6494 réponses à ce sujet

[Killjoy Cutter]

Here's a funny one.

On Legion's loyalty mission, if you bring Tali, there's a hallway in which she asks "Are these databases?" and Legion replies that they are processors.

A moment later a cutscene triggers, and Legion says "these are databases".

Bwah?

Lack. Of. Production. Values.

[Sgt Stryker]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Here's a funny one.

On Legion's loyalty mission, if you bring Tali, there's a hallway in which she asks "Are these databases?" and Legion replies that they are processors.

A moment later a cutscene triggers, and Legion says "these are databases".

Bwah?

Lack. Of. Production. Values.  

QFT. Here's hoping they put those extra four months to good use.

[dreman9999]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
The reason I made the claim that practical radiation would make it like venus is because practical radiation made Venus the way it is..... Are you saying that Venus lack of magnetosphere did not make it into a heavy atmosphric presser cooker planet? If so then it's clear that you don't understand what your taking about. It lacks a magnetosphere, which protects from practical radiation .  Saying particale radiation does increase planets heat is like saying  ionizing radiaton does not generate heat, with is what paritcal radiation is onizing radiaton....
Just compare earth and venus, we have a magnetsphere , Venus does not. Look at our environment, look a venuses......Is it not clear what a planet without an magnetosphere would look like?
If Haelstrom is truely a planet heavilly effect by practical radiation, as you feel it should....It would be like Mercury.
My point is that Haestrom is not at the level to be heavily effected by practical radiation yet because it doesn't have a thin atmosphere. That takes millions of years to do, and it only been less than 300 years.

I'm telling you flat out that particle radiation does not make a planet's atmosphere a "presser" cooker through direct heating.  Simple as that.  Go do your homework and stop making simplistic assumptions.

Also, take another English class. 

*Looks at Venus and the way Weather works on Earth.*
Yes, it does.

If you believe that it does not your saying Ionizing radiation does not make Non-ionizing radiation amnd heated and highly radiatedelements don't expand and rise.

What you're doing is looking at Venus, looking at Earth, and saying "one has a magnetic field, the other doesn't, therefore it's the lack of a magnetic field that causes Venus' atmosphere to be different", and concocting a causal mechanism to explain that difference based on that your original bad assumption. 

You're simply wrong, and I've run out of ways to explain to you how you're wrong.  Particle radiation simply doesn't induce direct massive heating in the way you're imagining it does.  The energy goes into ionizing events, etc. 

It has nothing to do with what I "believe". 

You not understanding. You never read my post before.
Let me make it clear.
.......
http://en.wikipedia....heric_chemistry
Changes in atmospheric chemistry
Cosmic rays ionize the nitrogen and oxygen molecules in the
atmosphere, which leads to a number of chemical reactions. One of the
reactions results in ozone depletion. The magnitude of damage, however,
is very small compared to the depletion caused by CFCs........
........
Cosmic rays, which are a form of particle radiation that comes from solar wind, helps eat away are ozone layer that protect use from uv rays. The reason why it does not do this even more is the fact that earth has a strong magnetosphere the reflex most of the particle radiation.
Now what would happen to a planet like ours that lacks a proper magnetosphere that we have? It's solar protection will be eaten away and the planet will be super heated. And we already know what happens to heat elements.

So me point to Venus as an example has a point. It has no magnetosphere to protect it.....So most of it's solar protection is gone...Meaning radiation and heat are going to charge the element of the planet and the element are going to expand and rise. Say this will not happen is like saying heat in an area with lots of water does not cause rain. This is how global warming works.

Modifié par dreman9999, 12 septembre 2011 - 05:21 .

[dreman9999]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Here's a funny one.

On Legion's loyalty mission, if you bring Tali, there's a hallway in which she asks "Are these databases?" and Legion replies that they are processors.

A moment later a cutscene triggers, and Legion says "these are databases".

Bwah?

Lack. Of. Production. Values.

.....Data bases are part of Processers.....Processers is the hard ware that are used to run data.  Database is the digital date in a computer.
Legion just basicly said they were looking at hardware, and he's looking into the softwar of the hard ware.

Modifié par dreman9999, 12 septembre 2011 - 03:48 .

[Someone With Mass]

Sgt Stryker wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Here's a funny one.

