Sunanta

(Running 1.0.0.8 RC24 with the probe speed update) I can't seem to get shuttles to RTB after they've deployed their mining drones without going through an extra, unrelated step. **DELETED** [ 11-10-2002, 09:00 AM: Message edited by: Supreme Cmdr ]

quote:Originally posted by Dragon Lady: If I have to identical objects (doesnÔÇÖt matter what they are, so long as they are identical) then the property of location (which is much more physical than doubt) would have to be the same, and thus no two entities could be identical, completely erasing the possibility of identical entities from existence. That is exactly what I'm saying--it is indeed impossible to have two identical yet discrete entities. When I say "identical," I mean "the same entity" anyway, so this isn't actually a problem, though it initially appears otherwise. If the brain and the mind are identical, they would share all properties, including location--they would be the same object (that is to say, identical). If not the brain but the electrochemical process that occurs in the brain is the mind, then they, too, are the same object (or "process," rather, in this instance). Again, according to the dissimilarity of the diverse, if two entities are distinct then one has at least one property the other does not--that is to say that if two entities are not the same entity then one has at least one property that the other does not. Since all physical processes and structures and combinations thereof have a property that the mind does not (again, doubtability), the mind cannot be identical--the same--as any such physical entity. [ 10-02-2002, 05:24 AM: Message edited by: Sunanta ]

durnit...my last post didn't seem to trigger the "new posts" lightbulb--perhaps because it's the 99th post? But anyway... I still am curious as to what was meant by "inclusive," as well as how the rest of my previous post logically evaluates.

quote:Originally posted by Dragon Lady: Again, stating that entities with the same properties are identical, when interpreted inclusively, is not the same as say entities with different properties cannot be identical. Thus, again, you logic is flawed. You have not refuted my argument, only restated yours. I'm not sure what you mean when you say "interpreted inclusively." The definition of "inclusive" in the Merriam-Webster's dictionary that seems to fit the bill here states that it is "comprehending stated limits or extremes." As I qualified my statement "only entities with the same properties are identical" with the word "only," it seems to me that the parameters I've established do not allow for you to claim that two things with different characteristics are identical. I'd appreciate some clarification here. For good measure, however, I'll throw in the following principle that seems to support my position more explicitly--according to the dissimilarity of the diverse (my knowledge of philosophy and logic is rather limited, so don't anyone construe this spouting of principles to mean that I know what I'm talking about, but back to the dissimilarity of the diverse...); if two entities are distinct then one has at least a single property that the other does not. As the mind lacks a property that every physical part or process has--doubtability, it is therefore distinct from them. [ 09-26-2002, 01:38 AM: Message edited by: Sunanta ]

I meant to get back to this thread, but I seem to have forgotten--shucks. The post I want to respond to is way back on the second page, so here's the relevant part: quote: Logical flaw here, you say that entities with the same properties are identical, but this is inclusive, it in no manner prevents entities with different or divergent properties from being identical as well. Furthermore, this does nothing to prove the immateriality of the mind, only to ÔÇ£proveÔÇØ that the mind and brain are not absolutely identical. I will postulate that the brain is the mechanism though which your consciousness works, and your mind is the bioelectrical reaction that is going on at the time. This nicely distinguishes between the two sufficient for them to be considered separate entities as your ÔÇ£proofÔÇØ requires. First, I said that only entities that have the same properties are identical, thus entities with different divergent and/or otherwise different properties are not identical. Secondly, this "proof," as it was called, also distinguishes between the electrical activity and the mind, as electrical activity, too, can be doubted. Anything that is not logically deduced from self-evident propositions can be doubted, and that includes every anatomical and physiological aspect of our bodies.

My shot at the immateriality of the mind: It is logically possible, however actually (from an empirical perspective) improbable, that I (that is to say, my "mind") am not my brain, and that neither my brain nor my body exist. It is not logically possible to doubt my existence. (I think, therefore I am--Descartes) Therefore, my brain and I have different properties--my brain has the property of "doubtability" and I do not. Only entities with the same properties are identical. (Identity of Indiscernibles--Leibniz) Therefore, my brain and I are different entities. [ 09-16-2002, 03:58 AM: Message edited by: Sunanta ]

Will future games support it?

