Re: DISTRUST IN NUMBERS
Posted: 2015-04-24 05:39am
TrashMan wrote:Too bad for Thrawn. Everyone seems to like that one.Eleas wrote: Well, there are rumblings. Seems the EU will be toast, so good riddance.
Other than that..I agree
Which is not really much different from any other similar weapon.Well, unless you look at what they can do in a quantifiable manner, which is my point.TrashMan wrote:All I know is that turbolasers never impressed me or struck me as redicolously powerful as I hear people claim them to be. They come off no stronger or weaker than 99% of spaceship canons from other universes.
The effects on hitting another warships hull, in terms of explosion size and damage and generally pretty much the same.
But all series are rife with inconcistencies. In the beginning of TNG, a phaser or photon torpedo would vaporize a ship.
Then it went to (after taking 2-3 hits) "Shield down to 12%! We cant take more!" (proceeds to take another dozen hits) "Sheilds failing!" .. Someone was REALLY bad at math.
Well....Heh. Ok, you made the point persuasively. Although can you honestly say that the Anakin seen in Episode III would not be just that credulous?
you got a point there
That depends. Does one really have to catch up or it just enough to find out the ways to exploit gained knowledge? Is there a big gulf to catch up? How big is it?Allright. Then I don't see what your objection really means, since advancing faster doesn't really mean you'll ever come close to catching up.
Allright.http://www.strusoft.com/about-us
Anyone with Google and five minutes to spare can link me to StruSoft, where I work as a programmer. And anyone with even cursory knowledge of engineering would flatly dispute your idea about size not mattering. Unless you have the Force as your ally, in which case I'm going to deny I ever disputed anything you said.
I wasn't being serious.
I acknowledge that building big requires advanced material engineering - assuming one uses the same construction methods. After all, with GRAVITY GENERATORS and INERTIAL DAMPENERS, those calculations about mass and forces acting upon the ship don't really work that well.
If you reduce a ships mass my a factor of 1000, suddenly everything else become MUCH simpler.
Where did you get the impression I actually liked ST or SG additions?I agree. I just don't see why the EU would be a particularly heinous offender, compared to, say, Trek or Stargate.
Still not convinced.Principle of parsimony. Frequencies aren't magic, and nothing says SW technology is frequency based, so why would it that vulnerability extend toWe don't even know how SW deflectors work or how strong they are. For all we know SW may have never even figured frequencies.
We simply don't know enough, especially not to assume what is known or not known by characters.
In an all-out war for survival? There would be people willing to risk it.Moving goalposts. The transporters we talked about were clearly the ones bypassing shields, the ones causing irreparable cellular damage. They have not used them again, and likely will not magically do so in any conflict.
And again, you don't need to teleport people.
bombs.
Holographics warriors.
Drones.
A virus.
I did apply it to my "side" (insomuch that I have a side). If I didn't, I wouldn't be pointing out the glaring plot holes in Trek all the time.It's true. It's just strange that it's a truth you would trot out that damages your "side" as well as my own, but one that you wouldn't apply to your own "side" until I pointed it out.TrashMan wrote: Because just because it works both ways, it doesn't make it any less true?