97 réponses à ce sujet

[Dethateer]

Well, have we properly harnessed the energy of that gigantic thermonuclear reactor out in space? Or have we developed a working method of diverting an asteroid?

[Dethateer]

Eh? Sol emits quite a bit of energy, it's not about whether it can or not be harnessed, it's about how. Same with the asteroid (with which we WILL have to deal with, at some point in the future, distant or not), it's not a question of whether it will be dealt with, but how.

[Dethateer]

Working on it =/= having it. Until we actually have the tech, yes, we are.

Modifié par Dethateer, 08 avril 2010 - 06:03 .

[Dethateer]

Why me? I've still got two years of highschool left.

[Landline]

Flash_in_the_flesh wrote...

Alliance? There's 50/50 chance it's turian. Normandy has similar engines and it's human/turian construction.

Actually the Alliance battleships we see at the end on ME1 and the engines on the human friegters are the same.

[Gorthaticus]

I think the problem is your using "asteriod diversion" as a basis of intelligence, or at least as a necessary-step in a process that only you have in your head. Granted, the ability to deflect an asteroid or meteor or whatever would greatly enhance our survivability on say, a galactic scale, but your basing intelligence on our abilities is arbitrary. I might be wrong, but it appears that your arguing what your expectations of the human race are, ie capability to deflect asteroids, and not our intelligence. The only process to discovering the answer here, I think, is comparison, because that is what people universally accept as a fact, or basis to run their lives. We're all getting into hypotheticals and opinions because we're the only sapient beings we know, and we haven't found some kind of universal objective "intelligence" meter to prove us wrong.

[Dethateer]

Gorthaticus wrote...

I think the problem is your using "asteriod diversion" as a basis of intelligence, or at least as a necessary-step in a process that only you have in your head. Granted, the ability to deflect an asteroid or meteor or whatever would greatly enhance our survivability on say, a galactic scale, but your basing intelligence on our abilities is arbitrary. I might be wrong, but it appears that your arguing what your expectations of the human race are, ie capability to deflect asteroids, and not our intelligence. The only process to discovering the answer here, I think, is comparison, because that is what people universally accept as a fact, or basis to run their lives. We're all getting into hypotheticals and opinions because we're the only sapient beings we know, and we haven't found some kind of universal objective "intelligence" meter to prove us wrong.

Erm, where did I say anything about intelligence?

[Dethateer]

DrathanGervaise wrote...

Dethateer wrote...

Erm, where did I say anything about intelligence?

So you're saying that intelligence has nothing to do with how advanced a sapient species is?

I'm saying I was reffering to us being primitive technologically. You're not stupid because you don't know basic maths before going to school.

Modifié par Dethateer, 08 avril 2010 - 06:20 .

[Dethateer]

You're telling me I have no reference point to consider us primitive because we're the only species with technology (that we know of) and therefore the term "primitive" is improperly used.
I'm trying to tell you that I'm considering our species primitive based on what we can and cannot do with readily-available resources, NOT compared to anything else that might or not exist.
Basically we're talking about different things.

Modifié par Dethateer, 08 avril 2010 - 06:27 .

[Dethateer]

DrathanGervaise wrote...

Dethateer wrote...

You're telling me I have no reference point to consider us primitive because we're the only species with technology (that we know of).
I'm trying to tell you that I'm considering our species primitive based on what we can and cannot do with readily-available resources.
Basically we're talking about different things.

If they were readily available we would be using them.

Just saying.

Sun - readily available. Do we have the technology to rely on it alone for power? No.

Modifié par Dethateer, 08 avril 2010 - 06:28 .

[Gorthaticus]

Where is the line drawn for being primitive or not primitive? The only basis we have for being primitive right now, is from all the ideas that we, humanity, have come up with. You play a video game like me2, or watch star wars or star trek, dr. who, whatever the list goes on, and we're immediately primitive? For all we know we could be the most advanced beings in the universe, and our problem is an over-active imagination. How does one consider being not primitive when the only perspective we have is the past or the present, and not the future. We don't have a basis for comparison for our "primitiveness" without including our own biases about what we think humans should be.

[Dethateer]

Gorthaticus wrote...

Where is the line drawn for being primitive or not primitive? The only basis we have for being primitive right now, is from all the ideas that we, humanity, have come up with. You play a video game like me2, or watch star wars or star trek, dr. who, whatever the list goes on, and we're immediately primitive? For all we know we could be the most advanced beings in the universe, and our problem is an over-active imagination. How does one consider being not primitive when the only perspective we have is the past or the present, and not the future. We don't have a basis for comparison for our "primitiveness" without including our own biases about what we think humans should be.

Darthan already said pretty much that, more than once. However, you are correct, yes, I am basing the use of the term "primitive" on a predicted future. Not the most objective thing one could do, I admit.

Back to my point about solar power. A basic form of the technology exists. Technology is always improving. Isn't there a high probability of it becoming ever more efficient?

[Zulu_DFA]

Lord_Tirian wrote...

Dethateer wrote...

Except that living pilots are much better at combat than drones.

Talk about that at 20G acceleration again.

This would be the best argument against manned fighters, but the game is called Mass Effect, and revolves around FTL made available by reducing the mass of spacecraft and everything inside it to near absolute zero.

Modifié par Zulu_DFA, 14 avril 2010 - 07:19 .