Intruders?

The pics look fine--I think that the reason you may be thrown off is because the ship doesn't cast a shadow on the ocean or seabed that would help you perceive its altitude relative to them. I don't recall objects ever casting shadows in that manner in BCM, so this may be something you just need to get used to. [ 08-06-2002, 03:48 AM: Message edited by: Sunanta ]

I believe that those castes will be of greater significance in multiplayer. For now, they just influence how other castes react to you (I think) and restrict your access to certain ships.

1. He just deserves to die. [ 08-02-2002, 10:05 PM: Message edited by: Sunanta ]

quote:Originally posted by Remo Williams: Here is a quote from one of the greatest scientist of our time. "The evidence of god is everywhere we look." Albert Einstein But of course he didn't know squat right! He was indeed a wise man. Wise enough to distinguish between the complementary studies of faith and physics. "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." Albert Einstein.

quote:Originally posted by DREADA: Several great scientists have in the past cast doubt on his ideas and have introduced the possibility that biblical explanations, though far-fetched according to 'limit-loving' western thinking, are not completely inconceivable.And several great philosopher have cast doubt on the very existence of one's own body and all of reality. In the same spirit of those scientists, of course. quote: Oh and btw if you do look deep enough your science-dictated-reality, also requires faith, not so dissimilar to Religion/God, huh? I wonder why is that? Science is all about probabilities, hence it requires no faith. That brings up a new problem, though--that means science doesn't really explain anything at all. That's why it will never supplant religion. [ 07-01-2002, 08:45 AM: Message edited by: Sunanta ]

quote:Originally posted by Menchise: What I'm saying is that there is an intrinsic sense of a basic morality...Indeed, if basic morality was a learned behavior, moral standards throughout the world would vary wildly. But that is not quite the case. Murder is almost universally frowned upon, for example. quote:Originally posted by $iLk: I believe that human nature is an instinct for humans to do what is in their best interests, a survival trait....In addition, a basic, intuitive morality is a significant evolutionary advantage (e.g. reciprocal alturism), so there is no reason why it wouldn't be innate. [ 06-29-2002, 04:27 PM: Message edited by: Sunanta ]

The second Amendment is far from clear: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Notice the bold formatting that I have added. This is the juncture between the two most important clauses in this amendment. Some interpret the second clause to be dependent on the truth of the first clause. Some intepret it otherwise. If it is dependent on the first clause, the "...well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state," then the second clause (...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms...) is invalid. If the right to bear arms is for the sole purpose of maintaining a "well regulated militia" then it no longer applies, since "well regulated militias" are no longer of much use in the defense of the state. Hunting rifles are not gonna stop the Chinese army if they decide to invade Hawaii--the military forces stationed there with their M16s and Aircraft Carriers will. Now if the second clause is not dependent on the first clause then, obviously, the second clause applies regardless of the truth and validity of the first. The reason not everyone believes this indepedence to be true is because there is nothing to indicate that it is in fact independent of the first clause. One can fairly infer that because the clauses are linked by nothing more than a comma the clauses are related. After all, we can't maintain a militia if we can't bear arms. It's important not to dismiss semantics (though technically this is "syntactics," I think, though I'm no expert, but you get the picture) because it is integral to the understanding of language. Sometimes messing with technicalities is absurd, especially when no real confusion exists (like questioning the meaning of "is"). Sometimes messing with them is critical, especially if you've got something that isn't entirely clear--like the 2nd amendment. [ 05-14-2002, 04:22: Message edited by: Sunanta ]

quote:Originally posted by Dredd: Not rubbish. It had a deeper, though pessimistic, theme of moral relativityIt was pessimmistic about moral relativity?! Wow... talk about politically incorrect--and true. I may see it just for that.

