Crusinos's page

213 posts (216 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 alias.


RSS

1 to 50 of 213 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

Driven to suicide via being permanently assigned to moderate political opinions on Reddit.


Happy belated birthday, Rysky!

I wish I had been paying attention. I was more concerned with work.


memorax wrote:
Can we add "B" movie suggestions to the list?

Yes! Some of the movies I've enjoyed the most are B movies. The best ones are the ones where the actors clearly know what kind of movie they're in and are just having fun.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I can't knock on a door without it exploding off its hinges and killing everyone in the room.

#level20problems


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigDTBone wrote:
KarlBob wrote:

Speaking of ether, I heard something interesting about dark matter recently on NPR: for all we know, there could be tons of the stuff all around us right this moment, even passing through our bodies. It almost never interacts with the kind of matter that we're made of, so we don't notice it.

That sounds a lot like ether (except for the "transmission medium for light waves" aspect of ether). If you had some way to increase the interaction of normal matter with dark matter, and only turned it on when the normal matter was traveling "backwards" in the resonant chamber of an EM-style drive, then you would have something to push against. Since it wouldn't interact with the rest of the ship, you'd go forward.

(Sure, it wouldn't work for many, many reasons, but it's fun to resurrect a discredited 19th Century theory like ether by substituting a 20th/21st Century buzzword like dark matter.)

Didn't we recently learn that Dark Matter probably doesn't exist? Or at least not nearly in the amounts or the way we previously thought. As in, we were arrogant enough to make up a whole other type of theoretical matter because our existing technology wasn't able to "see" the matter that made something be as heavy as it was supposed to be. Then we used a better piece of technology and were able to see it, and now we are tossing 50 years of science out the nearest airlock.

I could be off on this, but I seem to remember hearing quite a bit about it lately.

Commenting while home from work temporarily (exciting time with the particle accelerators!).

As far as I know, we never found the missing matter and every test to find dark matter turned up goose eggs. As in, by all evidence the missing matter simply is not there. I know there's been some work on alternative theories of gravity, such as this one.

I would be very interested if we found that missing matter.

Edit
Was this the discovery you were referring to?


phantom1592 wrote:
Crusinos wrote:

The only reason there needs to be an Iron Man is because the technology not only exists, but has spread outside of Stark. Technology like that doesn't just go away after it's had such a proven success record. They make more of it.

Yes, there has to be an Iron Man. Because if Stark simply retires, someone else will just pick up the name to use the fame for their own ends.

I didn't say there didn't need to be any armored superheroes... I said there didn't need to be an 'Iron Man' or more realistically a 'tony stark'. Even more specifically there doesn't need to be an Iron Man that has the camera pointed at him on the big screen... Now that the tech exists... there are a TON of Marvel Characters with tech based battlesuits... Armor Wars was based on that principle. 1) They don't need to be called Iron Man... and 2) They don't need to be on the Avengers. Those are characters best used as headlines on CNN or Daily Bugle to let you know they exist... but don't need to be important.

War Machine was a legitimate choice as a replacement... Pepper can get the Rescue armor... Or we can replicate one of the two dozen Avenger teams that Tony didn't bother working with. Before 2008 Iron Man was really a b-list character at best that Marvel had no idea what to do with. The idea of 'Recast or kill him' doesn't really make sense. Tony and Iron Man can easily be written off or ignored for any Phase 4 or 5 movies without the 'finality' of a death scene. I love how they name drop Stark in Agents of Shield, but RDJ never makes an appearance. He's there, the SHIELD deals with him off screen.

I just have one question: Why does a future Iron Man have to be Tony Stark? As long as the armor is the same and the goals fought for are the same, you could stick just about anyone in that suit.

They don't have to recast or kill him. Just have him hand it off to someone else. It would be easy to justify, after Iron Man 3 and Civil War.

There's also the big problem in the MCU that those other armor characters mostly don't exist. That was made abundantly clear in Iron Man 2. A bunch of people in power armor showing up at any point would need to be explained, and they set it up so that Stark is the explanation. And I bet Stark's ego wouldn't let Iron Man simply vanish. It's his greatest accomplishment.


GoatToucher wrote:
Back in my day, RIFTS caused a burning sensation that required the use of potent prescription ointments and topical creams to alleviate. Simply avoiding the game proved more cost effective.

