418 réponses à ce sujet

[Sir DeLoria]

David has earned a new title: Master of terrible analogies and metaphors

[David7204]

No, he absolutely wouldn't. He might be arrested. But he would never be indicted, much less convicted.

[Cainhurst Crow]

David7204 wrote...

It's the exact same premise. You're making an accusation and trying to prove it. The defense doesn't need proof. They don't need evidence. They only have to show you haven't proven your case.

David, this is so stupid even you need to know this isn't how cases work. A defense without evidence to prove their client innocent, or their accusation as legitimate, looses it's case.

There is no if, ands, or buts, about it. Unless the court is a kangaroo court, lacking evidence is the quickest wat to loose your case.

[David7204]

You're making a clown of yourself. The presumption of innocence is one of the most fundamental premises of nearly or all legal systems. Innocent until proven guilty. Not guilty until proven innocent.

[Erez Kristal]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

erezike wrote...

lazarus project only scientific leap of faith is the ability to bring back brain functionality

The fact that his body, protected by only a hardsuit, survived reentry intact at all really does stretch the label science to the point that is is non-science. 

Considering shepard was falling at terminal velocity or less(if he had an emergency parachute, or another hightech savvy tech like batman in his suit) and considering that his suit is capable of saving shepard from impact bullets which travels at 4000 km a second and geth rockets.

The first part is pure speculation. As for the parachute.... no.

Next, let' put it this way. Firstly, you have kinetic barriers protecting you from 'bullet's' and rockets. Second, These are tiny objects. Shepard is now traveling at comparable speeds through the atmosphere (and generating extreme heat) and is headed towards impact with a much larger mass.

it is safe to assume his body was left intact. if you want to compare shepard to a crumpeling car. shoot a drone rocket on both of them followed by a bullet which travels at 4000 km a sec, thats 1,400,000 km a hour.

You know what they say about assumptions...

But no, there is absolutely nothing safe to assume. You're point.... what's your point?

Now that we established his body wasnt turned to paste( or even burned for that matter, since he didnt enter the athmosphere at a speed higher than terminal velocity, hence didnt need to slow down+his suit is capable of withstanding high tempetures)

This is straightup bullshit...

If shepard body freezed minutes after he entered the athmosphere and died its quite feastable to believe than in the technology level of mass effect in 2186, they would have found a way to reconstruct the brain damage done to shepard since it wasnt as severe as people here are lead to assume.

This is straightup bullshit...

And while it required to use implants in order to bring shepard back, it did increase his performance which increased his chances to have a player, play him throughout mass effect 2 without dying... again.

... what?

To live in your world for 10 minutes...

if you insist that would have turned to paste i strongly urge you to contradict the use of his powersuit and how it would fail to protect him at 195 km a hour.

I insist that he would have been vaporized during reentry personally. The only thing keeping him intact was.... 

Contrived writing that is pretty fantastical, far-fetched, unreal, and unscientific in any sense of the word.

But who cares? CHARACTERIZATION!

since shepard speed was lower than terminal velocity when he entered the planet athmosphere, its means a lot less than you think. shepard didnt need to slow down and thus a lot less heat was generated due to friction

shepard at no mommentum or speed to go with when he entered the athmosphere, therefor the most he was traveling with was the terminal velocity of the planet alchera 

the inside suit parachute or other mean of landing isnt farfetched in a suit which is buit for a space marine. his duites are more likely to involve falling from things(as shepard demonstrate quite often in the games)

the kinetic barriers help with first bullets, but his suit is capable of withstanding rocket and bullets even without the kinetic barriers as depicted inside the gamelore. 

the different in impact even without a parachute is only a few times higher than a 1 gram slug(sniper slug) considering shepard body stays intact even if he dies due to shock damage from from a few rockets or sniper slugs. hes body stll doesnt turn into paste.

the impact on shepard body from sniper slugs and rockets is more focused while the impact from falling is much better spread throughout his body which will result in lesser damage.


massively, you usually present a lot of logic in your claims and i look fondly on your opinions of miranda and cerberus. but claiming shepard body should have been vaporized due to you know, reasons. is hardly an explanation. yes his death was contrived. however it was well done. and with the exception of restorting functionality to brain there was nothing new presented here.      it was due to falling at alchera terminal velocity, a suit which can stop rockets and immensely powerful slugs, a possibile suit built in parachute and sub zero temperatures that shepard revival was possibile.

shepard implants are similar to augments in deus ex, they made him better.

