The Ur-Quan Masters Home Page Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
September 17, 2019, 03:02:17 am
Home Help Search Login Register
News: Paul & Fred have reached a settlement with Stardock!

  Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 252
1  The Ur-Quan Masters Re-Release / Starbase Café / Re: Outsider, SC inspired web comic... on: September 04, 2019, 05:12:06 pm
Also… the answer to your question would be, COMBAT TRAINING. ffs, dude (not you, the character)
2  The Ur-Quan Masters Re-Release / Starbase Café / Re: Temporal information assymtery on: September 03, 2019, 03:56:00 pm
A) Bosons don't stack. You're thinking of Fermions.  

We might not see any stacking of bosons in our 4 dimensional perspective of spacetime. But can't bosons be stacked in another 5th dimension that is hidden to us, and still appear to have the same location in our 4-dimensional perspective?

This is a very interesting question. The answer is, we can tell.

Suppose you have two identical bosons trapped in an infinitely deep square well; we'll label the two dimensions of this system X and Y. The state can be summarized by two quantum numbers - the number of half-wavelengths in the X direction, and the number of half-wavelengths in the Y direction. Suppose we can only actually see the first of these - we can only measure the number of half-wavelengths in the X direction.

The interesting bit is, even if we can't tell how many half-wavelengths the two bosons have in the Y direction, if they have the same number of half-wavelengths in the X direction, we can tell if they also have the same number of half-wavelengths in the Y direction - if they're in the exact same state in every dimension, that changes the statistics of any interactions.

So, adding a new dimension doesn't let you hide stacking where we can't see it. You might be able to go out of your way to create a janky theory which reproduces the effect at the cost of being much more complicated and not explaining anything new.
3  The Ur-Quan Masters Re-Release / Starbase Café / Re: Temporal information assymtery on: August 30, 2019, 07:27:15 pm
Ok. What about this?



A) Bosons don't stack. You're thinking of Fermions. 
B) GR predicts black holes without reference to QM. 
C) the scaling is wrong. That is, if it were stacking, then energy would be proportional to volume. It's proportional to radius.
4  The Ur-Quan Masters Re-Release / Starbase Café / Re: Temporal information assymtery on: August 29, 2019, 02:25:20 pm
No. Scale is firmly on the 'map' side of the 'map vs territory' distinction.

Even if there were a physical effect, it would be a property of the contents, not an independent dimension. ''Dimension' has a specific meaning, and scale doesn't fit it any better than temperature or magnetic field, neither of which are dimensions (if you are making a model, there is a specific way you can use a different kind of dimension to handle those quantities, but it's not what is meant by 'dimension' in the sense of physical dimensions).
5  The Ur-Quan Masters Re-Release / General UQM Discussion / Re: SCII balancing "cracked" on: August 24, 2019, 04:29:56 am
Yeah, that's a rough one. Maybe let them escape and re-intrude? But the cruiser captain would still be able to just keep moving.

Make the laser quickly raster back and forth in a narrow cone? That'd help with shooting down nukes.

And that still assumes that the AI is smart enough to pull off the planet search strategy… but it doesn't need to be as good at it.
6  The Ur-Quan Masters Re-Release / Starbase Café / Re: Valhalla on: August 20, 2019, 02:13:29 pm
Frankly, I do not see a trend of increasing moral confusion among atheists. And even if there were… the most moral confusion has arisen from stopping asking questions and putting abstractions ahead of just doing good things, which seems rather more like the kinds of things that creating a god would encourage rather than halt.
7  The Ur-Quan Masters Re-Release / General UQM Discussion / Re: SCII balancing "cracked" on: August 16, 2019, 02:58:47 pm
Yeah, it's complicated.
8  The Ur-Quan Masters Re-Release / General UQM Discussion / Re: SCII balancing "cracked" on: August 15, 2019, 03:24:28 pm
Yeah. But my real complaint isn't that the AI is bad, it's that he took his results as solid anyway. For isntance, he called out the Supox as 'actually' being weak right after showing how the AI was flying it in a completely ludicrously stupid way.

I wonder if we could do a PVP version of this with enough dedicated netplay…
9  The Ur-Quan Masters Re-Release / General UQM Discussion / Re: SCII balancing "cracked" on: August 15, 2019, 04:36:44 am
He says the AI's defects won't have a big impact… but it definitely flies some ships well and some very, very poorly (Kohr-Ah, Earthling). I haven't watched the whole video to see if he notes this. I'll get to it…
10  The Ur-Quan Masters Re-Release / Starbase Café / Re: Valhalla on: July 09, 2019, 09:05:29 pm
How does Hinduism strike you? They have a different breakdown.
11  The Ur-Quan Masters Re-Release / General UQM Discussion / Re: Stardock Litigation Discussion on: June 18, 2019, 05:37:45 pm
should the forum take down the "News: Paul Reiche and Fred Ford want to continue the story they started when they created Star Control II — The Ur-Quan Masters. «Happy days and jubilation!» «But wait!» «There is something wrong here... something which makes my sheath retract and my talons ooze.» «Please, Captain, we need your help!»" at the top of the page now that everything is squared away?

I would but it seems to be beyond my admin level.
12  The Ur-Quan Masters Re-Release / General UQM Discussion / Re: Ship Ratings? on: June 18, 2019, 05:35:17 pm
Speaking of ship ratings. I’ve noticed some ships have empty spaces In the ratings. Does this mean the value of a attribute can be anting from one to nine?

Do you mean the hollow squares? That means that under some circumstances it's the lower value but in other ways its the higher value. Like, Druuge or Umgah aren't particularly fast with standard thrust, but they can go very fast by other means.
13  The Ur-Quan Masters Re-Release / General UQM Discussion / Re: Stardock Litigation Discussion on: June 09, 2019, 09:51:52 pm
What I can assume so far based on the post is:
- Stardock may have got a license to the SC1/SC2 copyrights, and F&P/Frungy may have got a license to the Star Control trademark (or some other trademarks, if they also went to Stardock).

You're right to characterize that as an assumption rather than a conclusion since I don't see any support for it.
14  The Ur-Quan Masters Re-Release / Starbase Café / Re: Outsider, SC inspired web comic... on: May 13, 2019, 04:56:18 pm
This pad came from the Bellarmine. Yet, he is addressed by the translation of his name that he gave to the Loroi. So SOMETHING funny is going on. Someone who heard that name and knows how to program on a human device. Historian, perhaps?

Or perhaps it was loaded with the data and then the program put the tablet into quiet mode. In that case whoever sent it already has control over the tablet, so nothing's lost by running the program.
15  The Ur-Quan Masters Re-Release / Technical Issues / Re: UQM and UQM EE .dmg downloaded but can't open (MacOSX) on: April 28, 2019, 04:01:13 pm
I have no idea why you'd lack permission to create a directory in your own home directory. That's weird.  I noticed that the Finder doesn't let you create one that way, but you can do it through the terminal, and I'd expect the installer to act more like the terminal than the Finder in this regard.

Still, if you open the Terminal application in Utilities and enter the command 'mkdir .uqm' that may help.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 252


Login with username, password and session length

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!