3478 réponses à ce sujet

[StodgyFrost98]

Jedi Master of Orion wrote...

I didn't do so in my "personal canon Shepard," but I think the main reason would be not to deliver possibly dangerous technology into the hands of an untrustworthy racially motivated terrorist leader.

I wonder though what the the default canon for ME3 if you don't import you Shepard from ME2 or ME1.  It would probably go towards the renegade way. 

[JohnnyBeGood2]

StodgyFrost98 wrote...

Jedi Master of Orion wrote...
I didn't do so in my "personal canon Shepard," but I think the main reason would be not to deliver possibly dangerous technology into the hands of an untrustworthy racially motivated terrorist leader.

I wonder though what the the default canon for ME3 if you don't import you Shepard from ME2 or ME1.  It would probably go towards the renegade way. 

Yer I hope not. ME1->ME2 they went with Shep sacrificing the Council and Ash as the default, neither of which I liked. And Udina as Councillor.. none of the choices I made.

Modifié par JohnnyBeGood2, 11 juin 2010 - 10:37 .

[Dean_the_Young]

Nightwriter wrote...
The Thannix Cannon was based off of Reaper technology but is not in fact Reaper tech itself. Ditto for EDI.

Full stop.

Something based off of Reaper technology is Reaper technology. It's the fundamental defenition of what technology is, IE the practical application of knowledge in a general area, or the manner of accomplishing a task using technical processes, methods, or knowledge.

The Thannix Cannon is a full rip off of Sovereign's main gun, miniaturized. It is the application of knowledge directly copied from a Reaper. EDI was built from parts and studying Sovereign's corpse to learn how to make EDI.

There is no differentiation between 'based off of' and 'is'. Something that is based off of technology is part of that technology.

Grunt's got some Collector stuff in there, but that can't really qualify as being of Reaper origin either.

All Collector Technology is Reaper technology. It was developed by the Reapers for use by the Collectors, which themselves are the artificial creation of the Reapers.

Mass effect fields are no more of Reaper origin than electricity is of Ben Franklin origin. Mass effect fields are a raw natural force, just like dark matter is a raw natural element. The Reapers just appear to have harnessed it first.

If the means of utilizing natural forces derived directly from Reaper technology and systems based on Reaper technology does not count as Reaper technology, then there is no such thing as Reaper technology because all technology works with natural forces to achieve desired results. Indoctrination then could not be considered a Reaper technology, since the Reapers don't create it out of nothing. The Mass Realys could not be considered Reaper technology. Not even Reapers could be considered of Reaper origins.

The point is, you can't use these comparisons to dismiss the danger of the Collector base anymore than you can use examples like the derelict Reaper or the Shu Qian incident to guarantee the danger of the Collector base.

Yes, you can. The definition of technology hasn't changed just for this game, and so people who claim all Reaper technology indoctrinates all the time better be prepared to have their nose rubbed in the dirt about it.

[JohnnyBeGood2]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Nightwriter wrote...
The Thannix Cannon was based off of Reaper technology but is not in fact Reaper tech itself. Ditto for EDI.

Full stop.

Something based off of Reaper technology is Reaper technology. It's the fundamental defenition of what technology is, IE the practical application of knowledge in a general area, or the manner of accomplishing a task using technical processes, methods, or knowledge.

The Thannix Cannon is a full rip off of Sovereign's main gun, miniaturized. It is the application of knowledge directly copied from a Reaper. EDI was built from parts and studying Sovereign's corpse to learn how to make EDI.

There is no differentiation between 'based off of' and 'is'. Something that is based off of technology is part of that technology.

Nah Dean, that really isnt the case. the differentiation between "based on" and "is" is 100% appropriate. The Thanix is not Reaper tech per se. It's "based on" Reaper Tech. every which way you spin that it's true.

[adam_grif]

Dean, it's futile arguing with these people. Every example of reaper tech NOT indoctrinating someone is handwaved away with the clumsiest of excuses and double standards. Never mind that none of the collector tech that we were using in the game indoctrinated people, including the COLLECTOR BEAM WEAPON WE JUST PICKED UP OFF THE GROUND. Nobody altered it, we grabbed it where it was.