[The Heretic of Time]

David7204 wrote...

It's the exact same premise. You're making an accusation and trying to prove it. The defense doesn't need proof. They don't need evidence. They only have to show you haven't proven your case.

Someone needs to learn about the scientific method and burden of proof  within science it seems.

[The Heretic of Time]

David7204 wrote...

You're making a clown of yourself. The presumption of innocence is one of the most fundamental premises of nearly or all legal systems. Innocent until proven guilty. Not guilty until proven innocent.

Innocent until proven guilty is how the phrase goes, yes, but in practice you'll notice that it really doesn't work that way. Often, it is indeed guilty until proven innocent.


Not to mention that your analogy is crap and doesn't make sense. The legal system =/= the scientific community.

The burden of proof in the scientific community works entirely different.


The only one making a clone of himself here, is you (as usual).

Modifié par Heretic_Hanar, 21 août 2013 - 06:29 .

[David7204]

That's your argument? "In practice it doesn't really work that way."?

[Cainhurst Crow]

David7204 wrote...

You're making a clown of yourself. The presumption of innocence is one of the most fundamental premises of nearly or all legal systems. Innocent until proven guilty. Not guilty until proven innocent.

The presumption of innocence is to allow for a trail, in which both sides gather evidence to argue their points. It dosn't give the client the right to not put up any sort of defense and provide no evidence for his claims, and than just walk. It's to stop executions without fair trial.

Note the word there. FAIR. As in, you have the chance to gather evidence and prove your case right without anyone interfering. You can gather evidence to support your claim and it won't be thrown out or buried.

The defendant still needs to put up a defense however. Or what, do you think all the evidence needs to come from the prosecutor and the defense attorney needs to do zero work on the matter?

[Erez Kristal]

Darth Brotarian wrote...

David7204 wrote...

It's the exact same premise. You're making an accusation and trying to prove it. The defense doesn't need proof. They don't need evidence. They only have to show you haven't proven your case.

David, this is so stupid even you need to know this isn't how cases work. A defense without evidence to prove their client innocent, or their accusation as legitimate, looses it's case.

There is no if, ands, or buts, about it. Unless the court is a kangaroo court, lacking evidence is the quickest wat to loose your case.

David is correct with this one, its the duties of the accusation to prove someone is guilty, as along as you have a reasonable doubt they are considered innocents

[The Heretic of Time]

David7204 wrote...

That's your argument? "In practice it doesn't really work that way."?

Yes. And the fact that your analogy sucks (the law =/= science). And the fact that you don't seem to understand how science works (burden of proof doesn't work the way you think it works). Those are my arguments a well.

[David7204]

All the defense has to do is show that the prosecution has failed to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt, yes. Very often this involves no evidence.

[Cainhurst Crow]

erezike wrote...

David is correct with this one, its the duties of the accusation to prove someone is guilty, as along as you have a reasonable doubt they are considered innocents

Reasonable doubt needs to be proven with evidence. The prosecutor needs to prove the person commited the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. But the defense needs to also prove that there does exist reasonable doubt as well, which is done by providing counter evidence and their own witnesses to counter the statements of the prosecutors witnesses. Among other things.

So stop defending a person who is blatently wrong and learn the fundamentals of a legal system. I don't know what your game is, but it's sad to watch and I pity you.

[MrFob]

erezike wrote...
water lowest temperatures is  -55 celsius.

Wait ... what?

Anyway, on topic: Of course, most of ME's science is straight up ridiculous because most of it depends on Eezo, the properties of which defy a number of physical principles.
Personally, I am a fan of BS science in scifi if it is presented in a believable manner. I think they did this rather well in ME1. Unfortunately, in the later games, there occur more and more things that stretch that believability, and yes, I do consider the Lazarus project and Shepard's resurrection one of them as well. However, you will find instances of those in every scifi universe. The other problem is that everyone has a different threshold for what they can live with and what they can't. From what can gather, Chris L'Etoille was one person who maintained a balance there which I was very comfortable with. Unfortunately he quite during the dev time of ME2 and IMO it shows.
When it comes right down to it though, I will admit that my threshold for accepting pseudo science is ultimately defined by the underlying plot.
For example, I can buy into the premise that they could develop a QEC and even that Mass Relays can create a corridor of mass fre space for instantaneous travel (let's face it, that is magic as well). I buy it because it doesn't conflict with the plot but it rather supports the plot. I mostly have trouble with the speudo science if it supports a plot point , which I didn't like in the first place, such as the Lazarus Project, which is used as a pretext for the narrative reboot between ME2 and 3 or the whole crucible affair.
In other words, if the plot is good and interesting enough, I can forgive some scientific liberties. If it is not however, I tend to scrutinize more. It's all about narrative cohesion and consistency.

