To repeat the thread title, does anyone know what the "GD" stands for? A friend of mine and I were trying to figure it out. Here's a screenshot:
http://img263.imageshack.us/img263/6758/asdfizl.jpg
Printable View
To repeat the thread title, does anyone know what the "GD" stands for? A friend of mine and I were trying to figure it out. Here's a screenshot:
http://img263.imageshack.us/img263/6758/asdfizl.jpg
I believe that means "Galactic Date" but we've never been told.
Assuming GD is Earth years, 872 GD is 1629 AD, some random arbitrary date of no significance as far as I can tell.
GD might be time based on another planet than Earth. It was 272 years since the UPL was founded, so GD could possibly be time since the UPL's founding on a planet that has a year roughly 1/3 of Earth's (no such planet exists in our solar system).
In other words: I have absolutely no idea.
Complete speculation on my part, but perhaps it is a propagandized version of the age of the UED. It is only around 300 years old at the time of the Brood War, but it is possible that the UED has been creating propaganda that says they are much older than they are. It's the only explanation that I can come up with regarding the date reading 872.
Why says 872GD refers to a date, it might refer to a place, much like 10DS would refer to 10 Downing street. Maybe 872GD refers to 872 Gladward Drive, or something like that.
If you check Stukov's birthday, it says the same thing (872 GD), but in the German version it's a different date.
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y143/Renrue/GDs.jpg
It's definitely a date and not a location. And I assume the 'death' around 822 was a typo, and it meant 872, the current year.
Ah, okay. I guess it's pretty much propaganda then.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kacaier
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1629
I had a feeling it might have had something to do with the Renaissance and the UPL deciding that human history really began during then... but the Renaissance started a few centuries before. :/
So, yeah, it maketh no sense.
Thanks for all the replies, everyone. :)
Sounds very 1984.Quote:
but it is possible that the UED has been creating propaganda that says they are much older than they are.
Really, it's just something the cinematic artists placed there to make future's earth seem more foreign to us. They didn't generate an entire new system of reckoning just for this small bit. They may fix it the next time we encounter the UED.
On the other hand, it may be some stardate, like from Star Trek. They didn't initially have a true reckoning system when they began using stardates; it was only later down the line that it was made into an actual system.
EDIT
One other thing I thought of. The UED refers to the Koprulu conflict as the Great War for Domination (or GD for short). Perhaps the war has gone on for 872 days by the time of Stukov's death. But of course, his birthdate would make no sense whatsoever. So see my above comments.
Huge typo, unless he died before he born :p.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kacaier
Ooh! Maybe they count backwards like B.C. dates, and GD actually stands for Galactic Domination? The UED is so bureaucratic it plans its own victories centuries in advance! :p
The propaganda suggestion doesn't sound below something the UED would do.
An idea I find interesting, what if some secret order or something similar that was key to the UED's creation was founded in the year 1629? They would pick that date for the start of the new calendar to honor the order.
Oooh. I vote this. I severely doubt it, but I support it. :3Quote:
An idea I find interesting, what if some secret order or something similar that was key to the UED's creation was founded in the year 1629? They would pick that date for the start of the new calendar to honor the order.
This is probably the mother of all speculations but what if the GD denotes the formation of the UPL? What if the Terrans' timekeeping has been inaccurate since arriving in the K-Sector (e.g. 1 year = 1 revolution around the sun = >525,600 minutes/365 days). This would explain the apparent timeline discrepencies such as the unexpectedly high Terran population size within a few hundred years of colonization and why the Terran characters look physically older than their chronological age (not to mention why they have since dramatically aged in the few years between SC1 and SC2).
How in hells name can a civilisation capable of building a fleet of hyperdrive equipped vessels (that's a UED date, not a K-Sector one) 'not' have accurate timekeeping, I mean, heck even the Egyptians worked out the leap-year.Quote:
Originally Posted by mr. peasant
Well when first and second contact are dumped on your head along with interplanetary war, you might forget to wind the clocks.