On Legion's loyalty mission, if you bring Tali, there's a hallway in which she asks "Are these databases?" and Legion replies that they are processors.

A moment later a cutscene triggers, and Legion says "these are databases".

Bwah?

Lack. Of. Production. Values.

QFT. Here's hoping they put those extra four months to good use.

Also, many of the ME2 staff got very sick with flues and such at a certain point in the production to the point where they almost had to postpone the release.

Just because they missed something doesn't make them lazy or sloppy. They're only human. Nor do they all have everything about the game on the table and know every single detail.

[Fixers0]

dreman9999 wrote...
1. No...right....

http://masseffect.wi...#Deck_5:_Hangar
The lowest deck is the hangar, where the Kodiak shuttle is stored, as well as a space for the M-44 Hammerhead
tank. The hangar deck is not normally accessible to Shepard; it is
shown when Shepard's team leaves the Normandy while the Reaper IFF
device is being tested and is the setting for a fight against an Oculus. If any squad members die in the final mission, their coffins are shown in the hangar in the epilogue.


...That's how they entired.

Alright as you just keep making things up i think we're done here, just let me ask 1 question

How many doors does the port-side (Grunt's) Cargohold have?

dreman9999 wrote...
2.ThE main plot is about Shepard facing the reapers......If it's part of that then it's part of the main plot.

No the main plot of Mass Effect 2 is to stop the badguys, who are trying to kill, some random comic or novel doesn't do anything with the quality of the narative.

dreman9999 wrote...
3.So in ME1, cerberus was never try to learn how to make and control husk? And they never later did experiments to learn how to stop indorination?(AKA RETRIBUTION)...
Cerberus is the only group now that knows the most about the reaper and have been working in way to stop them. The only individual that knows more is Shepard...And he working with cerberus.

And how does this relate to my points?

You're just making some unrelated (after the fact) arguments a few assumptions and you're even seem trying to invent or opposing force motives.

Modifié par Fixers0, 12 septembre 2011 - 03:52 .

[dreman9999]

Fixers0 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
1. No...right....

http://masseffect.wi...#Deck_5:_Hangar
The lowest deck is the hangar, where the Kodiak shuttle is stored, as well as a space for the M-44 Hammerhead
tank. The hangar deck is not normally accessible to Shepard; it is
shown when Shepard's team leaves the Normandy while the Reaper IFF
device is being tested and is the setting for a fight against an Oculus. If any squad members die in the final mission, their coffins are shown in the hangar in the epilogue.


...That's how they entired.

Alright as you just keep making things up i think we're done here, just let me ask 1 question

How many doors does the port-side (Grunt's) Cargohold have?

dreman9999 wrote...
2.ThE main plot is about Shepard facing the reapers......If it's part of that then it's part of the main plot.

No the main plot of Mass Effect 2 is to stop the badguys, who are trying to kill, some random comic or novel doesn't do anything with the quality of the narative.

dreman9999 wrote...
3.So in ME1, cerberus was never try to learn how to make and control husk? And they never later did experiments to learn how to stop indorination?(AKA RETRIBUTION)...
Cerberus is the only group now that knows the most about the reaper and have been working in way to stop them. The only individual that knows more is Shepard...And he working with cerberus.

And how does this relate to my points?

You're just making some unrelated (after the fact) arguments a few assumptions and you're even seem trying to invent or opposing force motives.

1. Making ..thing up?  This if from the lore. Which I link you to. How is this in any sense making things up?

2.The reapers are the bad guys. ME1 is about stopping Saren, who is working for the reaper. ME2 is about stopping the collectors, who are working for the reapers. ME3 is about stopping the reapers. If you not getting the point of the story then I don't know why your even posting how bad a story is if you don't understand it. The overarching plot is about facing the reapers, which all the other side stories are about. And the side stories are even descussed in the main story as well. In ME1, Anderson tells you what happened in ME:Relivation. In ME2, Tali tells you what happened in Asension, Liara tells you what happen in ME:redemtion.
But on point I was not talking about ME2 side stories alown.....This is from ME1.

http://masseffect.wi...usk#Mass_Effect
Cerberus
were studying husks as part of their experimental programme into
creating a super soldier, and as a test they deliberately exposed a
colonial pioneer team on Chasca to dragon's teeth.
.......
3.The point is that it's logical to fine info on the people or group that's trying to kill you so you can stop them from doing it.