Or how about the collector tech that they sold to the public? We have no evidence suggesting that indoctrinated anybody either!



So far, the only Reaper stuff we have seen that indoctrinates people is:



- Reapers themselves.

- Dragon's teeth.



vs



- Every piece of collector techcnology

- Thanix guns

- Mass effect tech generally

- The Citadel

- The mass relays



The idea that REPAER TECH == YOU GET INDOCTRINATED is patently false, and it's shameful that so many people are still clinging to this idea.



You don't want to give TIM the base ? Fine, not everybody will want to. Tryng to justify this with bullshizzle about how ITS GOING TO INDOCTRINATE RARRRR? GO DIE IN A FIRE. GEGSGSRT$T%@#%$%$%#$%T$%

[JohnnyBeGood2]

adam_grif wrote...
You don't want to give TIM the base ? Fine, not everybody will want to. Tryng to justify this with bullshizzle about how ITS GOING TO INDOCTRINATE RARRRR? GO DIE IN A FIRE. GEGSGSRT$T%@#%$%$%#$%T$%

Most people have expressed mistrust with TIM and Cerberus as the reason for not handing it over to him. Xenophobic psycho lording his Reaper Tech is the issue.
Indoctrination as a side effect from the base? You could be right. No Idea.. It really is not the main reason though. TIM is the main reason.

[lovgreno]

adam_grif wrote...
You don't want to give TIM the base ? Fine, not everybody will want to. Tryng to justify this with bullshizzle about how ITS GOING TO INDOCTRINATE RARRRR? GO DIE IN A FIRE. GEGSGSRT$T%@#%$%$%#$%T$%

In any case Cerberus usualy get indoctrinated or hacked by the reaper tech they find.

[Christmas Ape]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Nightwriter wrote...
The Thannix Cannon was based off of Reaper technology but is not in fact Reaper tech itself. Ditto for EDI.

Full stop.

Something based off of Reaper technology is Reaper technology. It's the fundamental defenition of what technology is, IE the practical application of knowledge in a general area, or the manner of accomplishing a task using technical processes, methods, or knowledge.

The Thannix Cannon is a full rip off of Sovereign's main gun, miniaturized. It is the application of knowledge directly copied from a Reaper. EDI was built from parts and studying Sovereign's corpse to learn how to make EDI.

There is no differentiation between 'based off of' and 'is'. Something that is based off of technology is part of that technology.

Grunt's got some Collector stuff in there, but that can't really qualify as being of Reaper origin either.

All Collector Technology is Reaper technology. It was developed by the Reapers for use by the Collectors, which themselves are the artificial creation of the Reapers.

Mass effect fields are no more of Reaper origin than electricity is of Ben Franklin origin. Mass effect fields are a raw natural force, just like dark matter is a raw natural element. The Reapers just appear to have harnessed it first.

If the means of utilizing natural forces derived directly from Reaper technology and systems based on Reaper technology does not count as Reaper technology, then there is no such thing as Reaper technology because all technology works with natural forces to achieve desired results. Indoctrination then could not be considered a Reaper technology, since the Reapers don't create it out of nothing. The Mass Realys could not be considered Reaper technology. Not even Reapers could be considered of Reaper origins.

The point is, you can't use these comparisons to dismiss the danger of the Collector base anymore than you can use examples like the derelict Reaper or the Shu Qian incident to guarantee the danger of the Collector base.

Yes, you can. The definition of technology hasn't changed just for this game, and so people who claim all Reaper technology indoctrinates all the time better be prepared to have their nose rubbed in the dirt about it.

You're running into the fact "technology" is used interchangably between "the knowledge necessary to create an effect" and "the components used to construct the device which creates an effect".

The application of the Thanix Cannon principles in a Cerberus-constructed weapon installed on the SR-2 is different
from installing one of Sovereign's Fingers of Death on the SR-2 with a Cerberus-built weapon interface. Both are "Reaper technology". You can't fight common parlance on the internet. Not worth trying.

[Dean_the_Young]

JohnnyBeGood2 wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Nightwriter wrote...
The Thannix Cannon was based off of Reaper technology but is not in fact Reaper tech itself. Ditto for EDI.