Because their basis of time (the Earth's around the sun) is the same as our current one. In the K-Sector, they don't have that. They would measure it based on the rotation of one of their planets (likely Tarsonis) around their sun, which would give a different time.Quote:
Originally Posted by MattII
Except the human brain has a natural 25 hour (yes, 1 more than expected) cycle. Every sleeping animal has a cycle of about 22-26 hours (varies by species). 24 hours itself is extremely rare, only hamsters have that. The end result; if the time difference was off by more than a few hours, you'd notice.
While clocks become slow and so forth, they don't fall off by that much. Also, ATLAS survived the journey, and would have kept track of time. Even if it forgot the date, it would still know how long an hour was (due to the way current computer time technology works).
Besides, Tarsonis has a 27 hour day, that's not that far off from 24 hours.
But seeing as how they are in a new system and unlikely to ever return to Earth, it wouldn't have made much sense on maintaining an Earth-based time system. Since the length of a day is traditionally seen as the time between two sunrises, it would have been somewhat silly/strange for a day to be seen as anything other (whether longer or shorter) as it would eventually lead to being awake at night and going to bed at sunrise. Moreover, measuring a year based on one's current planet's rotation around the sun is also important as it makes it easier for the average person to keep track of seasons. Timekeeping is about function.
Consequently, I think different planets will have different calenders with one providing a 'standardized time'. As Tarsonis was the hub of intellect in the Confederacy, it would make sense they would have adopted that as the standard.
Again, that's a UED broadcast, not a K-Sector broadcast, they're basing it on earth years.Quote:
Originally Posted by mr. peasant
My point exactly. If the Terran's timeline is to be believed, the UPL was formed 270 years ago and the year is 2501 A.D. during the Brood War. However, based on the UED report, the year is 872 G.D.. My theory is that the new calender is based from when the UPL was first created and so there is a 600 year discrepancy between the two calenders; i.e. the K-Sector Terrans' measure of time is much slower than that of Earth. This would explain why they could seemingly reach a population count of billions in 200 years from a colony size of 40,000.Quote:
Originally Posted by MattII
Incidentally, I think I know what G.D. stands for: Galactic Date
"Hey Sarge -- what's the year?"
"It's 852 God Dammit!"
[QUOTE=mr. peasant;19007]My point exactly. If the Terran's timeline is to be believed, the UPL was formed 270 years ago and the year is 2501 A.D. during the Brood War. However, based on the UED report, the year is 872 G.D.. My theory is that the new calender is based from when the UPL was first created and so there is a 600 year discrepancy between the two calenders; i.e. the K-Sector Terrans' measure of time is much slower than that of Earth.[quote]
You'll then also have to explain why Jim Raynor looks, as far as I can tell, about 30 in SC/BW, when he should look closer to 96, if your theory is correct.
An annual growth of 6% would give almost 3.7 Billion in 200 years, or almost 1.15 Billion in 180, so you don't need a huge time, just a steady growth.Quote:
This would explain why they could seemingly reach a population count of billions in 200 years from a colony size of 40,000.
This looks 30?? :oQuote:
Originally Posted by MattII
http://images4.wikia.nocookie.net/st...Raynor_SC2.jpg
My point is that the Terrans' measure of time may not be entirely reliable. For instance, they may not have converted to a new annual system straightaway.
Have you any idea how high an annual growth of 6% is? Wikipedia estimates our current growth rate at 1.18%. Even at its peak, it was only 2.20%. At its highest, it took 300 years (17th century to 20th century) to increase the human population by ten times and that had the advantage of a drastic increase in longevity along with advancements in medicine and sanitation.Quote:
Originally Posted by MattII
With the possible exception of longevity, all those factors would have been going for the terrans (at least those of Tarsonis), including nearly empty planets and plenty of colonies once they got FTL travel.Quote:
At its highest, it took 300 years (17th century to 20th century) to increase the human population by ten times and that had the advantage of a drastic increase in longevity along with advancements in medicine and sanitation.[
In other words, we're looking at a situation that never existed on Earth.