[Killjoy Cutter]

dreman9999 wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Here's a funny one.

On Legion's loyalty mission, if you bring Tali, there's a hallway in which she asks "Are these databases?" and Legion replies that they are processors.

A moment later a cutscene triggers, and Legion says "these are databases".

Bwah?

Lack. Of. Production. Values.

.....Data bases are part of Processers.....Processers is the hard ware that are used to run data.  Database is the digital date in a computer.
Legion just basicly said they were looking at hardware, and he's looking into the softwar of the hard ware.

STOP posting about things you have no effing clue about already. 

Just stop. 


If nothing else, the point still remains that Tali asks if they're databases, and Legion says "No."  He then immediately says "these are databases". 

Modifié par Killjoy Cutter, 12 septembre 2011 - 04:25 .

[Killjoy Cutter]

dreman9999 wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
The reason I made the claim that practical radiation would make it like venus is because practical radiation made Venus the way it is..... Are you saying that Venus lack of magnetosphere did not make it into a heavy atmosphric presser cooker planet? If so then it's clear that you don't understand what your taking about. It lacks a magnetosphere, which protects from practical radiation .  Saying particale radiation does increase planets heat is like saying  ionizing radiaton does not generate heat, with is what paritcal radiation is onizing radiaton....
Just compare earth and venus, we have a magnetsphere , Venus does not. Look at our environment, look a venuses......Is it not clear what a planet without an magnetosphere would look like?
If Haelstrom is truely a planet heavilly effect by practical radiation, as you feel it should....It would be like Mercury.
My point is that Haestrom is not at the level to be heavily effected by practical radiation yet because it doesn't have a thin atmosphere. That takes millions of years to do, and it only been less than 300 years.

I'm telling you flat out that particle radiation does not make a planet's atmosphere a "presser" cooker through direct heating.  Simple as that.  Go do your homework and stop making simplistic assumptions.

Also, take another English class. 

*Looks at Venus and the way Weather works on Earth.*
Yes, it does.

If you believe that it does not your saying Ionizing radiation does not make Non-ionizing radiation amnd heated and highly radiatedelements don't expand and rise.

What you're doing is looking at Venus, looking at Earth, and saying "one has a magnetic field, the other doesn't, therefore it's the lack of a magnetic field that causes Venus' atmosphere to be different", and concocting a causal mechanism to explain that difference based on that your original bad assumption. 

You're simply wrong, and I've run out of ways to explain to you how you're wrong.  Particle radiation simply doesn't induce direct massive heating in the way you're imagining it does.  The energy goes into ionizing events, etc. 

It has nothing to do with what I "believe". 

You not understanding. You never read my post before.
Let me make it clear.
.......
http://en.wikipedia....heric_chemistry
Changes in atmospheric chemistry
Cosmic rays ionize the nitrogen and oxygen molecules in the
atmosphere, which leads to a number of chemical reactions. One of the
reactions results in ozone depletion. The magnitude of damage, however,
is very small compared to the depletion caused by CFCs........
........
Cosmic rays, which are a form of particle radiation that comes from solar wind, helps eat away are ozone layer that protect use from uv rays. The reason why it does not do this even more is the fact that earth has a strong magnetosphere the reflex most of the particle radiation.
Now what would happen to a planet like ours that lacks a proper magnetosphere that we have? It's solar protection will be eaten away and the planet will be super heated. And we already know what happens to heat elements.

So me point to Venus as an example has a point. It has no magnetosphere to protect it.....So most of it's solar protection is gone...Meaning radiation and heat are going to charge the element of the planet and the element are going to expand and rise. Say this will not happen is like saying heat in an area with lots of water does not cause rain. This is how an exosphere works.

You're taking a bunch of mostly true things and a few utterly untrue things, and then making up your own goofball conclusions from it all.  You're making connections that don't actually exist, and mistaking correlation for causation. 

And really, is English your second language, or are you under the age of 12, or in terrible school district, or what?  I can't even tell what you're trying to say about 1/4 of the time. 

Modifié par Killjoy Cutter, 12 septembre 2011 - 04:23 .

[Fixers0]

dreman9999 wrote...

