When you play a tabletop game, and your character has a badass magic weapon, don't you imagine the weapon glowing/sparking/flaming?
No, actually. My DM personally prefers to have the particularly powerful items/artifacts rather mundane. Sometimes you'll get something flashy, usually it only extends as far as Sting glowing in close proximity to orcs in the LoTR.
There are times where we've almost thrown an item away [ie an old rusty dagger] but decided to cast an identify spell on just in case, and it turns out to be [in this weapons' case] a +2 dagger of levitation or similar.
More importantly, if we run a campaign in a particularly low-magic setting we don't typically ever see a magic item at all, let alone something flashy. If we do, even a +1 butter knife becomes a long lost artifact sitting inside a jungle tribe's ancient catacombs.
So, to answer your question, no I don't imagine every magic weapon or even most magic weapons in my D&D games to be constantly glowing/sparking/flaming. Sometimes gaudy and flashy works in a particular setting, other times it doesn't. Depends on the setting and what kind of world the players want to be in.
Actually, I think it's more than that. Bethesda's changed over the past couple years, in my opinion for the worse. The internal conflict during Morrowind's development saw some pretty hefty talent and their opinions going out the door.
Recently Bethesda shut down a mod using legal threats for essentially importing Morrowind into the Oblivion engine. Obviously if Bethesda doesn't like what kind of mod you're making they're going to try and stop you from making it.
I think deciding not to release the editing tools for Fallout has little to do with not being able to develop them, especially when you consider that Fallout 3 is using the Oblivion engine and a lot of Oblivion's assets. I get the funny feeling that Bethesda is doing this for a different reason; maybe tighter control over their IP for instance.
EA's response to the outcry was to say that only one percent of accounts tried to activate the game more than three times, which is the limit without help from their customer service.
Spore has been out for 8 days, and that's if you count the early release in Australia. In 8 days they've had 1% of their customers install Spore enough times as to be unable to play the game.
This is a little problematic in that now you have two chemicals that you consume while driving
What about Oil for the car? Or radiator fluid? [Or even headlight fluid!]
If this AdBlue stuff is cheap, and only needs to be replaced occasionally like oil, then there really isn't much of a reason not to use it. [And if all it really is is urea, then what stops people from using their own?]
And how many people use more than 150GB's on their hard drive? I've got 500GB's on my gaming machine and I'm not even using a quarter of it. If I can buy a 150GB SSD for the same price as a 500GB HDD but with greatly improved performance - I'll do it in a heartbeat. It's not like I can't go out and buy an additional HDD if I need it.
It's been my understanding that while the federal cats in Ottawa might legislate a law, it's up to each individual Province to decide if they actually want to uphold it.
The whole point of the Strategic Reserve is to be used for emergencies.
Some would say that in the current economic and political climate, America does have an emergency on its hands.
Of course, by 'emergency' you're actually talking about something blatantly obvious like a hurricane disaster or war. Whether you like it or not, America's dependence on Middle Eastern oil *is* a problem.
Plus, the implications of pursuing EVs are enormous, for example: biofuels can be grown from algae on coal power plant exhaust. I'm sure it could be done in the outfall of nuclear power plants, too. After all, who cares if the algae is irradiated?
Wait, what? 'outfall from nuclear power plants'!?...You do know that those giant towers you see by nuclear power plants with the steam rising from them are cooling towers. They contain water. The only 'outfall' from an NPP is the radioactive waste. Which isn't spewed into the air. At all. It's all put in big heavy containers and shipped to storage areas. [Or more often, placed in a storage location on-site.]
The only place Algae could be irradiated would be in the primary cooling system that comes into direct contact with the nuclear fuel. Even so, you don't want algae in there, or any other part of the cooling system - since they could clog it up and cause problems. This of course ignores all the power plants that don't even use water as their coolant.
... except there are lots of things that are unobservable.
...Unless you're willing to argue that cellular biology didn't exist until we invented the microscope, and that there are stars out there that didn't exist until we built telescopes.