Back in my day, we used pit traps loaded with RIFTS books to discard disruptive players.


And I think my list is full :D

But, please keep the suggestions coming?


The only reason there needs to be an Iron Man is because the technology not only exists, but has spread outside of Stark. Technology like that doesn't just go away after it's had such a proven success record. They make more of it.

Yes, there has to be an Iron Man. Because if Stark simply retires, someone else will just pick up the name to use the fame for their own ends.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Okay, here's a question that bugs me...

Do marine mammals see a different light spectrum than humans do?


Loving these suggestions so far!

And, yes, NSFW movies will be good. They can't be any worse than the supposedly SFW jokes I overhear in some of the labs... I will never look at pickles the same way again...


Deleted my previous post. I'm getting too negative.

But, Sissyl, this is the conclusion from the very first link I posted:

"The results presented here underscore the importance of developing the understanding to identify and optimize neurostimulation protocols. Our results suggest that the time course of both online and offline learning is critical for the observed changes in working memory and procedural flight performance."

Not the entire thing, but the rest of the conclusion was just stating they need to optimize it. But, basically, the people were only learning so fast and this study was figuring out a baseline figure for a nonoptimal version of induced enhanced learning. And reading only the conclusion, you are left with no clue what the actual offline or online learning methods are or how they used neurostimulation; in short, your conclusion that the study says nothing that I said it did is based on almost no information at all.

Your statement that sensory overload says nothing I say it does in relation to limits on neurons processing information reveals how much of your reaction to everything I posted was based on assumption; I stated nothing about it being related to processing limits. I stated both it and another item, sensory gating, in relation to why quantum entangling chemical communications between neurons is a bad idea.

You speak of no longer wanting to play a game. Does this mean you will finally take this conversation seriously? Or are you going to still make assumptions and not bother to pay attention to what I'm saying instead of what you assume I say? If it's the second, please don't bother replying further.

Even this post is more negative than intended. I'm going to take a couple days to focus on more positive things, then see if you replied or not.


Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Crusinos wrote:
Being able to travel faster than light through warping space is very much a theory that's shown up in science. The idea of there being a particle behind gravity actually is part of modern science theory; it's called dark matter instead of gravitons these days. There's a few others as well.

Dark matter is not gravity, it's the name given to the "missing matter" that we estimate is 90 percent of the universe's mass, but we have no way to directly detect it. Gravitons on the other hand are the theorised carriers of the gravity force.

Traveling faster than light is a theory, true, but with a lot of caveats.

1. The first example is tachyons which are particles that can not go slower than the speed of light. Problem is that their mass would be a multiple of i... the square root of minus 1. They have not yet been detected to date.

2. Models such as the Alcubierre effect. Problem is that such effects aren't steerable, they require insane amounts of energy to initiate, you can't perceive the universe outside of the warp bubble, and once started, they can't be turned off.

CERN says dark matter is the main carrier of gravity that holds galaxies together. And the National Geographic article makes it pretty clear that dark matter is the carrier of gravity and dark energy is, basically, anti-gravity.

Personally, I think they're all full of crap. I'm more a fan of emergent gravity. Dark matter has the problem that every effort to look for it can't find it, and the combined lack of finding anything suggests it doesn't exist.

I'm not arguing that Star Trek versions of warping space are not flawed beyond reason. I used Star Trek as an example precisely because it is that flawed.


Sissyl wrote:
Rrrright. Again, the study you link to says not what you claim. Stress in a cell biological perspective is not in any way connected to stress in a psychological perspective.

That's why I said what I did about "the important information." There is also a massive difference between psychological and physical stress, which is why I talked about "overloading" the mitochondria with information in that last post. I figured someone would confuse psychological stress with physical stress (which are very much not the same thing).

Quote:

That losing the mitochondria in neurons is bad is obvious. That it happens when the cell is subjected to stress is equally obvious. When else would it happen? Further, QE (and here I admit to leaving areas I know well) is very much not as it is described in SF, simply because yes, if one particle changes the other will as well, but both also change state randomly, which means you can't actually use it. Either way, it is very much fiction to draw any sort of conclusion from using QE with neurons.

Any further studies, or are we done, Crusinos?