1. Making ..thing up?  This if from the lore. Which I link you to. How is this in any sense making things up?

Gosh, you really missing the point, this isn't about lore it's about the stupidity of scene.

dreman9999 wrote...
2.The reapers are the bad guys. ME1 is about stopping Saren, who is working for the reaper. ME2 is about stopping the collectors, who are working for the reapers. ME3 is about stopping the reapers. If you not getting the point of the story then I don't know why your even posting how bad a story is if you don't understand it. The overarching plot is about facing the reapers, which all the other side stories are about. And the side stories are even descussed in the main story as well. In ME1, Anderson tells you what happened in ME:Relivation. In ME2, Tali tells you what happened in Asension, Liara tells you what happen in ME:redemtion.
But on point I was not talking about ME2 side stories alown.....This is from ME1.

Here's a question? what was the orginal point.

dreman9999 wrote...
3.The point is that it's logical to fine info on the people or group that's trying to kill you so you can stop them from doing it.

No, it's logical to blow up their ship so you're sure they won't do it again.

[dreman9999]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Here's a funny one.

On Legion's loyalty mission, if you bring Tali, there's a hallway in which she asks "Are these databases?" and Legion replies that they are processors.

A moment later a cutscene triggers, and Legion says "these are databases".

Bwah?

Lack. Of. Production. Values.

.....Data bases are part of Processers.....Processers is the hard ware that are used to run data.  Database is the digital date in a computer.
Legion just basicly said they were looking at hardware, and he's looking into the softwar of the hard ware.

STOP posting about things you have no effing clue about already. 

Just stop. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Database
DatabaseA database is an organized collection of data
for one or more purposes, usually in digital form. The data are
typically organized to model relevant aspects of reality (for example,
the availability of rooms in hotels), in a way that supports processes
requiring this information (for example, finding a hotel with
vacancies). The term "database" refers both to the way its users view
it, and to the logical and physical materialization of its data,
content, in files, computer memory, and computer data storage
.......
http://en.wikipedia....ata_parallelism
Central processing unit

The central processing unit (CPU) is the portion of a computer system that carries out the instructions of a computer program,
to perform the basic arithmetical, logical, and input/output operations
of the system. The CPU plays a role somewhat analogous to the brain in the computer.
.....
I looked before saying any thing.

[Killjoy Cutter]

dreman9999 wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Here's a funny one.

On Legion's loyalty mission, if you bring Tali, there's a hallway in which she asks "Are these databases?" and Legion replies that they are processors.

A moment later a cutscene triggers, and Legion says "these are databases".

Bwah?

Lack. Of. Production. Values.

.....Data bases are part of Processers.....Processers is the hard ware that are used to run data.  Database is the digital date in a computer.
Legion just basicly said they were looking at hardware, and he's looking into the softwar of the hard ware.

STOP posting about things you have no effing clue about already. 

Just stop. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Database
DatabaseA database is an organized collection of data
for one or more purposes, usually in digital form. The data are
typically organized to model relevant aspects of reality (for example,
the availability of rooms in hotels), in a way that supports processes
requiring this information (for example, finding a hotel with
vacancies). The term "database" refers both to the way its users view
it, and to the logical and physical materialization of its data,
content, in files, computer memory, and computer data storage
.......
http://en.wikipedia....ata_parallelism
Central processing unit

The central processing unit (CPU) is the portion of a computer system that carries out the instructions of a computer program,
to perform the basic arithmetical, logical, and input/output operations
of the system. The CPU plays a role somewhat analogous to the brain in the computer.
.....
I looked before saying any thing.

1)  You're still missing the actual point to argue minutia.

2)  You're still wrong about calling a processor a database or calling a database a processor.  As usual, you start linking a bunch of topical but somewhat random stuff and thinking that it proves that you were correct, when it's either irrelevent or actually shows where you were wrong.   The cites you gave actually explain why you'd never refer to your data storage or database as a "processor", and why you'd never refer to your processor as a "database". 

[dreman9999]

Fixers0 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

1. Making ..thing up?  This if from the lore. Which I link you to. How is this in any sense making things up?

Gosh, you really missing the point, this isn't about lore it's about the stupidity of scene.

dreman9999 wrote...
2.The reapers are the bad guys. ME1 is about stopping Saren, who is working for the reaper. ME2 is about stopping the collectors, who are working for the reapers. ME3 is about stopping the reapers. If you not getting the point of the story then I don't know why your even posting how bad a story is if you don't understand it. The overarching plot is about facing the reapers, which all the other side stories are about. And the side stories are even descussed in the main story as well. In ME1, Anderson tells you what happened in ME:Relivation. In ME2, Tali tells you what happened in Asension, Liara tells you what happen in ME:redemtion.
But on point I was not talking about ME2 side stories alown.....This is from ME1.