I'm not saying that invisible unicorns exist.
I'm saying that it is ignorant to claim that something doesn't exist because you can't measure it.
There are plenty of people who claim that invisible unicorns exist, and that they have personal evidence. Sure, the evidence sucks, but that doesn't change the fact that there are hundreds (if not thousands!) who believe that they have evidence that invisible unicorns exist.
It's interesting comparing what you said with this new post trading 'God' for 'Invisible Unicorns'. Personally, I'd figure someone who goes around talking about the invisible unicorns everywhere was a crazyman.
I would argue that the best form of government is actually a Dictatorship. One intelligent wise person ruling over a country and making intelligent, wise decisions, as opposed to an intelligent, wise populace ruling over a country through elected officials making intelligent, wise decisions.
Of course both forms of government break down when you lack an intelligent, wise dictator or populace. The dictator is likely to put his personal interests above everyone elses. While in a Democracy, the majority puts their interests above those of the minority. A bad dictatorship is by far worse than a bad democracy, but by the same token, a good dictatorship is by far better.
Hydrogen for example is light, small in volume, but there are questions over safety and cost.
Actually, Hydrogen is light, huge in volume, very safe, and inexpensive. There's a reason it was used to fly blimps, you know.
And before someone goes around throwing the hindenburg in everyone's faces, keep in mind that it was painted with rocket fuel, and that more than half the people on board survived the crash. The same cannot be said for your average airplane.
What gets me though, is that in the face of a personal flying machine that flies around in a video, and is capable of doing so for half an hour, you go on about how personal flying machines aren't possible. Flying cars are known as Helicopters, and your average person could likely afford a hot air balloon. Personal flying machines are everywhere - from cessna's to hang gliders. They're just not as ubiquitous as automobiles, nor as practical for getting around.
Oh man, oh man. I'm literally facepalming right now. Facepalming SO HARD.
Nuclear explosions follow the inverse square law. The further you are from the source, the less radiation is hitting you. Nuclear weapons on Earth derive most of their destructive power from the shockwave they create in our atmosphere. However, they are still incredibly powerful reactions, and if you're close to one in space, it will still fry you.
Project Orion would not 'take years to accelerate.' Unless you meant to add 'to a tenth the speed of light' at the end of that sentence. As it stands, Project Orion is the fastest, most practical spaceship would could design and build today. Chemical rockets don't even come close to what Project Orion is capable of.
And the Orion doesn't have a 'reflector', it has a pusher plate. It's a heavy metal plate, on the end of a gigantic shock absorber, coated in oil or similar [To reduce ablation.] that absorbs the energy from the nuclear explosion so that everyone on board the ship doesn't get splattered by the intense acceleration. The ship is ultimately pushed by a plasma wave created by the explosion.
An asteroid would be no different. Except that the surface might vaporize and act as additional reaction mass. The biggest problem I can envision with using a nuke to propel an asteroid is the difficulty you might have in predicting its new course.
I wonder what this kind of technology, once sufficiently advanced enough to absorb the high levels of heat, could do to change nuclear reactor designs.
Because I know someone on Slashdot is going to point this out, when I say "An Atmosphere" I mean a nice thick one. I do know that Mars has an atmosphere already; I just didn't catch what I'd said until after I posted.
I'd like to say I'm surprised by the pessimism regarding a Venusian colony, but really I'm not. For the past 50 years people have been continually told we're going to Mars, that after we get to the moon, Mars will be our first colony.
And yet, in almost every way, Venus is a superior colonization target compared to Mars. Let's look at what Venus has that Mars doesn't:
-Nearly Earth normal gravity.
-An Atmosphere.
-A lot more sunlight.
-Easily extractable elements from the atmosphere.
-A nearly Earth-normal band of pressure and temperature in the upper atmosphere.
What's Mars got that Venus doesn't? Easy access [comparatively] to its mineral wealth on the surface... and that's really about it. They both lack proper magnetic fields, they're both really far away, they're both hostile environments, etc. etc.
