibly dodgy knowledge of how the world actually works. I present the slightest opposition to your claims, you start repeating yourself and falling apart, and you resort to your articles. Your articles are boring, they're stuff I've seen before, and they're light on facts pertinent to the discussion. Also VERY light on evidence, even though you call for proof yourself. That's a really good idea, providing facts. I'd like to see some of your facts, rather than throwing out articles full of wishy washy bullshit from your favourite historian or political organisation. Where are the facts that we aren't approaching overpopulation, that anarchy does work, that workers can drive things forward without the need for the rich or powerful, that the market does stagnate innovation, you really have shown nothing to back up your arguments. I'm echoing views from prominent scientists and economists, who deal with facts and logic. Who do you have in your corner? A historian? A theorist? How very convincing. I disagree with your view on genocide. No justification YOU'D ACCEPT is not the same as no justification.

I don't have any problems arguing against both such authors. This argument's an old one, and the arguments of the revered men you've posted aren't nearly as watertight, or as impressive, as you think. However... author number one is 'No Borders Manchester', who just fling out a bunch of statements they've grabbed from other sources, and is fairly light on explanation. I find many of the explanations they have offered to be quite half-assed. Secondly, if I start replying to every single article you throw at me two things will happen. 1) The cycle will never end, because it's extremely easy to grab blog posts from the interweb and chuck them at me and 2) it takes a modicum of time to respond to each one, which means you're having an extremely easy time of things, and I'm having to actually think and reply. And to hell with that. Whilst I'm a fan of a disproportionate work system, I'm only a fan when it's ME being given the easy ride. In other words, I'm not responding to a 3,000 word essay just so you can fling another one at me once I'm done. If you're busy, come back on thursday and paraphrase the pertinent points then, in your own words. I'm having a discussion with you, not you and the 5,000 people you admire on the internet.