Here's a question? what was the orginal point.

dreman9999 wrote...
3.The point is that it's logical to fine info on the people or group that's trying to kill you so you can stop them from doing it.

No, it's logical to blow up their ship so you're sure they won't do it again.

1.The lore support it. I showed you a scene showing lore, and then I linked you to stated lore. That's the point.
2. Here's a quetion? What's the final point. What were your trying to stop in the end of ME1. Why were your revived in ME2? And what are you facing in ME3?
3.They want Shepard, last time they blow up his ship to get to him, they lost him. And their goal is to harvest, not destroy.

[Killjoy Cutter]

dreman9999 wrote...

Fixers0 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

1. Making ..thing up?  This if from the lore. Which I link you to. How is this in any sense making things up?

Gosh, you really missing the point, this isn't about lore it's about the stupidity of scene.

dreman9999 wrote...
2.The reapers are the bad guys. ME1 is about stopping Saren, who is working for the reaper. ME2 is about stopping the collectors, who are working for the reapers. ME3 is about stopping the reapers. If you not getting the point of the story then I don't know why your even posting how bad a story is if you don't understand it. The overarching plot is about facing the reapers, which all the other side stories are about. And the side stories are even descussed in the main story as well. In ME1, Anderson tells you what happened in ME:Relivation. In ME2, Tali tells you what happened in Asension, Liara tells you what happen in ME:redemtion.
But on point I was not talking about ME2 side stories alown.....This is from ME1.

Here's a question? what was the orginal point.

dreman9999 wrote...
3.The point is that it's logical to fine info on the people or group that's trying to kill you so you can stop them from doing it.

No, it's logical to blow up their ship so you're sure they won't do it again.

1.The lore support it. I showed you a scene showing lore, and then I linked you to stated lore. That's the point.
2. Here's a quetion? What's the final point. What were your trying to stop in the end of ME1. Why were your revived in ME2? And what are you facing in ME3?
3.They want Shepard, last time they blow up his ship to get to him, they lost him. And their goal is to harvest, not destroy.

If they want to "harvest" Shep, why did they obliterate his ship and leave?  The two don't go together.  

"The dead are useless to us."  -- Harbinger does seem fond of saying that...

[dreman9999]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Here's a funny one.

On Legion's loyalty mission, if you bring Tali, there's a hallway in which she asks "Are these databases?" and Legion replies that they are processors.

A moment later a cutscene triggers, and Legion says "these are databases".

Bwah?

Lack. Of. Production. Values.

.....Data bases are part of Processers.....Processers is the hard ware that are used to run data.  Database is the digital date in a computer.
Legion just basicly said they were looking at hardware, and he's looking into the softwar of the hard ware.

STOP posting about things you have no effing clue about already. 

Just stop. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Database
DatabaseA database is an organized collection of data
for one or more purposes, usually in digital form. The data are
typically organized to model relevant aspects of reality (for example,
the availability of rooms in hotels), in a way that supports processes
requiring this information (for example, finding a hotel with
vacancies). The term "database" refers both to the way its users view
it, and to the logical and physical materialization of its data,
content, in files, computer memory, and computer data storage
.......
http://en.wikipedia....ata_parallelism
Central processing unit

The central processing unit (CPU) is the portion of a computer system that carries out the instructions of a computer program,
to perform the basic arithmetical, logical, and input/output operations
of the system. The CPU plays a role somewhat analogous to the brain in the computer.
.....
I looked before saying any thing.

1)  You're still missing the actual point to argue minutia.

2)  You're still wrong about calling a processor a database or calling a database a processor.  As usual, you start linking a bunch of topical but somewhat random stuff and thinking that it proves that you were correct, when it's either irrelevent or actually shows where you were wrong.   The cites you gave actually explain why you'd never refer to your data storage or database as a "processor", and why you'd never refer to your processor as a "database". 