[Cainhurst Crow]

David7204 wrote...

All the defense has to do is show that the prosecution has failed to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt, yes. Very often this involves no evidence.

You should attend a trial next time, or maybe watch one taking place. I'd like to see where your getting your idea of how defense attorney's work.

Can you even cite a case in which the defense attorney needed no evidence to prove their clients innocent. No testimony, or witnesses, no alibies, nothing at all.

[David7204]

No. Completely wrong. Reasonable doubt exists as a given. Reasonable doubt is presumed to exist at the start of the case. The defense doesn't have to prove it. They only have to preserve it.

[Cainhurst Crow]

David7204 wrote...

No. Completely wrong. Reasonable doubt exists as a given. Reasonable doubt is presumed to exist at the start of the case. The defense doesn't have to prove it. They only have to preserve it.

And they preserve it with COUNTER EVIDENCE TO THE EVIDENCE OF THE PROSECUTOR, YOU IGNORANT BUFFON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Modifié par Darth Brotarian, 21 août 2013 - 06:39 .

[David7204]

They can, if they have it. But they don't need it. They only need to suggest reasonable and plausible alternatives, which don't require evidence. 

Modifié par David7204, 21 août 2013 - 06:42 .

[The Heretic of Time]

Guys this discussion is pointless. Why the f- are we talking about our legal system while that is completely off-topic and totally not related to the earlier discussion at hand?

David's analogy sucks, it's terrible and it's wrong. It doesn't deserve the attention you guys are giving it.

[Erez Kristal]

MrFob wrote...

erezike wrote...
water lowest temperatures is  -55 celsius.

Wait ... what?

http://www.thenakeds...news/news/2440/

in none scientific enviroment the lowest which was found i think was -3 

0 celsius is an old and wrong conception

[Zazzerka]

erezike wrote...

0 celsius is an old and wrong conception

HAS MY ENTIRE LIFE BEEN A LIE!?

[Cainhurst Crow]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

Guys this discussion is pointless. Why the f- are we talking about our legal system while that is completely off-topic and totally not related to the earlier discussion at hand?

David's analogy sucks, it's terrible and it's wrong. It doesn't deserve the attention you guys are giving it.

Very well. I am done with this anyway. Godamn sick of this ****. ****.

And why the hell do we have in real time language translation software? Where the heck is the audio even being translated in real time to be heard? Where is the device used to hear the translated audio? Why is there 0 delay at all and why can it still function on the leviathan planet where all electronics are getting continously fried?

[ParkBom]

Insurance, find me money!

[The Heretic of Time]

erezike wrote...

0 celsius is an old and wrong conception

No it isn't. The only moments when we get to have liquid water on lower temperatures than 0 degrees Celsius is when super cooling occures. Under normal circumstances, the 0 degrees celsius applies as the freezing/melting point of water, always.

Celsius makes more sense than Fahrenheit anyway. Of course Kelvin is the way to go, but only in science to they use Kelvin as far as I know.


Just wanted to point that out.

[Erez Kristal]

Zazzerka wrote...

erezike wrote...

0 celsius is an old and wrong conception

HAS MY ENTIRE LIFE BEEN A LIE!?

Now that would argument would really derail this topic.  here is another source but they only mention a -48C
Still cold enough 


as for truama gel that fix a leak in the suit - if you have a trauma gel that fix a leak in the body(medi gel) is it really hard to believe that you also have a gel that fix leaks in the suit? if you didnt shepard would die due to exposure after gun fire.

We already know that the soldier suit can fix itself since it returns to full functionality after combat in me1&me2 (health regeneration like in crysis) it is most likely that despite we arent being told about in game, due to the way the game machanics work. soldier shepard has a high nano tech suit which repairs itself which explains its repairing capabilities and the ability to function just like new after rocket drone hits and high gunfire.

shepard eventually died at the beginning of me2 due to lack of oxygen and strengh of impact on the ground.

But due to his suit and the wonders of terminal velocity he wasnt turned into paste, dead? sure. but not paste. 

Modifié par erezike, 21 août 2013 - 06:59 .