Hunter2357

[ QUOTE ]
Massive unresisted damage? Lethal damage is one of the most resisted damage types in the game.

[/ QUOTE ]

Except for the fact that critical damage is completely unresistable... and guess what 86% of an AS is?... it is critical which means 86% of that AS cuts through any resistance the target may have as if it was not there at all.

That is what they meant by massive unresisted damage.

Sure a stalkers regular attacks are resistable... but when was the last time you saw one stick around to offer the resisted damage?... they make their unresistable attack and then run for the hills.

The statement is absolutely correct... what it's implications are though is an entirely different matter.

[ QUOTE ]
As the observers, we collapse the probability wave.

[/ QUOTE ]

This would be considered a dangerous statement to make under some circles as there is still a debate as to what exactly constitutes an "observer".

Some are inclined to believe that only a conscious rational being can fill that role... I am not in that camp.

From a physical standpoint all particles may be regarded as both an observer and an observable dependent upon the flow of information within a system.

When a system is completely isolated from outside interaction we suddenly enter into a novel realm where interesting quantum effects crop up... and it has nothing to do with whether or not a human being is watching.

The argument I am trying to make is a philosophical one... specifically it is a metaphysical one... but in that sense you are arguing a metaphysical position as well.

The position you are arguing is that science has proven that the universe is unknowable and that we have been reduced to an Aristotelian mode of exploring shadowy forms that are mere representations of the "truth".

While that is an interesting thought, and one that is difficult to argue against, I might very well revert to Descartes and assert that the only thing of which we may be certain is our own existence (i.e. I think therefore I am).

Ultimately these are nice thoughts... but they do not get us anywhere.

I am functioning under the axiom that I am a part of the universe (albeit an infinitesimal portion there of)... I am functioning under the assumption that the senses can be trusted given repeated experiments (A stance held by and advanced by Hume)... This is the realm where science prevails, the realm of sensory experience.

Sure I cannot "prove" that reality is not a figment of my own imagination... but that is unimportant once I realize that fact and move on... it is completely permissible to accept once experience as "real" and to make progress from there.

So long as reality functions under certain guidelines of causality and predictability science will always be able to garner a deeper understanding of how the universe functions.

Quantum mechanics sets up boundary conditions for the level of predictability we may obtain, and when it is relativized we obtain methods to determine the direction of causality dependent upon the reference frame of interest.

The Heisenburg criteria says something very deep about the universe... just as Schrodinger's equation informs us of something very meaningful about how reality functions.

Yet these two ideas are not the final word on the matter... new ideas are being tested all the time... new experiments performed to determine just how "true" those assertions might be.

Please keep in mind that there is no aposteriori means to develop Schrodinger's differential wave equation... it is taken as "fact" and then the rest of quantum mechanics is developed around it.

There is nothing inherently "true" about that formulation when we cannot yet prove whether or not this equation is also an approximation that requires higher order corrections... and most theoretical physicists would assert that it does... which leads into a great many TOE's and GUT's... each of which offers varied analysis of what can be known... and what cannot.

By the way... I am really loving this conversation, but if for any reason I have mentioned something with which you are not familiar please let me know and I would be happy to explain. I am going under the assumption that you know what I am talking about though since you seem to be very well versed in this particular topic.

[ QUOTE ]
But I think we need to separate impossible on a technological level from a theoretical.

[/ QUOTE ]

Unfortunately mankind has a flawed background at predicting what is "impossible"... it is entirel dependent upon the information available in a particular era.

[ QUOTE ]
But you or I will never be able to accelerate to the speed of light under these laws of physics.

[/ QUOTE ]

Special relativity does indeed set up this parameter... but that does not indicate that there is not a technological method by which to circumvent this criteria.

Under normal spatial conditions the speed of light in a vacuum is asserted to be 3 x 10^8 m/s (actually slightly less, but for the sake of argument we will keep the numbers simple).

Yet theory does not preclude us from adjusting the conditions of space itself such that the speed of light in a particular region is actually "faster" than this.

If we were to reduce or increase the permittivity or permeability of free space in a particular region the "constant" speed of light would be altered and thus it would be possible to move at 4 x 10^8 m/s all without violating the relativistic condition.

Whether or not it is technologically feasible to alter the properties of space-time is a very different issue... and one which we will not know the answer to for some time if ever.

What it really comes down to is that a "law" of nature does not necessarily mean what we think it means upon first glance... sure it may be impossible to travel faster than the speed of light... but the equations involved do not actually require the speed of light to be equal to one particular value.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The thing you should worry about are "thor shots" (i.e. man made meteor-like projectiles dropped from earth orbit onto a targeted city)... not scifi type weapons.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now THAT would make a cool reward for Warburg!

[/ QUOTE ]

Now that you mention it... that would be REALLY cool... I wonder if they could add something like that at this point?

[ QUOTE ]
How about Quantum teleportation weapons that only entangle, say, HALF of your atoms and move them somewhere else? Even if they move an INCH, you're in HEAP big trouble.

I'm usually more interested in whether we SHOULD do something, rather than "COULD" we do something.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your worries began with the fact that we might develop more "efficient" methods to kill people.

The method you have described above is neither efficient in terms of time, energy, equipment, or computational effort.

We already have a MUCH more efficient method of killing people... we use a gun.

Sure we could kill someone with a 10 billion dollar particle accelerator by exposing them to lethal doses of radiation... but why run up a $30,000 energy bill to kill someone when you can buy a bullet for 10 cents?

The thing you should worry about are "thor shots" (i.e. man made meteor-like projectiles dropped from earth orbit onto a targeted city)... not scifi type weapons.