I didn't say database and processors are the something. I said a database is part of a Processor. Like organs are part of a body. Databases is an organized digital data of a computer. Processors use computer data to run the computer. For Legion to get a database out of the processor is not wrong. All he is saying it the he got software out of the hardware. Get it.

Modifié par dreman9999, 12 septembre 2011 - 04:50 .

[Chuvvy]

He brings up some decent points, there were definitely some "wat" moments in ME2, especially in the beginning.

[dreman9999]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Fixers0 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

1. Making ..thing up?  This if from the lore. Which I link you to. How is this in any sense making things up?

Gosh, you really missing the point, this isn't about lore it's about the stupidity of scene.

dreman9999 wrote...
2.The reapers are the bad guys. ME1 is about stopping Saren, who is working for the reaper. ME2 is about stopping the collectors, who are working for the reapers. ME3 is about stopping the reapers. If you not getting the point of the story then I don't know why your even posting how bad a story is if you don't understand it. The overarching plot is about facing the reapers, which all the other side stories are about. And the side stories are even descussed in the main story as well. In ME1, Anderson tells you what happened in ME:Relivation. In ME2, Tali tells you what happened in Asension, Liara tells you what happen in ME:redemtion.
But on point I was not talking about ME2 side stories alown.....This is from ME1.

Here's a question? what was the orginal point.

dreman9999 wrote...
3.The point is that it's logical to fine info on the people or group that's trying to kill you so you can stop them from doing it.

No, it's logical to blow up their ship so you're sure they won't do it again.

1.The lore support it. I showed you a scene showing lore, and then I linked you to stated lore. That's the point.
2. Here's a quetion? What's the final point. What were your trying to stop in the end of ME1. Why were your revived in ME2? And what are you facing in ME3?
3.They want Shepard, last time they blow up his ship to get to him, they lost him. And their goal is to harvest, not destroy.

If they want to "harvest" Shep, why did they obliterate his ship and leave?  The two don't go together.  

"The dead are useless to us."  -- Harbinger does seem fond of saying that...

Reaper tech can revive dead people.We seeit all the timein ME1 with husk. Putting a person on dragons teeth kills them, you know.
Also, Harbinger says as well "Perserve Shepards body if possible" As well.

Modifié par dreman9999, 12 septembre 2011 - 04:40 .

[Killjoy Cutter]

dreman9999 wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

1)  You're still missing the actual point to argue minutia.

2)  You're still wrong about calling a processor a database or calling a database a processor.  As usual, you start linking a bunch of topical but somewhat random stuff and thinking that it proves that you were correct, when it's either irrelevent or actually shows where you were wrong.   The cites you gave actually explain why you'd never refer to your data storage or database as a "processor", and why you'd never refer to your processor as a "database". 

I didn't say database and processers are the samething. I said a database is part of a Processer. Like organs are part of a body. Databases is an orginised digial data of a computer. Processers use computer data to run the computer. ForLegion to get a database out of the processer is not wrong. All he is saying it the he got software out of the hardware. Get it.

Go on, then, just keep demonstrating to the rest of the people reading that you're willing to expound on a yet another subject you know nothing about. 

Sheesh.

Go try telling anyone who actually works in the computer industry on a serious level that "the database" is part of the processor, and see what they say.  (Hint, that was my career for almost 15 years.)

Modifié par Killjoy Cutter, 12 septembre 2011 - 04:52 .

[dreman9999]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Here's a funny one.

On Legion's loyalty mission, if you bring Tali, there's a hallway in which she asks "Are these databases?" and Legion replies that they are processors.

A moment later a cutscene triggers, and Legion says "these are databases".

Bwah?

Lack. Of. Production. Values.

.....Data bases are part of Processers.....Processers is the hard ware that are used to run data.  Database is the digital date in a computer.
Legion just basicly said they were looking at hardware, and he's looking into the softwar of the hard ware.

STOP posting about things you have no effing clue about already. 

Just stop. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Database
DatabaseA database is an organized collection of data
for one or more purposes, usually in digital form. The data are
typically organized to model relevant aspects of reality (for example,
the availability of rooms in hotels), in a way that supports processes
requiring this information (for example, finding a hotel with
vacancies). The term "database" refers both to the way its users view
it, and to the logical and physical materialization of its data,
content, in files, computer memory, and computer data storage
.......
http://en.wikipedia....ata_parallelism
Central processing unit

The central processing unit (CPU) is the portion of a computer system that carries out the instructions of a computer program,
to perform the basic arithmetical, logical, and input/output operations
of the system. The CPU plays a role somewhat analogous to the brain in the computer.
.....
I looked before saying any thing.

