Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
The bad news is that you are still getting your procedure wrong. You need to show why your theory, which includes at least as much fantasy as Tk3997 and much more than mine, is a superior explanation. Quote:
Remember the Dreadnought? It is not only a new ship, it also represents a new concept of battleship gunnery layout. Soon after it was built, everyone changed the heavy gun layouts on their battleships to look like Dreadnoughts "all-big" layout". The battlecruiser Invincible, similarily, inspired a lot of foreign followers. Or how about the tank. First made demi-practical by the British, it spread around the world. To take just a small, well-known portion of the Tank concept exchange, the T-34 inspired the Panther. The Soviets went to APFSDS with the 115mm gun, and even though it wasn't a stunning success (fin stab wasn't stable enough back then), the West eventually did the same. If we get away from technology, even conceptually, there was a lot of trading around. The pair replaced the trio Vic-formation as the usual smallest fighter unit worldwide. Modern armored warfare theory is a collaborative effort between at least British, German and Soviet thinkers, and probably there are others that I just don't remember at the moment (say the Americans, but I just can't remember a great American theorist's name - though certainly even if they didn't make up any theories, they did put the existing theories to great practical use in Desert Storm). A lot of modern unit hierarchy came from the French, includes the corps and battalion. What most militaries AFAIK try to do is educate you with their moral ethos. No one ever says they should be unwilling to learn from your allies and enemies. |
Quote:
Iirc, astronomy seems to be proving Newton's law of gravity wrong since there seems to be a discrepancy between the Newtonian prediction and the observed precession of the orbit of Mercury. Quote:
Quote:
|
@ark: Regards the militaries and learning from each other: for every example of such thinking and sharing, you then get cases like one DefenseTech staffer who recounted his experiences in the Army. He had a K-bar and found it useful and carried it everywhere... and was told by his Platoon Sergeant to get rid of it because it was a Marine knife, and Army doesn't use Marine things.
These are differing services, from the same planet, from the same nation, and they're arguing over a KNIFE. |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Well I find non-chalantly running Fate through walls, even for most valid reasons, kinda sick...
I can see that they are hypothetical situations, but I still get unnerved by that. It's almost like trying to run Anita through walls. :p Why don't you guys use Hayate instead? :uhoh: |
@ Ark: Requesting summary.
What stance are you taking in Barrier Jackets? I just want to see straight up what your position is in something ressembling a one line answer, so we know whether or not this roundabouts arguing is actually... you know... getting somewhere. |
Won't mind telling you, but I don't know what you believe is most important. Why don't you put yours down, and I'll write my summary based on what you wrote?
|
Quote:
Also, note something: whenever militaries have stolen/shared ideas, it's been between equals or people rushing to catch up to a sudden leader in the field (everybody else in the world who can afford to do so is working on creating their own answer to Land Warrior). Rarely has there been a military that has copied an idea from its inferior. :D The TSAB would view Non-Administered Earth as its inferior. Will make bigass post later in the day. Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
So in other words, you don't have a stance. If you had a position, you wouldn't need to wait for me to explain my position to formulate a summary of your position. My position and stance should be irrellevent to the request. You are simply waiting to compile the most effective contradictive, yet reinforcing breakdown as possible to feed into the argument, in order to simply win the argument. This would be called TROLLING. While effective in courtrooms for convincing the jurors, this does not pertain to debate here. If you DO have a position, and my accusation of your trolling is wrong, put up your position, and stick by your position. This is called taking a RISK. And as anyone who's played BURNOUT 3 knows... RISK = REWARD. In less elegant wording: "Either put up, or shut-up." I've got no time for feeding trolls. Spoiler for This is appropriet:
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
No time for a full backlog answer. Shame about the defences in 7. Minor question: Did it say who activated them? The mages or their devices? Could be usefull for OC scenarios.
Quote:
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y19..._grab21365.pnghttp://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y19..._grab21445.pnghttp://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y19..._grab21454.pnghttp://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y19..._grab21561.pnghttp://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y19..._grab23312.png Fate gets launched away, thrown into a building, and comes out only a bit shaken, but otherwise unhurt. The fourth scene shows that she hit with enough force to displace the reinforced concrete and bend the windows bellow her point of impact. There was no defencer activating, the only think keeping Fate from becomming a red splat on the wall were the auto-defences of her Barrier Jacket: The standard Field and Barrier. "But Keroko, there is a dust cloud, its impossible to say that defenses were not activated." Uh, yes, of course there is a dust cloud, because the dust cloud means that impact has occured. Fate hit that building with nothing but her Barrier Jacket. Period. Result? She came out slightly shaken, but without apparant injury. Conclusion: Barrier Jackets offer protection above the level of what you and Tk give them. If they can save a mage from getting blown through reinforced concrete, stopping bullets should not be that much of an issue. |
Quote:
Quote:
|( . )(Cloud extent - the dot is Fate) or like this: |F )(Cloud extent) Except that the top diagram is clearly a much more survivable experience, and will also better explain why so much wall is torn down, rather than a deeper penetration. The more likely path is clear. And even if I accept it was the lower diagram, while it does follow the BJ is bulletproof, it does not follow that they have a bulletproof defence that somehow becomes more effective against high velocity! |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
You do realize this is similar to what happens when a person submits his paper / article for scientific peer review, do you? The peer reviewer obviously did not do all the research or the thinking of the guy writing up the article - research on the professional level is so time consuming there's no way the peer reviewer can fully retest someone elses research and do their own work at the same time. Thus, he probably doesn't have a theory on the subject matter of his own - he might never even have thought seriously about the problem before. Instead, he goes through the hypothesis and the assembled evidence+analysis to ruthlessly locate and assault holes - flaws in methodology, clear absurdities with the conclusions, self contradictions, more plausible alternate interpretations ... more or less what I or Tk3997 do to your stuff when you bring it in. And if the flaws exceed a certain count, he simply recommends that it not be published. If you are thinking that it is no fun to bring theories and I shoot them down, then stop pushing theories until you make them bulletproof! |
Quote:
|
Quote:
If you won't present your supposedly awesome theory for review it's YOUR turn to quit whining and leave. So what's it gonna be give us your awesome theory or GTFO. You're not going to intimidate either of us twit I KNOW you ain't go crap from experience and Ark I'm sure just dosen't care. IMPORTANT EDIT: Tigerclaw has admitted in IRC that he has no theory and is merely baiting Ark to get him to "argue straight" apparently outright lies is required for this to be done. |
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 14:27. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.