The Palestinians deliberately attack civilians with the intent of coercing the Israeli government to submit to their demands (however reasonable or unreasonable; that is outside the scope of this post). That is not acceptable in wartime. Israel deliberately attack combatants with the intent of inhibiting Palestinian violence. That is acceptable in wartime. Though Israeli methods may be excessive, even negligently so, they do not seek to kill civilians. Israel seeks to end the violence and solve their predicament diplomatically (in their favor, of course). The Palestinians also seek to solve the situation, but are not averse to targeting civilians in an attempt to expedite the process. If it is intention that is the deciding factor in morality, the Palestinians are in the inferior position because they intend to kill civilians. Whether they succeed or not is important, but not as important as the intention. While Israel is certainly not free from blame because of its aggresive colonization of its conquests and aforementioned arguably negligent actions, it does not seek to kill civilians. If end up doing so, it is still wrong, but not as wrong as if they sought to do so. Manslaughter and theft are lesser crimes than murder. [ 04-09-2002, 01:26: Message edited by: Sunanta ]

I have to agree with the physics suggestion--sci-fi or not, it just doesn't "feel" right. I-War graphics I can easily live without, but realistic physics, well, I'm not sure how to put it; it's almost a visceral thing. The feel of a vehicle (read: inertia) just kinda, well, ergh. Sorry, I'm at a loss for words, except to say that if something doesn't feel right, then, well, it doesn't feel, erm... For example, your massive starship that weighs in at a couple of megatons just doesn't seem all that massive when goes from 900 to 0 in a second. Granted, the slower turn rates help, but only a little; the turns themselves don't have intertia--a starship that's turning doesn't want to keep turning after you've let go of your joystick. Its easy to intellectualize the issue and say its the 3rd millennium and technology has negated intertia (and its quite possible that by that time such technology will indeed exist), but this "feeling" I speak of just doesn't respond to the rational mind. Such is my only gripe (that's right, I honestly couldn't care less if the graphics were on par with I-War; I have it and stopped playing it months ago) with an otherwise mind-blowingly incredible game. [ 03-13-2002, 00:21: Message edited by: Sunanta ]

I dunno--the C&C Renegade demo seems quite fun to me...

I'm not really at all surprised by the Megaron's results; its by far and away the best heavy carrier except for its ground assets...

Now now, we all love Canada...

As they are, stations just aren't terribly powerful. It would be absurd, of course, to make them invincible or nearly so, but there's a long way between nearly invincible and quite vulnerable. Their shields might be just a bit more poweful. Or their armor able to endure another 30 seconds or so of battering. Or their weapons just a little more threatening. Or better yet, all of these. It might take one a bit longer to penetrate the station's shields and armor, but in that time, the weapons might be able to sufficiently damage you to force you to retreat. Or perhaps the station might even try to board your ship, heh--try assaulting a spaceborn fortress while ten intruders run around ransacking your systems. Well, then again, that last one is asking a bit much, but otherwise I don't see why beefing up the stations just a little would seriously throw off the balance of the game. As for fleet C&C, I agree that it is a luxury, but not a necessity. Strengthening the stations would make it less of the former and more of the latter, so if the player insists, it would still be possible, without an unreasonable effort, to capture or destroy a station. But it would be more difficult without several other capital ships supporting you, lending more utility to this powerful feature [ 02-12-2002, 23:06: Message edited by: Sunanta ]

quote:Originally posted by Steve Schacher: For me, it's the backstory. If a station was so fragile that a single fighter could destroy, that station would never have gotten built in the first place -- and if it did, it would have been destroyed soon after. BC:M is a simulation of a universe (albeit a game), but what kind of universe is it where space stations are like boxers with glass jaws who never got KO'd until I showed up?Well said.

I have to agree- the stations are a bit weak... It takes so little effort to destroy them. IMHO, you should need a small fleet to take one down. It would be akin to a single warship of any class being able to destroy a coastal fortress. Stations are also, of course, trading platforms-- if they weren't, you might as well have another ODS instead of building a huge, expensive structure. Of course, for that reason, a station should be even more powerful because it does double duty--serving as a hub of trade and commerce in addition to helping to secure a region--so its loss would be doubly felt, as opposed to that of a simple ODS whose only job is to help defend a single planet or moon. [ 02-10-2002, 03:49: Message edited by: Sunanta ]