No announcement yet.
16 results in 0.00 seconds.
You can also choose from the.
What about the Ripsaw? From what I remember, it's the fastest dual tracked vehicle ever to be made, and it can drive over pretty much everything. (Do a youtube search for some cool footage.)
Okay, I'm not completely certain that I read the last post correctly, so feel free to clarify if I am responding to a misunderstood reply.
Yes, it would take an exceptional idiot to say that, if a field was not classified as science, then it wasn't truthful. Mathematics, for example, although it might not be considered science (depending on the definition used) generally works much better than the empirical sciences, since the latter tends to take a long time to separate fact from almost-truths.
I suggest, if you do find anyone who tries to argue like this, then you keep the association fallacy in mind. So, if someone argues that an aspect of chemistry has been inherited from alchemy, that does not make it inherently flawed. For example, alchemy was correct in that iron can be transformed into gold, even if this truth was only pure coincidence.
EDIT: I was reading through vol 1 ch 3 of Richard Feynman's Lectures on Physics, and I found this quote, which says things much better than I could.
(Mathematics is not a science from our point of view, in the sense that it is not a natural science. The test of its validity is not experiment.) We must, incidentally, make it clear from the beginning that if a thing is not a science, it is not necessarily bad. For example, love is not a science. So, if something is said not to be a science, it does not mean that there is something wrong with it; it just means that it is not a science.Last edited by SEA-106; 09-13-2011, 03:49 AM.
Note that this is a relatively short explanation. If you want anything longer, go read the some Wikipedia entries. (if you don't trust Wikipedia, follow its' sources) Also, I suggest you read some of Richard Feynman's work.
The definition of science that you'll find in most dictionaries, which is something along the lines of 'the systematic organisation of knowledge,' is too comprehensive to be of very much practical use, especially to scientists. It isn't too far removed from the archaic definition of 'knowledge of any kind,
' as this definition, along with including obvious areas such as biology, physics, and chemistry, also includes divisions such as computer science, linguistics, history, and even mythology. (that is, the study of myths, not the actual belief in them)
Almost anyone who isn't a scientific philosopher will use a definition fairly similar to Richard Feynmans', i.e., 'The principle of science, the definition, almost, is the following: The test of all knowledge is experiment. Experiment is the sole judge of scientific 'truth'.'
Mathematics does not work on experimentation and observation, but rather, accepting unprovable assumptions (axioms) as true, and using deductive reasoning to work from there. Obviously, if empirical knowledge is contrary to their axioms, they will revise them, but mathematics is not an experiment-based field of knowledge. Mathematics most certainly does not use the inductive-reasoning-based scientific method.
By the definition of most people, including most scientists, and probably the person who made that banner, mathematics, along with other fields that don't use the scientific method, is not a science. By the definition of the rest, mathematics is a science, but a completely different aspect that isn't closely comparable to what most people think of as 'science.' Note that this doesn't make it any less true.
As I explained in my last post, the fact that mathematics is used deeply by science is irrelevant. Physics might be a science, and might use mathematics extensively, but 'definition by association' does not apply.
There's a bunch of different definitions for science and mathematics, but I believe Wikipedia puts it in the best way.
Whether mathematics itself is properly classified as science has been a matter of some debate. Some thinkers see mathematicians as scientists, regarding physical experiments as inessential or mathematical proofs as equivalent to experiments. Others do not see mathematics as a science, since it does not require an experimental test of its theories and hypotheses. Mathematical theorems and formulas are obtained by logical derivations which presume axiomatic systems, rather than the combination of empirical observation and logical reasoning that has come to be known as scientific method. In general, mathematics is classified as formal science, while natural and social sciences are classified as empirical sciences.
Note that the fact that mathematics is extensively used in many areas of science is irrelevant, similar to the way that, although a scientist uses a watch, it does not turn the watch into a subsection of science.