Full stop.

Something based off of Reaper technology is Reaper technology. It's the fundamental defenition of what technology is, IE the practical application of knowledge in a general area, or the manner of accomplishing a task using technical processes, methods, or knowledge.

The Thannix Cannon is a full rip off of Sovereign's main gun, miniaturized. It is the application of knowledge directly copied from a Reaper. EDI was built from parts and studying Sovereign's corpse to learn how to make EDI.

There is no differentiation between 'based off of' and 'is'. Something that is based off of technology is part of that technology.

Nah Dean, that really isnt the case. the differentiation between "based on" and "is" is 100% appropriate. The Thanix is not Reaper tech per se. It's "based on" Reaper Tech. every which way you spin that it's true.

It's technology. Directly copied from a Reaper. The only difference is size and materials.

Does car technology stop being car technology if you make it out of iron and not stainless steel? Of course not. Does gun technology stop being gun technology if you make the gun bigger or smaller? No.


Since you've invested so much in this bizaar redefinition of what technology is, why don't you explain why it is not Reaper technology? 

[Dean_the_Young]

Christmas Ape wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Nightwriter wrote...
The Thannix Cannon was based off of Reaper technology but is not in fact Reaper tech itself. Ditto for EDI.

Full stop.

Something based off of Reaper technology is Reaper technology. It's the fundamental defenition of what technology is, IE the practical application of knowledge in a general area, or the manner of accomplishing a task using technical processes, methods, or knowledge.

The Thannix Cannon is a full rip off of Sovereign's main gun, miniaturized. It is the application of knowledge directly copied from a Reaper. EDI was built from parts and studying Sovereign's corpse to learn how to make EDI.

There is no differentiation between 'based off of' and 'is'. Something that is based off of technology is part of that technology.

Grunt's got some Collector stuff in there, but that can't really qualify as being of Reaper origin either.

All Collector Technology is Reaper technology. It was developed by the Reapers for use by the Collectors, which themselves are the artificial creation of the Reapers.

Mass effect fields are no more of Reaper origin than electricity is of Ben Franklin origin. Mass effect fields are a raw natural force, just like dark matter is a raw natural element. The Reapers just appear to have harnessed it first.

If the means of utilizing natural forces derived directly from Reaper technology and systems based on Reaper technology does not count as Reaper technology, then there is no such thing as Reaper technology because all technology works with natural forces to achieve desired results. Indoctrination then could not be considered a Reaper technology, since the Reapers don't create it out of nothing. The Mass Realys could not be considered Reaper technology. Not even Reapers could be considered of Reaper origins.

The point is, you can't use these comparisons to dismiss the danger of the Collector base anymore than you can use examples like the derelict Reaper or the Shu Qian incident to guarantee the danger of the Collector base.

Yes, you can. The definition of technology hasn't changed just for this game, and so people who claim all Reaper technology indoctrinates all the time better be prepared to have their nose rubbed in the dirt about it.

You're running into the fact "technology" is used interchangably between "the knowledge necessary to create an effect" and "the components used to construct the device which creates an effect".

The first is the definition of technology. The second is not.

The application of the Thanix Cannon principles in a Cerberus-constructed weapon installed on the SR-2 is different
from installing one of Sovereign's Fingers of Death on the SR-2 with a Cerberus-built weapon interface. Both are "Reaper technology". You can't fight common parlance on the internet. Not worth trying.

Other people's technological idiocy does not make them right. It's like the people who think that more expensive fiberoptic cables transmit data faster.

[Christmas Ape]

Well, I tried to help.

There is nothing more frustrated and irrelevant than a linguistic prescriptivist on the internet, however.

[adam_grif]

Christmas Ape, the only thing that should matter is that there is nothing innately bad with using Reaper Tech. We know that the collector tech is reapre technology, and we know that not everything built by the reapers will indoctrinate you. This is the core of the argument, because the opposition is basically saying that because the collectors got their tech from the reapers, the collector base will thus indoctrinate you. This is a false deduction.

[JohnnyBeGood2]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

JohnnyBeGood2 wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Nightwriter wrote...
The Thannix Cannon was based off of Reaper technology but is not in fact Reaper tech itself. Ditto for EDI.