1)  You're still missing the actual point to argue minutia.

2)  You're still wrong about calling a processor a database or calling a database a processor.  As usual, you start linking a bunch of topical but somewhat random stuff and thinking that it proves that you were correct, when it's either irrelevent or actually shows where you were wrong.   The cites you gave actually explain why you'd never refer to your data storage or database as a "processor", and why you'd never refer to your processor as a "database". 

I didn't say database and processers are the samething. I said a database is part of a Processer. Like organs are part of a body. Databases is an orginised digial data of a computer. Processers use computer data to run the computer. ForLegion to get a database out of the processer is not wrong. All he is saying it the he got software out of the hardware. Get it.

Why are you so determined to make a fool out of yourself in public? 

Are you really telling me that processors don't use data to run computers?

Modifié par dreman9999, 12 septembre 2011 - 04:52 .

[Killjoy Cutter]

dreman9999 wrote...
Are you really telling me that processors don't use data to run computers?

I'm not.  If you had a clue about the topic you're going on about, you'd understand how that's not what I'm telling you. 

Yes, the processor performs operations based on the data stored in the computer's permanent and temporary memory devices.  

That does not make "a database" part of the processor, and more to the point, it does not make the goof in Legion's lines at that point in the game go away. 


This is just like your atmosphere thing.  You keep assuming that because I'm telling you that your final conclusion is bunkus, that the grains of truth that you mistakenly based it on are also not true. 

Modifié par Killjoy Cutter, 12 septembre 2011 - 04:56 .

[dreman9999]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

1)  You're still missing the actual point to argue minutia.

2)  You're still wrong about calling a processor a database or calling a database a processor.  As usual, you start linking a bunch of topical but somewhat random stuff and thinking that it proves that you were correct, when it's either irrelevent or actually shows where you were wrong.   The cites you gave actually explain why you'd never refer to your data storage or database as a "processor", and why you'd never refer to your processor as a "database". 

I didn't say database and processers are the samething. I said a database is part of a Processer. Like organs are part of a body. Databases is an orginised digial data of a computer. Processers use computer data to run the computer. ForLegion to get a database out of the processer is not wrong. All he is saying it the he got software out of the hardware. Get it.

Go on, then, just keep demonstrating to the rest of the people reading that you're willing to expound on a yet another subject you know nothing about. 

Sheesh.

Go try telling anyone who actually works in the computer industry on a serious level that "the database" is part of the processor, and see what they say.  (Hint, that was my career for almost 15 years.)

Agein, Your telling me that processors don't use data to control a computer?

[Killjoy Cutter]

dreman9999 wrote...
Agein, Your telling me that processors don't use data to control a computer?

Nope, see above.  If you weren't just skimming websites to try to find rebuttals, and actually understood the topics you're posting about, you'd get it.

[dreman9999]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
Are you really telling me that processors don't use data to run computers?

I'm not.  If you had a clue about the topic you're going on about, you'd understand how that's not what I'm telling you. 

Yes, the processor performs operations based on the data stored in the computer's permanent and temporary memory devices.  

That does not make "a database" part of the processor, and more to the point, it does not make the goof in Legion's lines at that point in the game go away. 

Then you not understanding what I'm saying. HE got the data out of the processer..... Point being, he got software out of hard ware. I understand database reside in hardrives, but a processer still uses the data in the harddrive any way. The data has to go through the processer to beable to be used. The hard drive and the cou working together to make the computer work is just like ther espiratory system working with the circulatory system to kep the body alive. The systems are shared.
As I said before, all legion is saying is that he got sofware out of Hardware.
You saying it wrong because it not stored in the cpu, I'm saying it right because it still goes thought the cpu any way.

Modifié par dreman9999, 12 septembre 2011 - 05:08 .

[Fixers0]

dreman9999 wrote...

1.The lore support it. I showed you a scene showing lore, and then I linked you to stated lore. That's the point.