Oh, and by the way, my favorite number is probably four. (and not for any reasons to do with superstition)
I prefer to have grey morality in stories, but it does not mean I would like all faction to be equally grey. After all, a one-tone perspective isn't exactly better than a two-tone one.
Simply put, I have no problem with the fact that Nod may be darker than GDI. In my humble opinion, Tiberium Wars portrayed the factions quite well.
You do realize that there is a fairly sizable difference between mathematics and science, right?
There's a huge variation amongst the players online. I've played against a huge range of players, from those who are polite when they lose, and give advice when they win, to those who flame people for every reason. (or in some cases, don't even need a reason)
My most memorable time was when an opponent in an Empire mirror claimed I was cheating. When I asked him how he would know if I was cheating, he said he saw it with his maphack. He then denied the existence of his maphack (when I threatened to report to EA) but continued to insist that I was a cheater.
No. Such a situation would be greatly overpowered. Lorewise, I doubt that a tank being carried that high in the air, without an advanced computer to aid its weapons, would be able to hit any object. For closer objects, they would also need to swivel down their turret, which they cannot do in their situation.Last edited by SEA-106; 03-10-2011, 10:06 PM.
No offense, but you may want to split that ^^ into paragraphs. That wall of text is really hard to read.
Personally, I think Kane is such an iconic figure that it would be incredibly hard to make a tiberium universe game without him.
Probably not a bad time to point out that a single infiltrator in a tech lab will destroy kirovs and disable apocs. Spies/shinobi can be difficult, and often unviable, to use, but it doesn't hurt to keep an eye out for oppurtunities.
Seriously, though, by the time someone has 5 apocs and 5 kirovs, the opposing player will likely have at least some migs/apollos/tengus. They can take down kirovs independently, while either an anti-ground air unit can kill apocs without opposition, or they can be dealt with more directly by tier 3 tanks or anti-tank infantry.
Honestly, not many players would build a kirov/apoc army without anti-air to defend them. Considering the joint cost of these units though, even if they did build anti-air units, they are unlikely to have build enough to defend against your forces. Take out the anti-air units, then pummel them with an airforce.
If a larger army than yours attacks your main base, and you are unable to defend it, you've basically lost. You may be able to pointlessly postpone your defeat by hiding at sea. As such, it is generally best to attempt to protect your main base, in the hope you can survive.
However, if it is late in the game, and you have enough bases around the map to survive despite your main base being destroyed, it may be more wise to retreat, and save your resources for other battles.
This is pretty obvious, but if you are going to run, don't just ignore your base. If nothing else, sell the structures (unless you desperately need them to slow down the enemy army as they destroy the said structures) to get some of your money back, and a few basic infantry.
It really depends on what faction you are playing, and what they are doing. Against another Empire player, Tengus or a tengu/striker mix are almost the only viable option, but other factions have counters to them, especially later in the game.
It would probably be smartest for them to work on Generals 2 next. They need to distance themselves from the Tiberium universe for now, after what happened with C&C4, and try and start afresh. Generals would be the best universe to do that with.
From a long time of playing RA3 at relatively high levels, and close contact with players at top levels, I have gathered that the game is relatively balanced. Factions do have some perceived "imbalances," but they tend to balance each other out.
However, the Empire navy is rarely used, and very rarely usable against good players. The common mantra that Soviets=Ground, Allies=Air, and Empire=Sea is greatly flawed. Generally, a naval strat by an Empire player is a quick trip to defeat. They can sometimes be utilized in the endgame, and a navy can be an enjoyable way to mop up an easy opponent, but at top-level play, the Empire navy is generally only viable when the opponent also goes for a naval strat.
If you're playing against someone even slightly good at Red Alert 3, Kirovs will most likely be a waste of money.
In extremely rare situations, a surprise kirov can do a lot of damage, but that will rely upon your opponent not scouting it before it reaches his base. And if a tactic relies upon the failure of your opponent, then it isn't likely to work well.Last edited by SEA-106; 03-09-2011, 10:39 PM. Reason: BB code doesn't seem to work.