How long will it take YOU to download Beta1?

hehe hopefully my 100mBit is nice to me that day ^^

Well, I top out around 350KBps... but that is rare so probably a little less than that. So I'm looking at around half an hour or less

Question won't be how fast you can download it, but how fast they can upload it to you. With all of us furiously downloading at roughly similar times server may get a tad sluggish.

I have no idea as far as thier limitations on bandwidth, so I could be completely wrong.

What Hizaed said, since its a school day for me, i'll probably be downloading once I get home..which will probably be with every one else.

well i can DL with about 400KB/s
so thats allmost 16min

But i dont care if its even 5GB, i will get it sooner or later

100KB/s here... But I'll get it, I'm sure of it

900kb/s here... but the most I have ever gotten from the Stardock Downloader is 300kb/s or so. Though there is no reason to frantically download this asap, dev's already said it won't be fun and it won't have multi. You guys should wait a couple days.

I mean I'll download it on day 1, but that doesn't mean you should. You should let me have the bandwidth. > Muhahahaha

Who cares how long it takes, youll get it eventually.

You guys hav been waiting for months, I am sure you can wait for a few hours.

Emperor is right... as usual. (Unless speaking about capatalism )

No point in asking this question, it will simply take as long as it takes. Like Duke Nukem Forever

See its not the fact that I dont know things about capatalism, its just that I resent the system, it gives way to greedy people to destroy our planet.

(That means you Schem )

I fear we will all download it at the same time, and it will take a week...

I feel that it enourages a competative nature that drives people to greatness. Here is the thing though. There is no perfect form of government, unless you labotomize the populace and make them 100% loyal, unoriginal, mindless slaves. Any form has its bad points, I think its more about forming the right government at the right place and the right time.

ever read Lifeboat Ethics: a case against helping the poor.? don't tell me capitalism is destroying our planet, its Europe's repulsive socialist system.

back on topic:

years...
and thats after I get my new comp.

To this I only have to say that most economic textbooks, or any theory books dont apply well to the real world.

I'm sure, thats why the GDP of our one country is above you're whole 20

being serious; the point he makes is valid, screw global warming, the the incapacity of our planet to make enough food without destroying the environment that supports that food is the real issue. we simply cannot help enough people.

I know it sucks. but there is nothing we can do except find a way to relieve the pressure on the planet before it gets to be too late. and that can only be done through concentrated space effort.

Actually, we have more than enough food in the world for everyone to have quite a bit more than they need. The problem is getting it to them...

A good example of this is Somalia, just look at what they did AFTER recieving help, they fought the helpers.

I mean really how stupid can people get, or better yet how greedy.

Its quite saddening, still I will always strive for a world of greater equality and understanding, for everyone not just the West.

Sharing is Caring

You know one easy way to solve all of this would be to kill about 3 billion people and then equate our birth and death rate, I read a book recently that pretty much stated that our worlds economy and infastructure would hold fine with only about 1 billion people. That in actuality we have too many people right now to function at 100% efficiencey both scientifically and industrially.

However thers always the ethics part of it.

are you aware of the prey-predator dependancy cycle?
if we take that much food, we burn out the ecocycles, and there will certainly not be food for long.

Sharing is destruction of all that matters; the planet.

nobody can say for sure what would happen if we tried an "equal" lifestyle, but most people agree that after a few decades, there won't be any "lifestyle" left (dustbowl anyone?). and thats living on bare minimums. Our environment cannot (so believed) support everyone on this planet.

unfortunately we cannot afford the leisure of the fullblown ethics that people prefer. yes, killing 3 billion people is not the way to go, but we cannot afford to pay for everyone.

additionally what would happen if we started meeting the needs of countries where the maternity rate is something like 500%? (10 kids per couple). our population would skyrocket in a matter of years, not decades.

Well if killing isnt the way to go then we should restrict the births that happen so that our population start decreasing.

Either way Im moving to Australia.

Well thats not compeletly true, we are already supporting almost everyone, not just the poor countries.

Every year over 5% of our budget goes out in 'gifts' to a bunch of nations. Including much of Europe and Asia. (Less goes to Africa but that is because of all the interest groups already there)

something like 70% of the world's people are in poverty (thanks India, thanks China.) 5% doesn't do much towards allieving that.

and the point of government birth control. thats where I have conflicting moral issues, I don't want to tell anyone "no you cannot have any more kids", but I know that unless something happens to drastically change things soon, it will be nescessary.

dammit, why can't everone just have enough mind to realize what they do is selfdestructive?

I dont really have a problem. People should be individuals to a greater point, but they must also realise when it is time to be part of a whole, to try and benifit everyone.

So if its for mankinds survival, than its good for you. Thats the way it should be, not all this "Your free to do what you want" stuff, no that doesnt work anymore. Everyone in the 'modern' world are all freaked out about stuff happening else where and are constantly forming groups to fight x bad thing while ignoring all the stupid, blatent examples of the same thing happening right at their doorstep.

I still believe that telling people not to have kids is morally reprehensible. its like killing people.

I can't fathom wanting 10 kids... Someday I want 2... maybe 3 if the wife wanted more. But no more than that.

The way I see it, the long term problem with massive aid to impoverished countries is that they are impoverished for a reason: they have more people than their agriculture/industry/economy can support. By sustaining these populations through aid you encourage further population growth (lower mortality rate due to availability of medicines and proper nutrition) thus putting them even further in the hole. So now they are COMPLETELY dependent on the aid and will be in serious trouble one day when you stop sending them stuff.

aha! you understand!
welcome to the dark side. logic.

Or its the governments fault, most improvished countries just have poor governments. Thats why they need aid, all the officials in those governments live the rich life while everyone else starves. Of there is the Somalia case where their economy actually rebuilt itself with the help of foreign aid, a starvation, and a power hungry war lord, they are still in anarchy but they seem to be doing fine.

That is why I dont support the US giving aid to other countries, they are sticking their noses down too many holes, sooner or later something bad is bound to be in one of them.