yes, for some reason I can't understand how lasers, which are focused beams of light, are different from x-rays, which are also focused beams of light, the only difference being that you can see lasers, and x-rays cause radiation.
X-rays are not bundled light GOD DAMNIT! That's the difference. Also x-rays are not hot. And they do not melt stuff. And are not one continuos beam. And can't be seen. Ok? Now let's end this, it is going off-topic too far, I think.
x-rays create heat when they hit stuff, its just that they go through most things so those don't heat up. same with lasers, the laser is not hot, it just makes the heat when it hits stuff, and visible light goes through fewer things. x-rays can melt stuff that absorbs them, same as the visible spectrum. x-rays are a "continuous beam" (photons are individual particles, but I think you mean a beam in one direction) if you put them in the laser form, as visible light is a continuous beam if it is a laser, but in the form of an unfocused light bulb, they are not. the visible spectrum can be seen by our eyes, but other animals have evolved to see infrared or ultraviolet, since they are exposed to it and can use it practically, ie nocturnal animals often don't see parts of the visible spectrum but can see infrared because it is useful to them for finding food, so they evolved to see it. similarly, if x-rays were common enough and practical to one species survival, it is possible they could evolve to see them. this is a sci-fi space game with aliens so that is a possibility, and they wouldn't see a visible light laser super slowly melting them.
I see you are making good use of that wikipedia article Yes, but you have understood that x-ray doesn not equal light, nor does it equal laser. So there's one discussion settled.
huh... I thought you were some sort of spanish, but sure latin is a cool language to know since you sound all scientific and religious at the same time
Woah we are chasing us right now! Oh, and I am Italian. And I speak English, German and Latin too. And to stay on topic, wich is not possible anymore, I think, I argument that I think x-rays are not light, because we wave-lenght of light we know, is actually what is considered to be light. So out of a certain wave lenght, light is not considered light anymore.
hmmm, you should go play irrational redux and write me some logic demonstrating how the visible and x-ray parts of the electromagnetic spectrum are or are not lasers if you focus them into a beam
I'll be back in an hour when I finished finding out what this sentence means. Edit: Already finished, phew I am intelligent. So, no, no thanks, I have no intention in finding out. I hand this point over to you, since you don't seems to like me and throw a bunch of overcomplicated discussions at me. No, siriously, why did we start that x-ray discussion again? Isn't this a bit to childish for our age? (Dunno about your age, but I think a meaningless discussion about weither x-rays are lasers or not is not important enough to actually bitch arround)
1. Not because you're lazy, because you know you would run out of arguments eventually(because i'm pretty damn sure i'm right). Anything a laser could do, there is something else that could do something better and with less resources wasted. 2. You haven't read the link have you? They can create clouds too. A thunderstorm? Why on earth would anyone want to create that? It's an even more inefficient way of battle if that's what you're thinking about. It's also not the best thing for gathering energy. 3. Where did you read that information? It sounds like one of those "aliens found!" things. Did you know sailors used to talk about giants as tall as hills and miniature people as small as a thumb when they came back from their travels? All of the confirmed information i found on wikipedia was this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_cloning#Notable_cloning_attempts_and_claims Also, this shows that how useful cloning could be is arguable too. 4. I doubt that slightly. There are a lot of different factors at work. I'm convinced that the chance of a cave-in depends on more than just pressure. For example what you are digging through means a lot. And what is above that. Also seismic activity should be taken into account and many other things. By now i think that it all depends on the situation in reality. 5. Yeah, but perhaps they could be adjusted depending on the difficulty too? Easy means there would be low to none cave-ins. Normal - low to medium cave-ins. Hard - medium to high amount of cave-ins and so on. And i still think there should be a grumbling noise and little pieces of rock falling to warn you of a cave-in. But i think the higher the variety of possible hazards the better.
1. No, I'm really just too lazy. 2. "Why on earth would anyone want to create that?" I see you are running out of arguments yourself. 3. Alien found? We are talking about cloning, not about giants, midgets or aliens. In the wikipedia article you sent me: "he had transferred a freshly cloned embryo into a woman... ...had not worked" See. 4. I didn't say it only depends on the pressure, but the pressure play a significant role. And that's all I said. See 5. of my last post. 5. I totally agree with that.