Still younger than 96.Quote:
This looks 30??
This is a silly argument anyway. Blizzard isn't going to distort time; that just makes things more confusing for the audience.
Actually, life expectancy drops when arriving in a new environment due to susceptibility to new diseases and the dangers of pioneering. As for medical and sanitation advancements, there won't be any on par with breakthroughs such as (relatively) clean water and antibiotics which prevented people from dying from cholera and small wounds.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimera757
The only breakthroughs left that would be on par with those in reducing mortality would be a cure for all cancers, eradication of all diseases and the modification/slowing of the aging process.
New medical breakthrough that slow the aging process. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Kimera757
Hence why I said it's the mother of all speculations. It's highly unlikely yet possible, plausible and resolves several other issues/inconsistencies of lore.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimera757
34 and a heavy drinker, maybe.Quote:
Originally Posted by mr. peasant
That would knock, maybe half-a-year to a year off, given tht they'd have to sort out the seasons pretty quick for farming.Quote:
My point is that the Terrans' measure of time may not be entirely reliable. For instance, they may not have converted to a new annual system straightaway.
In the 1950-2000 period it more than doubled. You try the same thing again with those advancements already in place, and with the assumption of fairly boundless resources.Quote:
Have you any idea how high an annual growth of 6% is? Wikipedia estimates our current growth rate at 1.18%. Even at its peak, it was only 2.20%. At its highest, it took 300 years (17th century to 20th century) to increase the human population by ten times and that had the advantage of a drastic increase in longevity along with advancements in medicine and sanitation.
That assumes there 'are' diseases which affect us (by no means a certainty), and that there aren't shiploads of equipment to hand (there was).Quote:
Actually, life expectancy drops when arriving in a new environment due to susceptibility to new diseases and the dangers of pioneering.
it was the advances themselves which saved lives, not the rate at which they were discovered, so saying that we'll all die out because we aren't making any new advancements is totally whacked.Quote:
As for medical and sanitation advancements, there won't be any on par with breakthroughs such as (relatively) clean water and antibiotics which prevented people from dying from cholera and small wounds.
Remember the ship was sent out in the 2269, I'd assume we'd made a few advances by then, including perhaps curing some cancers.Quote:
The only breakthroughs left that would be on par with those in reducing mortality would be a cure for all cancers, eradication of all diseases and the modification/slowing of the aging process.
The very same you were arguing against?Quote:
New medical breakthrough that slow the aging process. :D
I'll hardly call it plausible, and I'd be interested to know exactly what other issues it solves.Quote:
Hence why I said it's the mother of all speculations. It's highly unlikely yet possible, plausible and resolves several other issues/inconsistencies of lore.
[QUOTE=MattII;19170]In the 1950-2000 period it more than doubled. You try the same thing again with those advancements already in place, and with the assumption of fairly boundless resources.
Precisely. That means, the annual growth rate was on average 1.4%; a long way off from your 6%. At 6%, the population would double in 12 years, not 50.
Considering the planets the Terrans colonized had their own ecosystems, habitats and native wildlife, there's a high probability that there would be some risk of diseases. Moreover, the dangers of pioneering that I'm talking about are those associated with the work that needs to be done to set up basic infrastructure and resource gathering.Quote:
Originally Posted by MattII
That's not what I'm saying at all! What I am saying is that without major breakthroughs in healthcare, the population growth rate isn't going to dramatically increase.Quote:
Originally Posted by MattII
Just a reminder that by token of living longer, it would reason that people would look younger despite being chronologically older.Quote:
Originally Posted by MattII
Issues like how the Terrans could reach a population count of billions from an original count of 32,000 (8,000 died in a crash). Assuming the population is also 3.2 billion (which it is most certainly much, much higher), that would mean the Terrans have somehow increased their population by a hundred thousand fold in 200 years.Quote:
Originally Posted by MattII
Okay, I'll admit that sounds a bit whacked, but either it's canon, or the Dominion is way overestimating the number of Terrans around. The latter is entirely possible, given that, despite being at least 100 years colonised, Korhal had a population of only 4 million when it was destroyed.Quote:
Originally Posted by mr. peasant
That assumes a similar biochemistry to the local bugs, by no means a certainty.Quote:
Considering the planets the Terrans colonized had their own ecosystems, habitats and native wildlife, there's a high probability that there would be some risk of diseases.