Full stop.

Something based off of Reaper technology is Reaper technology. It's the fundamental defenition of what technology is, IE the practical application of knowledge in a general area, or the manner of accomplishing a task using technical processes, methods, or knowledge.

The Thannix Cannon is a full rip off of Sovereign's main gun, miniaturized. It is the application of knowledge directly copied from a Reaper. EDI was built from parts and studying Sovereign's corpse to learn how to make EDI.

There is no differentiation between 'based off of' and 'is'. Something that is based off of technology is part of that technology.

Nah Dean, that really isnt the case. the differentiation between "based on" and "is" is 100% appropriate. The Thanix is not Reaper tech per se. It's "based on" Reaper Tech. every which way you spin that it's true.

It's technology. Directly copied from a Reaper. The only difference is size and materials.
Does car technology stop being car technology if you make it out of iron and not stainless steel? Of course not. Does gun technology stop being gun technology if you make the gun bigger or smaller? No.
Since you've invested so much in this bizaar redefinition of what technology is, why don't you explain why it is not Reaper technology? 

Hmm, It's not a redefinition just a best label. You've already made the point about the various ways the Thannix is different to the way yo Reapers had it... They are separate labels: "Reaper Tech" vs "base on Reaper Tech" and the "based on Reaper Tech" simply better represents the Thannix (which you yourself have pointed out in at least 2 ways).
Anyway exhaustive symantics are exhausting so don't let it detract from your point... unless your point was to make a distinction about how they are the same thing.. which they're not (if they were the same thing the Thannix would not be different to Sovereigns gun.. you yourself have said how it is different)

Modifié par JohnnyBeGood2, 11 juin 2010 - 12:14 .

[Dean_the_Young]

There is no distinction. The definition of technology is that it is the means and processes to do something: differences of size, materials, composition do not change it. 'Based on' is the same as 'is' when dealing with technology, because if you base something on a technology you are using that technology.



Again, I'll give you the opportunity explain how the Thannix cannon is not Reaper technology without redefining what technology even is.

[JohnnyBeGood2]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

There is no distinction. The definition of technology is that it is the means and processes to do something: differences of size, materials, composition do not change it. 'Based on' is the same as 'is' when dealing with technology, because if you base something on a technology you are using that technology.

Again, I'll give you the opportunity explain how the Thannix cannon is not Reaper technology without redefining what technology even is.

Damn this convo sux.
If the iron that goes into making cars is still iron then why is it no longer called "iron" but "car tech"?

[JohnnyBeGood2]

Shandepared wrote...

JohnnyBeGood2 wrote...
If the iron that goes into making cars is still iron then why is it no longer called "iron" but "car tech"?

...because you're making a car. You could still call it iron tech if you want though. In fact if you were making a documentary about the applications of iron technology you'd probably want to point its use in building cars.
Why don't you save face and just bow out of the conversation now?

Lol. I told you its a distinction of label that's totally applicable??
Do you find Reaper tech the size of the Thannix Cannon?

[Dean_the_Young]

JohnnyBeGood2 wrote...
Lol. I told you its a distinction of label that's totally applicable??

That's not a distinction: it's an inclusion. Distinction is between things that are not the same. Inclusion covers things that are more than one category. A car made from iron has both iron technology AND car technology: you can not make an argument that because it is iron technology it is not car technology.

Do you find Reaper tech the size of the Thannix Cannon?

Yes. It's called the Thannix Cannon.

There's also Reaper tech smaller than the Thannix Cannon: EDI, Dragon Teeth, Collector Particle Beams, the Omega Virus, husks/hust varieties, Collectors, and the Conduit.

[JohnnyBeGood2]

Shandepared wrote...

JohnnyBeGood2 wrote...
Do you find Reaper tech the size of the Thannix Cannon?

What?

Neither of you like that the label is applied as "based on" as opposed to "actually being". But convention would suggest that labelling it as "based on" is simply better.
Whether it be size, output, power source, materials, implementation or interface... any number of ways in which the device is put together make it a derivative as opposed to "pure" Reaper machine.
You are hammering on it's functioning capacity - "to send a molten slab of metal at high velocity like Sovereigns gun" and the way in which it was discovered: "the thing landed in the Presidium when Sovereign went down" as being the sole basis for definition.... I say it ain't so... "based on" is simply a better description (and is what I had said from the start...)