I personally feel that we should focus on setting up scientific outposts on the Moon first. Then move on to building space stations in the Lagrange points around the Earth, then go and mine ourselves some Near Earth Asteroids, and then maybe think about doing some colonizing on another actual planet.
2000-2010: Translating telephones allow people to speak to each other in different languages. [No.]
Machines designed to transcribe speech into computer text allow deaf people to understand spoken words. [Yes.]
Exoskeletal, robotic leg prostheses allow the paraplegic to walk. [Yes.]
Telephone calls are routinely screened by intelligent answering machines that ask questions to determine the call's nature and priority. [Yes.]
"Cybernetic chauffeurs" can drive cars for humans and can be retrofitted into existing cars. They work by communicating with other vehicles and with sensors embedded along the roads. [Yes.]
The classroom is dominated by computers. Intelligent courseware that can tailor itself to each student by recognizing their strengths and weaknesses exists. Media technology allows students to manipulate and interact with virtual depictions of the systems and personalities they are studying. [No.]
A small number of highly skilled people dominates the entire production sector. Tailoring of products for individuals is common. [No.]
Drugs are designed and tested in simulations that mimic the human body. [Yes.]
Blind people navigate and read text using machines that can visually recognize features of their environment. [Yes.]
2010: PCs are capable of answering queries by accessing information wirelessly via the Internet. [Yes.]
I think you were a overly pessimistic about his predictions to suite your own arguement.
That's just crazy. Statistically, if you drove 100 million miles during the period 1989-2004, you would have an 83% chance of dying. For the same period, if you flew 100 million miles, you would have a 2 percent chance of dying. Furthermore, from 1989 to 2004, the death expectancy for driving dropped about one third, but that for flying dropped to only about 2%. How about, instead of comparing the two in distance traveled, we compare them in time.
A plane might take 8 hours to go from Vancouver to Toronto. How long do you think it takes a car to travel that same distance. To travel 100 million miles in a car... I don't think it's even possible to do that within someone's lifetime, so you could theoretically say it has a 100% fatality rate.
So here's a question: Which is safer, flying for 5000 hours, or driving for 5000 hours? I personally think flying is safer still, but at least the statistics aren't as skewed.
So let me get this straight, you think the simplest explanation is that someone screwed up and accidentally added youtube, a site that receives millions of visitors a month, is owned by Microsoft's rival Google, and is the most ubiquitous video sharing website in the world; to a blacklist. For several days. [And AFAIK, is still blacklisted.]
Personally, I think a simper explanation is that someone with poor judgment thought banning youtube links would somehow benefit Microsoft. Maybe the decision was a good one, or a bad one. But I certainly don't think it was just "It's an accident, lol!"
Just felt like pointing out, the average crew for a modern tank is between 3-4 people. I've not personally heard of a tank with a crew of 6.
Tanks also have more than one weapon. On the Abrams for instance, there's the main cannon, the co-axial machine gun [It points where the cannon does.] and a pintle mount on top for a manned gun. As well, the soldiers inside the tanks have their own weapons. The pintle mounted gun is sometimes replaced with an electronic turret.
The Russian BMP-3, an infantry fighting vehicle [Not to be confused with a tank.] has a 100mm cannon, a 30mm cannon, and three 7.62mm machine guns.
Honestly, in my personal opinion tanks won't go away even if we have troops equipped with exoskeletons, carrying more armor and better weapons. The ground-pounders still won't be able to haul around a 120mm cannon, nor the armour that a tank does. At best, you'd be looking at protection from small-arms, perhaps up to 14.5mm. But when you need a mobile bunker to assault a fortified enemy position, tanks will be there, doing the job.
I remember the "duck and cover" drills. The tactics would be competely useless if there was an atomic explosion, it had no purpose whatever except to create and maintain an atmosphere of fear. I rather disagree with that. Duck and Cover will not save your life if an atom bomb detonates over your house, but if it was kilometers away, the flash of the explosion would preceed the shockwave by several seconds. In which case, laying on the ground helps keep you from being impaled or crushed by debris.