Quantum entanglement allows for one-directional information flows, in a nonrandom fashion. Other aspects of quantum entanglement across time have even been considered for use in time capsules and data storage. Basically, quantum entanglement isn't random in how the particles affect each other.

Based upon that, figuring out the effects of quantum entanglement upon the human brain is a simple matter of some basic knowledge of neurochemistry, an idea of how to best use quantum entanglement to transmit knowledge through time, an idea of what information you are sending so you know what you need to entangle, and a knowledge of how the transmitted information will affect the human brain. Given the brain transmits information either through chemicals (between cells) or electricity (across each cell), and the fact that sensory gating and sensory overload are both issues with the chemical process, it's a simple matter to understand that electricity is the best method of information transference. Beyond that, you just need to look at the physical effects of too much electricity on neurons.

Want links to some of that information? Sensory gating and sensory overload can both be easily googled, and as much as I am loathe to use the site I must admit that Wikipedia has not terrible articles on the subjects.

Edit
Note on that talk of entanglement in the article: Yes, that information is true. Yes, it is also true that quantum entanglement can be used for one-way transmission of information where one particle loses and another gains. That is the least of contradictions in quantum mechanics. I've heard quantum mechanics described as the best evidence that H.P. Lovecraft was right about the universe.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

After casting Time Stop while under the effects of Time Stop cast while Time Stop is active, I think I broke time.

#level20problems


2 people marked this as a favorite.

There is a webcomic I think is worth a read: Flaky Pastry. It has an utterly adorable proposal and a king not willing to let that be a problem for the royal lineage.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
KSF wrote:

Just heard about a cool project call In a Bind.

Basically, they take donations of binders that are no longer needed, and then make them available to trans masculine and genderqueer youth in need. Details at the link.

I'll let my work know about this. We'll see what binders clear quarantine procedures and donate those.


A very confused warforged who thinks combat is a dance contest and attacks are dance moves.

Imagine the very confused enemies when he asks the wizard to "make some sparkly lights."


Polar opposites. The Arctic and Antarctic are at opposite geographical poles ;)


"Aren't you Mr. Stark's bodyguard? Why are you here in an Iron Man suit?"
"Fo' sheezy Stark-reezy wanna-beezy fighteezy!"
"... what?"
"Mr. Stark is paying me to annoy you. And fight evil."
"STAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARK!"


Didn't fit his character in the movies either. The ending, where he simply announced he is Iron Man? That was very much in character with everything he had done up to that point.

I've always found the movie Stark to be interesting because he is the one character you can measure the personal growth on, yet still very much see shades of who he was originally. But, at his core, Stark is a troll, and even in Civil War we see that evident in some of what he does.

That's also why it is I think that he would choose his successor based purely on how much it would anger whoever was his target of the week.


Saying the Antarctic is a land mass is a bit of an oversimplification. Part of the ice is in the ocean as well. And, at it largest extent we know of, half of that ice cap was in the water. But, I think that was before global warming set in.

But, yes. They are pretty much almost exact opposites.


They could take Stark out of the picture by paralyzing him. I know it's not the kindest of solutions, but I could see it. And knowing Stark, he'd respond by finding someone even more obnoxious to take his place. And every time someone comes to complain at him about Iron Man still being active, he just smirks and reminds them he's still paralyzed, so it's not him in the armor.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tacticslion wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Apparently, the key Disney Parent Survival Tip: Stay the f~%! away from your child until the late teens.

** spoiler omitted **

Spoiler:
I think they were trying to reflect the much different threshold for adulthood in Ancient Greece than today without bogging down the narrative. "Teenager" is a very modern concept.

Thomas Seitz wrote:

I heard a rumor from some some untrustworthy sources that because the Antarctic isn't melting as fast as it is in the Arctic, that Global Warming isn't being caused by humans, rather the tilt/angle of the earth combined with some emissions.

Anyone else think that's crap or is that just me?

It is crap. The Arctic and Antarctica are different in almost every way. About the only similarity is that there's ice.

It would be like using cold weather on Mars to say global warming isn't happening.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

105) Emergency flail (if you're not the wizard).


Orville Redenbacher wrote:
I'd guess video killed an RPG star. I think video games have evolved to a point they are pulling away from TTRPGs. I know several years ago I was gaming with Dungeons and Dragons online and had the pleasure to listen to two youngsters talk about TTRPGs. One guy asked, "do people still play with pen and paper?" the reply was, "yeah but only in poor countries without computers and internet...."