And I agree with you... one-shotting needs to be adjusted

[ QUOTE ]
The universe does not recognize the concept of "oneness."

[/ QUOTE ]

Unfortunately you and I are going to have to disagree on this point for the simple fact that I possess no evidence that would give me reason to divorce myself from the universe.

All too often mankind somehow believes that we are trying to understand external forces and understand phenomena that are unrelated to ourselves in some way.

The problem with such a belief is that we are constructed out of the same materials that form the stars, planets, and galaxies that fill the vast expanse of the universe.

We occupy and are composed of the "stuff" of space-time... we cannot escape it, we are part of it, and it is what makes us who we are and determines what we are capable of.

As such... if man is capable of recognizing the concept of "oneness"... then invariably a portion of the universe is also capable of recognizing that concept.

The particular collection of atoms, molecules, and virtual particles with fill the region of the universe that you occupy have the ability to understand the very concept you maintain that the universe itself cannot recognize.

Unless your intelligence is derives from outside the universe, which I do not believe would be a legitimate argument... then you must invariably conclude that the universe does comprehend such an idea... even if it is only the part of it that exists within your mind.

Human beings are a part of the universe seeking to understand itself... not a separate entity trying to understand the universe... I hope you see the distinction I am trying to make.

[ QUOTE ]
Odd that we've reached a stage where we can see the limit to the knowable.

[/ QUOTE ]

I suggest reviewing the work of Kip Thorne on quantum non-demolition to gather some interesting alternate perspectives on this contention... some of it is likely to be very complex, so if you are not familiar with formal quantum mechanics you will probably want to find a qualitative review rather than a quantitative one.

We are becomming increasingly adept at narrowing the scope of the heisenberg criteria... and may one day discover that such a "rule" is in and of itself only an approximation.

The wonderful thing about science is that is it mutable, continually adapting to new discoveries... as such I am hesitant to claim something is "unknowable"... especially when that might very well change after 10,000 years of research.

After all... at one point it was believed that FTL travel was utterly impossible... yet as we know now, such a claim must be revised to state that FTL transmission of information is impossible, but not necessarily FTL communication altogether. Even that might need to be adjusted as we learn more... science is a work in progress, nothing is set in stone.

[ QUOTE ]
Like killing each other more efficiently?

Put me down in the "Mankind is a bunch of self-important children" camp.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps... but the quantum revolution really has more to do with generating the semiconductors that allow you to use your computer... the photonic technologies that permit the internet to function... and the MRI machines that permit doctors to diagnose soft tissue phenomena, than it has to do with "killing anyone".

Bullets are pretty much classical devices... as are conventional explosives.

Most advanced technology finds its way toward helping society more than destroying it... with some notable exceptions of course.

That is a matter of ethics and philosophy though more than knowledge... but it is always better to have the wisdom to use or not use a technology prior to developing it.

[ QUOTE ]
Quantum theory, more than anything, shows us that perception is a layer. But it also shows us a peep-hole to some extraordinary things. One of the most difficult for us to grasp is that time is no different than any of the other three dimensions.

[/ QUOTE ]

An even closer approximation of "reality" would actually be achieved through the consideration of relativistic quantum mechanics in which we no longer consider a dissociated array of spatial and temporal dimensions, but instead utilize space-time metrics.

Not only is time similar to the other three dimensions... all 4 are truly one and the same entity that must be considered as a whole without disregard for the other components in order to make sense of a particular problem.

As for quantum entanglement or as it has been called by einstein, "spooky action at a distance"... the ultimate source for this phenomenon still remains somewhat mysterious... we have a multitude of theories which draw upon inspiration from extra dimensional spaces, various string/membrane theories, and infinitesimal wormholes as you have suggested.

Ultimately we still have a great deal of research to do, but when we do have a better grasp as to what is going on "beneath the surface of reality"... then mankind will have really achieved something incredible.

[ QUOTE ]
I wanted to believe that I hadn't been spit on. I tried to believe that this wouldn't happen. But it's gonna. World of Warcraft is coming so that's the plain and simple reason this rushed update is gonna be so bad for us. If you'll notice in all the game guides, the way the choices are listed when you create a character. Tankers are always last. So it's probably just a matter of numbers. I can't believe that an idea such as this would make it all the way to the powers that be without someone saying" Hey, something's wrong here." Tankers have been ignored for a long time so just what in the hell makes you people think that things are gonna change all of a sudden. You know I don't care about a blaster having my best power. But when you just basically forget about my class and treat us like second class the whole time. Then give some "Epic Powers" that don't help us at all. Well that's just the last straw. If this issue goes live like it is what's the point of my lvl 50 tank that I modeled after an idea for a hero I thought of 11 years ago. Reach the highest lvl to become as useless as a car with no wheels. Our only purpose was as a "MEATSHIELD" A term I absolutely hate. As far as the changes I'll believe em when I see em. But that any of you think that all of a sudden things are gonna change....WAKE UP!!! Words are nothing! My suggestion.......scrap Tankers from being chosen as archetypes. You've already killed them.

[/ QUOTE ]

The reason I am quoting you is quite simple... the logic you base your conclusions upon is completely unfounded. You claim that tankers are only an afterthought as evidenced by the fact that they are always listed last in the manuals and the character creation engine. While that could certainly be argued, don't you believe that it is far more likely (and probably the real reason for the order) that things were listed alphabetically. In such an order T certainly comes after B, C, D and S. I do not point this out to be inflamatory, but I see no justification in jumping to ludicrous assumptions when far more logical ones exist. You certainly have a right to take issue with the order of the alphabet, and demand that T rise up the ladder, but until such a change is implimented I hardly think that cryptic can be at fault for this.