Slashdot Mirror
When you play a tabletop game, and your character has a badass magic weapon, don't you imagine the weapon glowing/sparking/flaming?
No, actually. My DM personally prefers to have the particularly powerful items/artifacts rather mundane. Sometimes you'll get something flashy, usually it only extends as far as Sting glowing in close proximity to orcs in the LoTR.
There are times where we've almost thrown an item away [ie an old rusty dagger] but decided to cast an identify spell on just in case, and it turns out to be [in this weapons' case] a +2 dagger of levitation or similar.
More importantly, if we run a campaign in a particularly low-magic setting we don't typically ever see a magic item at all, let alone something flashy. If we do, even a +1 butter knife becomes a long lost artifact sitting inside a jungle tribe's ancient catacombs.
So, to answer your question, no I don't imagine every magic weapon or even most magic weapons in my D&D games to be constantly glowing/sparking/flaming. Sometimes gaudy and flashy works in a particular setting, other times it doesn't. Depends on the setting and what kind of world the players want to be in.
Actually, I think it's more than that. Bethesda's changed over the past couple years, in my opinion for the worse. The internal conflict during Morrowind's development saw some pretty hefty talent and their opinions going out the door.
Recently Bethesda shut down a mod using legal threats for essentially importing Morrowind into the Oblivion engine. Obviously if Bethesda doesn't like what kind of mod you're making they're going to try and stop you from making it.
I think deciding not to release the editing tools for Fallout has little to do with not being able to develop them, especially when you consider that Fallout 3 is using the Oblivion engine and a lot of Oblivion's assets. I get the funny feeling that Bethesda is doing this for a different reason; maybe tighter control over their IP for instance.
We all run data centers with 3000 servers and program on apps with 10+ million LOC
10+ million Libraries of Congress!?
Those are some pretty big applications!
EA's response to the outcry was to say that only one percent of accounts tried to activate the game more than three times, which is the limit without help from their customer service.
Spore has been out for 8 days, and that's if you count the early release in Australia. In 8 days they've had 1% of their customers install Spore enough times as to be unable to play the game.
Bullet, meet foot.
This is a little problematic in that now you have two chemicals that you consume while driving
What about Oil for the car? Or radiator fluid? [Or even headlight fluid!]
If this AdBlue stuff is cheap, and only needs to be replaced occasionally like oil, then there really isn't much of a reason not to use it. [And if all it really is is urea, then what stops people from using their own?]
Most evidence points to dinosaurs being warmblooded, like birds. Not like reptiles.
And iirc, the first flowers started appearing roughly 100 million years ago. Which is a considerable time before the 65 million year extinction.
Yet, if you test 100% of the meat, you'd effectively stop any chance of mad cow disease making its way to market.
By the way, if you were to take 300,000,000 Americans, 0.17% ends up being 510,000 people.
And how many people use more than 150GB's on their hard drive? I've got 500GB's on my gaming machine and I'm not even using a quarter of it. If I can buy a 150GB SSD for the same price as a 500GB HDD but with greatly improved performance - I'll do it in a heartbeat. It's not like I can't go out and buy an additional HDD if I need it.
It's been my understanding that while the federal cats in Ottawa might legislate a law, it's up to each individual Province to decide if they actually want to uphold it.
The whole point of the Strategic Reserve is to be used for emergencies.
Some would say that in the current economic and political climate, America does have an emergency on its hands.
Of course, by 'emergency' you're actually talking about something blatantly obvious like a hurricane disaster or war. Whether you like it or not, America's dependence on Middle Eastern oil *is* a problem.
Plus, the implications of pursuing EVs are enormous, for example: biofuels can be grown from algae on coal power plant exhaust. I'm sure it could be done in the outfall of nuclear power plants, too. After all, who cares if the algae is irradiated?