Most "pen and paper" games I've been in these days are played with computers at the table. Tablets make for easy character sheets that save a lot of paper, and laptops can make fantastic DM screens.

I don't think there's many groups left who still use pen and paper.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Viscount of Two Moons Hence wrote:

Judging by how many giant inflatable human sized hamster balls we sell, I will agree.

Giant human sized hamster balls, the transportation of the future.

Most likely jet powered, and steered via Braintooth (think a blue tooth that you put on your temple)

I can, um, guarantee at least a few of them are NOT used for transportation purposes...

Also, they need to be more durable.


Belated happy birthday!

Do you have a fun activity planned for Christmas yet?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Please keep them coming. I'm building my late-December after-work movie list :D


Sissyl wrote:

Crusinos: The study you linked to does not say what you claim. If you read their conclusions section, it is rather obvious that you misread it. Further, tDCS is by no means a method to "download knowledge". And finally, you have no support for your recurring statement that you would be killed if you got too much information too fast.

I repeat: Do you have any sort of scientific support for your claims?

Try this one.

The important information is the role of mitochondria in cell survival and cell death.

Keep in mind that for a brain cell to receive information from the future, one of the parts of the cell we would have to quantum link to itself over time is the mitochondria, due to its role in helping the cell make sense of its surroundings. However, we would also be stressing the mitochondria far beyond what biology has designed it to take, in addition to overloading the cell with far more electricity than it normally handles. Now, we know that if the mitochondria dies, the cell dies. And since we're both overloading it with information and electrocuting it...

Imagine that happening across your entire visual cortex or your hippocampus.

The most likely effect is probably similar to what this device attempted to accomplish, only it would be using the electricity and electrical fields of your own brain through quantum entanglement.

And that's assuming it's even possible to quantum entangle a still-functional cell with itself in the future and that such doesn't result in a new form of schizophrenia.

Edit
To make it a bit clearer, this is how neurons transmit information. Any quantum entanglement means each neuron would be moving at minimum twice the electricity it normally would, depending on how much information you're receiving at once. If you're receiving several hours across the quantum entanglement, you're talking many hundreds of times the amount of electricity than a neuron normally handles.

That's why, even with induced enhanced learning, you're still talking hundreds or thousands of years before the brain is even capable of handling quantum entanglement.

When I asked one of the scientists I worked with about this, they estimated you could safely receive three to five milliseconds of information across the quantum entanglement. But that was pretty much a guess, and not one they'd bet a human life on.

Irontruth wrote:
Crusinos wrote:

Did she see her future? If so, that's precognition. If not, then you've invalidated your post here and eliminated all basis for your own argument.

The important aspect of precognition that shows up a lot within fiction is the idea that events are predetermined; that what you see will happen no matter what. It even shows up in real-world religion in the concept of prophesy. And a few soft science fiction stories have used temporal quantum entanglement as an explanation for precognition. Typically the ones that try a "hard" sci-fi explanation for psionics (a.k.a. magic with a new coat of paint).

So, did she see the future, or were you arguing about the wrong movie earlier?

Except she's not seeing the future. Every moment she sees is the present.

So you're admitting your earlier post is in error. Good to know. Thank you for the conversation, please have a nice day.

Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Crusinos wrote:

Neither set of fiction is scientifically accurate. One set is based on a study of language and myth, then writing up what amounts to an entire fictional mythology. The other is based on taking a couple of science theories to their Star Trekian extreme.

Star Trek does not take existing theories to an extreme. For the most part, it makes up it's babble totally from it's own cloth. That might be the hidden message in calling a key piece of transporter technology a Heisenberg Compensator.

Star Trek isn't even consistent within it's own technology. On the one hand the transporter is stated not to be a copier in moving people from place to place, and yet in another episode the transporter creates a fully identical copy of William Riker that is just as much the original as standard Riker. Which tends to support the hypothesis that the transporter IS a murder machine.

Being able to travel faster than light through warping space is very much a theory that's shown up in science. The idea of there being a particle behind gravity actually is part of modern science theory; it's called dark matter instead of gravitons these days. There's a few others as well.