sure. I will now comment on Shifter's argument with you since it is more on-topic. 1. yes, lasers are less effective than missiles or bullets per energy and resource consumption (by a ton). the only time we would (with realistic futuristic technology) use lasers for combat would be a laser form of an EMP I think. (and by your definition of a laser, that isn't even a laser because it isn't in the visible light spectrum) 2. "Now don't tell me anyone on earth managed it to make it rain in a natural way, or even caused a thunderstorm." shifter did tell you, you just didn't read the wikipedia article he convienently provided a link to. It talks about stuff that they did do, including preventing rain over the last olympics and causing rain over dust storms or fires to help stop them. The attached article on Cloud Seeding tells you at a basic level how they did it. This game allows for some sci-fi improvements, but it is based off of a real technology that works. 3. our cell printers aren't good enough to scan a person and make a copy of them, and definitely can't make a working brain. I'm not sure how the progress of planting cloned eggs is going along, but that wouldn't keep any memories, it's more like someone with the same genes, and not a clone. the human brain is just so much more complex than any machine, but with super futuristic technology I suppose we could: make genetic clones of ourselves and develop the body in a nutrient bath with the brain shut off, and then record the state of each synapse of the real person, and have nanobots stimulate all of them in the clone, sure sci-fi cloning would take a while but we can say that in a game it would work. still, how is that useful again? 4. I can't tell what the topic of this argument is, that first post that numbered everything doesn't tell me. 5. but according to you, the rock is pressurized and harder at a lower depth, which would cause fewer cave-ins than porous rock near the surface. I would make it consistent regardless of depth. I suppose this argument is more about you (mittgfu) trying to convince us how this thing you think would be cool ingame is also realistic, and us saying it doesn't work that way. also, italy is doing really well in the olympics, I'm half italian by ethnicity so I cheer for them unless they are against america.
This answers everything. I'll just add my comment below this quote: 1. Karoo is right. Nothing else to add. 2. I am not running out of arguments, but seriously, why would anyone want to create that? People develop technologies that are useful. Creating thunderstorms is not useful in any way. Karoo answers everything else. 3. Cloning on humans is forbidden(as far as i know) and development toward that side is just not done. Planting a cloned embryo is not the same. Though i guess you have something with this point as Karoo explains. With futuristic technology it perhaps could be done. Though in reality i doubt if it will be done no matter how far into the future we go simply because it's not useful in any way(at least not in a way that i can see). 4. Well, the way you were talking it seemed like so. Either way, if you say pressure plays a significant role then you are right. But don't forget a ton of other factors, which in some cases can play an even larger role in a cave-in than pressure. 5. I'm glad we're starting to agree. 2 points so far Both started by misunderstanding each other.
So... I'm sitting on my bed, on vacation, in freakin' Canada, and thought: "Hey, since I have wifi, why not pull out my trusty old iPad and surf a bit. As you can see, just about 5 minutes after having this wonderful idea, I stumbled across this. The idea was not that great, I found out now. To Karoo: I have really no intention on discussing right now, or ever again, over this topic. Not that I don't like discussions, but after a while it really depends on the topic just how much potential it has. Also, ok, all points to you. To Shifter: I didn't really bother reading you post, sorry. I didn't thought it was that important, since it was just commenting on the critics of someone to me. Post-ception. Also, see above. To Karoo AND to Shifter: I really would like to discuss some more, later, but honestly, since this thread is getting off topic a bit too much, I want you to not post in this thread again, sorry. To Bounding Star: *sight* I have never got a parrot, but now I am certainly conviced that I don't want one.
Some times it's best to quit with some dignity. I understand. On-Topic stuff(Yes, you read right!): To sum up what i think about it: The idea has potential, though there are some thinks you should consider: How to execute this idea so it would add an interesting and fun difficulty/hazard factor instead of being annoying? Just think - how you would feel when something like this happened when you were digging? And then think if you would be annoyed or thrilled. Also, i think it should be a rather rare thing, even on pretty unstable planets. There has to be ways to avoid every(or close enough) danger. Otherwise it's just unfair towards the player.(At first perhaps simply crafting supports. You could put them from time to time like torches to decrease the chances of a cave-in greatly. Perhaps later you could also stabilise the planet. Or something like that.) There has to be a way to survive every danger even when it starts.(As i mentioned before, perhaps little rocks starting to fall in the background, or a tremor/tremor sounds, or something else to warn the player that a cave-in is about to start) If you think about those points i think it should work out quite well.
1. I thought that it wouln't kill you, instead, just cause some of the path to be blocked, and you would recieve, dependend of your possition and the strenght of the cave-in, some moderate damage. That makes you also an easier target of monsters in that cave. 2. I think that I already wrote something about that. Support beams and such where part of my idea, remember the whole 'hardening x-ray thingy'- discussion? 3. Indications would be good. Also, like in real life, support beams would crack before completely beeing destroyed.