Wait, what? 'outfall from nuclear power plants'!? ...You do know that those giant towers you see by nuclear power plants with the steam rising from them are cooling towers. They contain water. The only 'outfall' from an NPP is the radioactive waste. Which isn't spewed into the air. At all. It's all put in big heavy containers and shipped to storage areas. [Or more often, placed in a storage location on-site.]
The only place Algae could be irradiated would be in the primary cooling system that comes into direct contact with the nuclear fuel. Even so, you don't want algae in there, or any other part of the cooling system - since they could clog it up and cause problems. This of course ignores all the power plants that don't even use water as their coolant.
... except there are lots of things that are unobservable.
...Unless you're willing to argue that cellular biology didn't exist until we invented the microscope, and that there are stars out there that didn't exist until we built telescopes.
I'm not saying that invisible unicorns exist.
I'm saying that it is ignorant to claim that something doesn't exist because you can't measure it.
There are plenty of people who claim that invisible unicorns exist, and that they have personal evidence. Sure, the evidence sucks, but that doesn't change the fact that there are hundreds (if not thousands!) who believe that they have evidence that invisible unicorns exist.
It's interesting comparing what you said with this new post trading 'God' for 'Invisible Unicorns'. Personally, I'd figure someone who goes around talking about the invisible unicorns everywhere was a crazyman.
I would argue that the best form of government is actually a Dictatorship. One intelligent wise person ruling over a country and making intelligent, wise decisions, as opposed to an intelligent, wise populace ruling over a country through elected officials making intelligent, wise decisions.
Of course both forms of government break down when you lack an intelligent, wise dictator or populace. The dictator is likely to put his personal interests above everyone elses. While in a Democracy, the majority puts their interests above those of the minority. A bad dictatorship is by far worse than a bad democracy, but by the same token, a good dictatorship is by far better.
Hydrogen for example is light, small in volume, but there are questions over safety and cost.
Actually, Hydrogen is light, huge in volume, very safe, and inexpensive. There's a reason it was used to fly blimps, you know.
And before someone goes around throwing the hindenburg in everyone's faces, keep in mind that it was painted with rocket fuel, and that more than half the people on board survived the crash. The same cannot be said for your average airplane.
What gets me though, is that in the face of a personal flying machine that flies around in a video, and is capable of doing so for half an hour, you go on about how personal flying machines aren't possible. Flying cars are known as Helicopters, and your average person could likely afford a hot air balloon. Personal flying machines are everywhere - from cessna's to hang gliders. They're just not as ubiquitous as automobiles, nor as practical for getting around.
Oh man, oh man. I'm literally facepalming right now. Facepalming SO HARD.
Nuclear explosions follow the inverse square law. The further you are from the source, the less radiation is hitting you. Nuclear weapons on Earth derive most of their destructive power from the shockwave they create in our atmosphere. However, they are still incredibly powerful reactions, and if you're close to one in space, it will still fry you.
Project Orion would not 'take years to accelerate.' Unless you meant to add 'to a tenth the speed of light' at the end of that sentence. As it stands, Project Orion is the fastest, most practical spaceship would could design and build today. Chemical rockets don't even come close to what Project Orion is capable of.
And the Orion doesn't have a 'reflector', it has a pusher plate. It's a heavy metal plate, on the end of a gigantic shock absorber, coated in oil or similar [To reduce ablation.] that absorbs the energy from the nuclear explosion so that everyone on board the ship doesn't get splattered by the intense acceleration. The ship is ultimately pushed by a plasma wave created by the explosion.
An asteroid would be no different. Except that the surface might vaporize and act as additional reaction mass. The biggest problem I can envision with using a nuke to propel an asteroid is the difficulty you might have in predicting its new course.
I wonder what this kind of technology, once sufficiently advanced enough to absorb the high levels of heat, could do to change nuclear reactor designs.
Because I know someone on Slashdot is going to point this out, when I say "An Atmosphere" I mean a nice thick one. I do know that Mars has an atmosphere already; I just didn't catch what I'd said until after I posted.