The transporters, though, are pretty much pure magic. If I remember correctly, one of the show's writers even admitted such at one point. They just exist because showing someone taking a shuttle down every episode was, originally, more expensive than the transporter sequence.

Executive meddling is also why the consoles explode.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Freehold DM wrote:
Captain ? wrote:

Yeah! capture that Pokemon and/or eat that sushi, whichever it is.

Or isn't. Or was.

that image goes into my uncanny valley pretty freaking deep.

Magikarp rolls!


There's a discussion over whether the movie is hard sci-fi or soft sci-fi, due to some disagreement over whether it relied heavily on scientific theory or dressing an old magic cliche in new clothes.

Trust me, if we got in depth on the quantum mechanics and neurochemistry aspects of it, it would only get more confusing. Then the discussion would be how much of a cell you would have to quantum entangle with itself, only with both ends of the quantum point contact being at two different points in time. And how much of that the cells themselves could handle on both sides of the transmission before dying (creating, in turn, a perceived temporal paradox in which the subject is killed both in the future and the current era at the same time). Something that might not be impossible when you realize quantum mechanics possibly allows for multiple time dimensions, meaning that it could be the future person in one time dimension and the current person in the current time dimension both dying at the same time.

And that's the simple explanation of it.

Aren't sci-fi movies fun?


Irontruth wrote:
Crusinos wrote:

I already provided a link where you can confirm the rate of brain change via induced enhanced learning. You can even check that article's link to the actual study and read the raw data yourself.

The fact that electricity can cause brain death is established medical science. Google it.

The definition of "precognition" can be found in the dictionary.

The bit about drugs causing the ability to speak to the future and alien powers? Lovecraft's works, works by Clark Ashton Smith, the Oracle of Delphi, some Native American traditions, even DnD in some spots...

Oh, and that only seeing one future? That is the textbook sign of precognition and other fantasy methods of seeing the future. It's literally in every fantasy and paranormal movie that deals with seeing the future.

The idea this is using real-world scientific theories is from your own posts on this very thread. If the movie is not using those at all, then you admit you were wrong.

At this point, you have absolutely no evidence outside of personal belief that what I have said is wrong. And I am beginning to wonder if you have completely misinterpreted what I said yet again.

Edit
To explain what I meant about quantum point along the temporal access: I'm describing a quantum point contact. These can happen across time as well as space, or even between time dimensions. You can read more about it here.

There's a lot more to it, especially with theoretical ideas of how it might interact with the brain, but for the most part any ability to get information from the future would require altering a significant portion of the brain to quantum entangle it with a point in the future. And if they're not all set to exactly the same point, you risk insanity or even brain death.

This isn't an insignificant change. And it's assuming the human brain doesn't already use a form of quantum entanglement (this would nicely solve some mysteries of how it

The movie doesn't include any precognition.

Did you see the right movie?

Did she see her future? If so, that's precognition. If not, then you've invalidated your post here and eliminated all basis for your own argument.

The important aspect of precognition that shows up a lot within fiction is the idea that events are predetermined; that what you see will happen no matter what. It even shows up in real-world religion in the concept of prophesy. And a few soft science fiction stories have used temporal quantum entanglement as an explanation for precognition. Typically the ones that try a "hard" sci-fi explanation for psionics (a.k.a. magic with a new coat of paint).

So, did she see the future, or were you arguing about the wrong movie earlier?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I can name one group that knows they're getting close when the Geiger counter starts redlining.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I need a set of movies I can watch with maybe two operating braincells, one of which is probably boozed to the dendrites, and still manage to enjoy it.

And please don't say anything Transformers. Or Michael Bay in particular. If I wanted explosions, I'd go to the experimental chemistry section of the lab.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I might as well post this!

They're working on a form of induced enhanced learning. So far, encouraging results.


thejeff wrote:
Crusinos wrote:

I managed to introduce a new group of players, with new GM to boot, to a module. I described it as "a fun-filled romp full of surprises" when convincing them to play.

It was Tomb of Horrors.

After the first near-TPK, the paladin sold his soul to Asmodeus for the ability to cast true resurrection three times per day per person. It wasn't enough; they still TPKed.

Six TPKs later and rather than try it again, they hunted down Baba Yaga, used her to come to Earth, kidnapped Albert Einstein, used him to build a magical atomic bomb, and literally nuked the dungeon.