How many doors does the Port cargohold have?

dreman9999 wrote...
2. Here's a quetion? What's the final point. What were your trying to stop in the end of ME1. Why were your revived in ME2? And what are you facing in ME3?

We were discussing a scene in Mass Effect 2, that has nothing to do the Reapers.

dreman9999 wrote...
3.They want Shepard, last time they blow up his ship to get to him, they lost him.

They wanted to kill Shepard, at every encounters they inexplecity open fire, they tried blowing up our ships three times.

[dreman9999]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
The reason I made the claim that practical radiation would make it like venus is because practical radiation made Venus the way it is..... Are you saying that Venus lack of magnetosphere did not make it into a heavy atmosphric presser cooker planet? If so then it's clear that you don't understand what your taking about. It lacks a magnetosphere, which protects from practical radiation .  Saying particale radiation does increase planets heat is like saying  ionizing radiaton does not generate heat, with is what paritcal radiation is onizing radiaton....
Just compare earth and venus, we have a magnetsphere , Venus does not. Look at our environment, look a venuses......Is it not clear what a planet without an magnetosphere would look like?
If Haelstrom is truely a planet heavilly effect by practical radiation, as you feel it should....It would be like Mercury.
My point is that Haestrom is not at the level to be heavily effected by practical radiation yet because it doesn't have a thin atmosphere. That takes millions of years to do, and it only been less than 300 years.

I'm telling you flat out that particle radiation does not make a planet's atmosphere a "presser" cooker through direct heating.  Simple as that.  Go do your homework and stop making simplistic assumptions.

Also, take another English class. 

*Looks at Venus and the way Weather works on Earth.*
Yes, it does.

If you believe that it does not your saying Ionizing radiation does not make Non-ionizing radiation amnd heated and highly radiatedelements don't expand and rise.

What you're doing is looking at Venus, looking at Earth, and saying "one has a magnetic field, the other doesn't, therefore it's the lack of a magnetic field that causes Venus' atmosphere to be different", and concocting a causal mechanism to explain that difference based on that your original bad assumption. 

You're simply wrong, and I've run out of ways to explain to you how you're wrong.  Particle radiation simply doesn't induce direct massive heating in the way you're imagining it does.  The energy goes into ionizing events, etc. 

It has nothing to do with what I "believe". 

You not understanding. You never read my post before.
Let me make it clear.
.......
http://en.wikipedia....heric_chemistry
Changes in atmospheric chemistry
Cosmic rays ionize the nitrogen and oxygen molecules in the
atmosphere, which leads to a number of chemical reactions. One of the
reactions results in ozone depletion. The magnitude of damage, however,
is very small compared to the depletion caused by CFCs........
........
Cosmic rays, which are a form of particle radiation that comes from solar wind, helps eat away are ozone layer that protect use from uv rays. The reason why it does not do this even more is the fact that earth has a strong magnetosphere the reflex most of the particle radiation.
Now what would happen to a planet like ours that lacks a proper magnetosphere that we have? It's solar protection will be eaten away and the planet will be super heated. And we already know what happens to heat elements.

So me point to Venus as an example has a point. It has no magnetosphere to protect it.....So most of it's solar protection is gone...Meaning radiation and heat are going to charge the element of the planet and the element are going to expand and rise. Say this will not happen is like saying heat in an area with lots of water does not cause rain. This is how an exosphere works.

You're taking a bunch of mostly true things and a few utterly untrue things, and then making up your own goofball conclusions from it all.  You're making connections that don't actually exist, and mistaking correlation for causation. 

And really, is English your second language, or are you under the age of 12, or in terrible school district, or what?  I can't even tell what you're trying to say about 1/4 of the time. 

It' not mostly true. It all true. This how thing work in a  pressered enviornment. For you to tell me it does not work like that is to tell me that element don't expand and rise when heated, the cosmic ray does not change, desort and destroy planet protection planet protection, That a magnetosphere does not refelx partical radiation, which is what cosmic rays are. That heat water does not rise up and make clouds.

Are your really telling me that an overwhelmed magnetosphere would not start losing it's ozone layer when it's stated that comic ray destroy ozone layers? That the lack of an ozone layer would not heat up the planet and make elements rise and expand into the atmosphere? And that will not thicken the atmosphere to the point of no sun light getting to the surface?

Modifié par dreman9999, 12 septembre 2011 - 05:43 .