I'd like to say I'm surprised by the pessimism regarding a Venusian colony, but really I'm not. For the past 50 years people have been continually told we're going to Mars, that after we get to the moon, Mars will be our first colony.
And yet, in almost every way, Venus is a superior colonization target compared to Mars. Let's look at what Venus has that Mars doesn't:
-Nearly Earth normal gravity.
-An Atmosphere.
-A lot more sunlight.
-Easily extractable elements from the atmosphere.
-A nearly Earth-normal band of pressure and temperature in the upper atmosphere.
What's Mars got that Venus doesn't? Easy access [comparatively] to its mineral wealth on the surface... and that's really about it. They both lack proper magnetic fields, they're both really far away, they're both hostile environments, etc. etc.
I personally feel that we should focus on setting up scientific outposts on the Moon first. Then move on to building space stations in the Lagrange points around the Earth, then go and mine ourselves some Near Earth Asteroids, and then maybe think about doing some colonizing on another actual planet.
Here's my own take on it:
2000-2010:
Translating telephones allow people to speak to each other in different languages. [No.]
Machines designed to transcribe speech into computer text allow deaf people to understand spoken words. [Yes.]
Exoskeletal, robotic leg prostheses allow the paraplegic to walk. [Y e s.]
Telephone calls are routinely screened by intelligent answering machines that ask questions to determine the call's nature and priority. [Y e s.]
"Cybernetic chauffeurs" can drive cars for humans and can be retrofitted into existing cars. They work by communicating with other vehicles and with sensors embedded along the roads. [Yes.]
The classroom is dominated by computers. Intelligent courseware that can tailor itself to each student by recognizing their strengths and weaknesses exists. Media technology allows students to manipulate and interact with virtual depictions of the systems and personalities they are studying. [No.]
A small number of highly skilled people dominates the entire production sector. Tailoring of products for individuals is common. [No.]
Drugs are designed and tested in simulations that mimic the human body. [Yes.]
Blind people navigate and read text using machines that can visually recognize features of their environment. [Ye s.]
2010:
PCs are capable of answering queries by accessing information wirelessly via the Internet. [Yes.]
I think you were a overly pessimistic about his predictions to suite your own arguement.
What about the part where an airship could potentially lift 450+ tons of cargo? I'd like to see a plane that could manage that.
So let me get this straight, you think the simplest explanation is that someone screwed up and accidentally added youtube, a site that receives millions of visitors a month, is owned by Microsoft's rival Google, and is the most ubiquitous video sharing website in the world; to a blacklist. For several days. [And AFAIK, is still blacklisted.]
Personally, I think a simper explanation is that someone with poor judgment thought banning youtube links would somehow benefit Microsoft. Maybe the decision was a good one, or a bad one. But I certainly don't think it was just "It's an accident, lol!"
Maybe you ought to take a look at the youtube video of this suit?
Boy! That sure does look like a small walking car to me!
Just felt like pointing out, the average crew for a modern tank is between 3-4 people. I've not personally heard of a tank with a crew of 6.
Tanks also have more than one weapon. On the Abrams for instance, there's the main cannon, the co-axial machine gun [It points where the cannon does.] and a pintle mount on top for a manned gun. As well, the soldiers inside the tanks have their own weapons. The pintle mounted gun is sometimes replaced with an electronic turret.
The Russian BMP-3, an infantry fighting vehicle [Not to be confused with a tank.] has a 100mm cannon, a 30mm cannon, and three 7.62mm machine guns.
Honestly, in my personal opinion tanks won't go away even if we have troops equipped with exoskeletons, carrying more armor and better weapons. The ground-pounders still won't be able to haul around a 120mm cannon, nor the armour that a tank does. At best, you'd be looking at protection from small-arms, perhaps up to 14.5mm. But when you need a mobile bunker to assault a fortified enemy position, tanks will be there, doing the job.