And then the GM gave me a dirty look when I revealed it took my original group ten TPKs the first time we played it.

Yeah, I can't even see the appeal in that. Never had any interest in ToH, much less in multiple TPKs in it.

How do you even do that with a puzzle dungeon? Just assume the new group knows the earlier groups did, so they don't have to work out the same traps?

As John Napier said. The sphere of annihilation was the worst one, in my experience. Easy, easy TPK.


I already provided a link where you can confirm the rate of brain change via induced enhanced learning. You can even check that article's link to the actual study and read the raw data yourself.

The fact that electricity can cause brain death is established medical science. Google it.

The definition of "precognition" can be found in the dictionary.

The bit about drugs causing the ability to speak to the future and alien powers? Lovecraft's works, works by Clark Ashton Smith, the Oracle of Delphi, some Native American traditions, even DnD in some spots...

Oh, and that only seeing one future? That is the textbook sign of precognition and other fantasy methods of seeing the future. It's literally in every fantasy and paranormal movie that deals with seeing the future.

The idea this is using real-world scientific theories is from your own posts on this very thread. If the movie is not using those at all, then you admit you were wrong.

At this point, you have absolutely no evidence outside of personal belief that what I have said is wrong. And I am beginning to wonder if you have completely misinterpreted what I said yet again.

Edit
To explain what I meant about quantum point along the temporal access: I'm describing a quantum point contact. These can happen across time as well as space, or even between time dimensions. You can read more about it here.

There's a lot more to it, especially with theoretical ideas of how it might interact with the brain, but for the most part any ability to get information from the future would require altering a significant portion of the brain to quantum entangle it with a point in the future. And if they're not all set to exactly the same point, you risk insanity or even brain death.

This isn't an insignificant change. And it's assuming the human brain doesn't already use a form of quantum entanglement (this would nicely solve some mysteries of how it operates, but opens up a lot more headaches).


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I managed to introduce a new group of players, with new GM to boot, to a module. I described it as "a fun-filled romp full of surprises" when convincing them to play.

It was Tomb of Horrors.

After the first near-TPK, the paladin sold his soul to Asmodeus for the ability to cast true resurrection three times per day per person. It wasn't enough; they still TPKed.

Six TPKs later and rather than try it again, they hunted down Baba Yaga, used her to come to Earth, kidnapped Albert Einstein, used him to build a magical atomic bomb, and literally nuked the dungeon.

And then the GM gave me a dirty look when I revealed it took my original group ten TPKs the first time we played it.


One thing to be wary of on Nexus is that, sometimes, mods for older games get retired by the mod creators. I've run across this at times with Oblivion and New Vegas. And the links they have for prereqs in those older games are also often out of date, so you need to be familiar with the current Nexus URL methodology.


An' ye was drinkin' water from the wharves!

I danced a jig on your dreary rig!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

This one is on my list to see!


Neither set of fiction is scientifically accurate. One set is based on a study of language and myth, then writing up what amounts to an entire fictional mythology. The other is based on taking a couple of science theories to their Star Trekian extreme.

Neither one is accurate to science as we know it; one through ignoring it, the other through exaggerating it to the point it's pretty much magic.

I can tell the difference. What I can't grasp is how it is you seem to think that Arrival is anywhere close to accurate for applying those theories. It's about as accurate with those theories as Pokemon is with evolution.

To explain: We have actual data about how long it takes for induced enhanced learning within the human brain, and the requirements for that learning to take. Including the amount of time. And that's primarily for just one tiny subset of experience. This movie involves not only induced enhanced learning to learn a language, but also to restructure the brain to see all relevant quantum states along the temporal axis. That kind of change, by our current data of where the brain functions and how, would require a significant rewiring of multiple areas of the brain, including areas that evolution itself hasn't touched for a couple million years. That kind of change would, even at the accelerated rate we are currently capable of achieving, probably take close to a couple hundred thousand years to avoid overstressing the hardware of the brain and causing brain death.

And it's basically a story about someone taking drugs and gaining precognition and the ability to talk to an alien power. A very common fantasy and weird fiction story, and extremely well-documented in studies of the occult. And well-executed enough that you don't even mind the cliche.