That assumes the ships don't themselves include sufficient materials and equipment to set up an infrastructure fairly rapidly (mining drones, farming drones, prefab structures etc.)Quote:
Moreover, the dangers of pioneering that I'm talking about are those associated with the work that needs to be done to set up basic infrastructure and resource gathering.
What if the ships included artificial wombs as well as cold-sleepers, a mix of suspended animation and frozen embryos.Quote:
That's not what I'm saying at all! What I am saying is that without major breakthroughs in healthcare, the population growth rate isn't going to dramatically increase.
Assuming that was correct, and that your idea of the K-Sector method of measuring time is correct, it still can't explain why his date-of-birth is given in earth-years, not in this K-sector time measurement you're taking about.Quote:
Just a reminder that by token of living longer, it would reason that people would look younger despite being chronologically older.
This assumes that billions is an accurate figure and not just Dominion propaganda. This being the case, longer K-sector years can't explain it away due to the fact that all the dates given in the timeline are in earth-years, thus those numbers have to be correct, and either there 'has' been a stead 6% growth rate (or alternately ~15 years initial setting-up, followed by 6.5% growth), or the growth rate started off lower, but then grew higher (8% gets you there in ~150 years).Quote:
Issues like how the Terrans could reach a population count of billions from an original count of 32,000 (8,000 died in a crash). Assuming the population is also 3.2 billion (which it is most certainly much, much higher), that would mean the Terrans have somehow increased their population by a hundred thousand fold in 200 years.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MattII
Agree on both counts.Quote:
Originally Posted by MattII
They probably had. But as the original colony was separated, all parties likely didn't have access to everything they needed (i.e. no vessel was completely self contained but as a whole, they had everything needed to set up shop). This is somewhat indicated seeing as how only the Tarsonians had access to ATLAS where as the Morians were the best miners.Quote:
Originally Posted by MattII
Hmm... freeze dried babies... cool!!Quote:
Originally Posted by MattII
If you're talking about Stukov, they used the C.B. dating system because it was a UED news report.Quote:
Originally Posted by MattII
I dunno... an 8% annual growth rate would indicate that close to 1 in every 5 women (assuming male:female = 1:1) would become pregnant every year (assuming a few failed pregnancies) including children. That's kind of gross.Quote:
Originally Posted by MattII
I think I'd be more comfortable with the notion that 'the number of casualties have been greatly exaggerated' and that the Terrans are 'grossly ignorant of their total population'.
This sounds a bit like part of Joe Haldeman's 'Forever Free' where 5 ships (cold-sleep escape pods actually) contain all the bit needed to start a civilisation, but each has only the skimpiest supplies, but in one field, in which it carries like more than half the equipment.Quote:
Originally Posted by mr. peasant
Actually I was talking about Raynor, the wikia gives his date-of-birth, or at least year-of-birth as 2470.Quote:
If you're talking about Stukov, they used the C.B. dating system because it was a UED news report.
I'm not sure, because even at 1/10 the population of 6% constant growth for the 200 years, the growth rate is 4.8%, still way higher than anything we've ever experienced on earth. At the 2.2% that represents the highest earth growth rate to date, the K-sector population comes out at a shade below 2.5 million, not even enough for Korhal, let alone a whole sector.Quote:
I dunno... an 8% annual growth rate would indicate that close to 1 in every 5 women (assuming male:female = 1:1) would become pregnant every year (assuming a few failed pregnancies) including children. That's kind of gross.
I think I'd be more comfortable with the notion that 'the number of casualties have been greatly exaggerated' and that the Terrans are 'grossly ignorant of their total population'.