Then again I did say exhausting symantics is exhausting.. so don't blame me.

Dean your point is that if a device is made that is based on 1. "function" and 2. "mode of discovery" then it should be / must be named / specified as such.

Ok, the catch is this - it's not only misleading but incorrect by way of your context for antecedent points... that is, you used that assertion to assert derivative conclusions.... You used the assertion of 1 to 1 correspondence (Reaper Tech from the reapers is the same as tech used by humans based on Reaper tech) to assert 1 to 1 correlation in the logic of what followed.. and that's where it all falls apart.... I really do pray that you don't ask me to show you how that works.. but I will probably go about writing an essay here which no one will read if you do.

Anyway, I said this convo would suck.

[Dean_the_Young]

Main Entry: tech·nol·o·gy Pronunciation: \\-jē\\Function: noun Inflected
Form(s): plural tech·nol·o·giesEtymology:
Greek technologia systematic treatment of an art, from technē
art, skill + -o- + -logia -logyDate: 1859

1 a : the practical
application of knowledge especially in a particular area :
engineering
2 <medical technology>
b : a capability given by the
practical application of knowledge <a car's fuel-saving
technology>

2 : a manner
of accomplishing a task especially using technical processes, methods, or knowledge <new technologies for information storage>

3
: the specialized aspects of a particular field of
endeavor <educational technology>


This is  the honest to god definition of what technology is. Technology is not the material of something. Technology is what that something does and how it does it. The relevance of the name 'Reaper' technology is in indicating the source of the knowledge.

The Thannix cannon is the practical application of knowledge in a particular manner (how the Thannix cannon works). That knowledge was taken directly from a Reaper. It operates under identical principles as it did with the Reaper. The Turians did not invent the knowledge. The Humans did not invent the knowledge. The Reapers did.

[JohnnyBeGood2]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Main Entry: tech·nol·o·gy Pronunciation: \\\\-jē\\\\Function: noun Inflected
Form(s): plural tech·nol·o·giesEtymology:
Greek technologia systematic treatment of an art, from technē
art, skill + -o- + -logia -logyDate: 1859

1 a : the practical
application of knowledge especially in a particular area :
engineering
2
b : a capability given by the
practical application of knowledge <a car's fuel-saving
technology>

2 : a manner
of accomplishing a task especially using technical processes, methods, or knowledge

3
: the specialized aspects of a particular field of
endeavor


This is  the honest to god definition of what technology is. Technology is not the material of something. Technology is what that something does and how it does it. The relevance of the name 'Reaper' technology is in indicating the source of the knowledge.

The Thannix cannon is the practical application of knowledge in a particular manner (how the Thannix cannon works). That knowledge was taken directly from a Reaper. It operates under identical principles as it did with the Reaper. The Turians did not invent the knowledge. The Humans did not invent the knowledge. The Reapers did.

You do realise that labelling it as "based on Reaper Tech" is not exclusive of this defintion? (It's inclusive)
I assume that the "how it does it" part and the "application of knowledge" parts means that the powering of the weapon plays apart in what it is?

[smudboy]

Hilarious. Semantics?

Can't people who want to blow up the base just say it's because they don't like TIM?

[Dean_the_Young]

JohnnyBeGood2 wrote...
You do realise that labelling it as "based on Reaper Tech" is not exclusive of this defintion? (It's inclusive)

You have been using it exclusively. You have gone to great lengths to make the two exclusive. Nearly every single reply of yours up this point has been to the effect of 'no, it is not Reaper technology, instead it is based on it which is completely different, trust me.'

I assume that the "how it does it" part and the "application of knowledge" parts means that the powering of the weapon plays apart in what it is?

If that's the best you can understand, then sure. Yes. And then some.

[JohnnyBeGood2]

smudboy wrote...
Hilarious. Semantics?
Can't people who want to blow up the base just say it's because they don't like TIM?

guilty and guilty lol