It's a good movie. Well-acted, well-told, and worth watching over again. But it's no more a great treatise on a principle of science than Star Trek or Pokemon are.


thejeff wrote:
Crusinos wrote:
thejeff wrote:
John Napier 698 wrote:
We must really be Grognards if we have trouble remembering where a specific table came from. :)

Or we're just talking about 1E. I'm pretty sure half the house rules in use back in the day were just because never found the proper rule (or just misunderstood it, since it was incomprehensible).

Or didn't feel like cross-referencing eight different books just to adjudicate a single action.

Came up a lot toward the end of 3E, too. I don't think we used anything remotely close to how the ruleset was actually written by the end of that edition.

Honestly an awful lot of the confusion of 1E was in the core books, particularly the DMG (and the split between what was in the DMG & the PHB.) Both the organization and the actual language were ideosyncratic, to say the least.

To add to that, only the GM was supposed to read the DMG, so anything he misunderstood, he taught to his players as he understood it and so they thought that was official. Often even after they started GMing and actually read the text - it's easy to continue misunderstanding something when you already "know" how it works.

Isn't that part of why 3E, 4E, 5E, and Pathfinder are so particular about terminology?


thejeff wrote:
John Napier 698 wrote:
We must really be Grognards if we have trouble remembering where a specific table came from. :)

Or we're just talking about 1E. I'm pretty sure half the house rules in use back in the day were just because never found the proper rule (or just misunderstood it, since it was incomprehensible).

Or didn't feel like cross-referencing eight different books just to adjudicate a single action.

Came up a lot toward the end of 3E, too. I don't think we used anything remotely close to how the ruleset was actually written by the end of that edition.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Tequila Sunrise wrote:

I'm now home from the hospital, with 38 cm of picc line running to my heart and an antibiotic that requires a weekly blood test to ensure that it's not killing my kidneys.

But I am home, and my other half is making us a real Thanksgiving dinner!!!

I hope you improve rapidly!


Sissyl wrote:
Crusinos, references would be EXTREMELY interesting. I imagine I would have known of studies like that. Looking forward to learning more.

This is the one where they made the most headway. It's so far produced the best results of this.

Now, before you get too excited, note the amount of practice required afterward for the pilots to get it to set in. The brain can only process information and make adjustments so fast.

However, before you think this can go faster, keep in mind there is a reason that electricity used to be a form of execution. Too much electrical stimulation of the brain will kill you. That was first proved by Thomas Edison, if I remember my history right.

Irontruth wrote:
Sissyl wrote:
Crusinos, references would be EXTREMELY interesting. I imagine I would have known of studies like that. Looking forward to learning more.
It wasn't that part that got me. It was trying to claim that the Lord of the Rings was realistic and plausible.

You misread my post. I was using Lord of the Rings to illustrate both the absurdity of your definition and your entire argument.

After all, let's not forget that the concept of magic breaking down to the elements of earth, air, fire, and water comes from very early atomic theory. Just because it has a basis in a scientific theory does not change it being pure magic.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Arakhor wrote:
Crusinos wrote:
I work with people who call quantum mechanics "easy." I've had to play the voice of reason in near-slapfights related to quirks of particles I can't even pronounce the names of, let alone understand the related math.
What do you do that means you work alongside quantum physicists but don't understand any of the physics?

Diplomacy and public relations. My job is to convince people capable of funding their lab experiments that it's a good idea. They also use me as a sounding board for when they have to translate from science-speak to English.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
KarlBob wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Crusinos wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:

I'll take it seriously the day they actually stick it on a probe and try it out...

And then if it works, I'll start demanding a Pluto orbiter.

They won't do that until they figure out how it works. After all, the last thing you want is to find out too late that the engines you just sent up generate black holes in zero gravity. And when you can't explain the physics behind how something works, you can't rule that out.

You don't understand scientists at all do you?

Of course they'd build one and try it just to see what happens. How else are they going to find out how it works? Or if it works.

I'm late to the party, but...

My favorite example of "how scientists are" is Poltergeist. Something spooky and unseen is pulling all the chairs toward the middle of your dining room. If your reaction is to put your kid on one of the chairs and measure how fast it moves under load conditions, you might be a scientist.

And you would quickly get fired from any lab worth speaking of for ethics violations if you're that willing to risk a human life without having first run through tests using inanimate objects or animals.

This isn't Nazi Germany or Pasteur's labs.

1 to 50 of 213 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>