Droid Engineer Archive

---

Kollos wrote:

---

Gavvot wrote:

Like 1+1=2 and other dumb stuff ?

---

No, actually, I used to be able to prove that 1+1=2.

---

---

Kollos wrote:

---

Pallida wrote:

All I am trying to make evident is this.... "We don't know if there is in fact a difference that we cannot properly quantify". Given this, we should NOT, in good conscience, tell a newbie to never use good resources and to never experiment on subcomponents. We just... don.t... know.

---

There are a number of theorems in physics and mathematics for which we have no proof, yet they are still generally accepted as fact.

Evidence exists to support my claim that they make no difference at all. Do you have any evidence that my claim is actually false, or are you just arguing for argument's sake?

---

Message Edited by MachineZed on 04-20-2004 05:21 PM

§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§
§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§
§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§
§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§
§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§
X Machine'Zed X
Obsidian Dagger Squadron

---

Handsnake wrote:

---

Pallida wrote:

STUFF

sssssssssssssSSS(:-<

Message Edited by Pallida on 04-20-2004 05:07 PM

---

Do the experimentation trials I suggested.

Glad to see you got a good job, then. I responded with 'kiddo' because your postsare offensive, posturing, and quite frankly, are not very informative nor constructive. That's not a flame. That's just letting you know your ability to express yourself OR analyze logical arguments (perhaps outside of JOIN statements in SQL and such) is lacking. Therefore, I came to a conclusion that you were a confabulating 20 year old. Seems I was incorrect.

Remember, you're the one who demanded someone prove a negative. I don't care if you're Stephen Hawking on Oracle, a Spiderman of SQL - that demand made you look stupid. (and the depreciation thing ) Hope you see why I thought you were full of fertilizer.

But I hasten to add - thanks for your service in the Armed Forces. I mean that sincerely. DO THOSE TESTS, by the way.

---

Nah.. Like I said, I have a "thick skin" andwill not hold anything against you. However,I suggest that you go back and re-read the posts (in this thread) that you are so dilligently one-starring...

At no time did I demand anyone prove a negative.I only askedfor proof, in the form of Developer's statements, that what"others"were stating was true. What is evident is that there has never been such a statement (by a developer)and that the source code used to caculate the effects of manufacturing componentsis unavailable. In the face of no other "factual evidence", logic dictates that we cannot possibly know what effect experimentation and resource quality has on components that do not lend themselves to quantitativeanalysis. We can "suppose" and "presume", based on our own tests... but we cannot know.

Your recommendation for experimentation, while providing potentially enough data to further a "supposition", cannot be defended against the fact that we still cannot know if there truly is an effect gained/lost by using premium/poor qualityresources and/or experimentation on components and sub-components thatpresently displayno quantifiable effects. Thus, further "experimental testing" can be consideredinappropriate.

---

Pallida wrote:

Your recommendation for experimentation, while providing potentially enough data to further a "supposition", cannot be defended against the fact that we still cannot know if there truly is an effect gained/lost by using premium/poor qualityresources and/or experimentation on components and sub-components thatpresently displayno quantifiable effects. Thus, further "experimental testing" can be consideredinappropriate.

---

That is the whole point. If they display no quantifiable effects, then for all practical purposes they have no effect.

I will conceed your entirely semantical argument that we cannot positively know that they have absolutely no effect unless we have access to the source code. Whatever. It's a meaningless point. I would rather give people an answer that helps themthan give them one that is technically more correct but whichis useless.

Padilla,
you are not contributing to this thread.

Please contribute or excuse yourself.

Thank you,

Experimentation of subcomponents (apart from combat modules) maketh no difference whatsoever..and I have tested the issue to death.

I wish it did matter..but it doesnt..and it cost me a fortune proving it to myself.

Now, the real question is .......does it matter in the new modules?..and for that we shall have to wait and see.

Were it not for the combat modules, I would suggest no..but who knows yet?

Hmm

I experiment on modules and components mainly for pride, and in case it does matter. Heck, not only do I experiment on MA parts, I experiment on cluster modules. And when I make a schematic for a 98% effective food crafting module with a 14 rating, I feel good, darn it.

---

Pallida wrote:

My challenge remains open... Prove it with factual documentation.. i.e.: Show me, in the GUI source code or in the SQL code, where resource quality and experimentation on baseline components have NO effect. Hell I'll even settle for a Developer's statement that this is true.

---

I'd like to politely jump in and shift the focus. Resource quality bears a direct, viable factor in the ability to experiment on the final assembly. Might the components used, bring their overall quality into play on the final assembly/experimentation? Not necissarly the performance, but rather the baseline values, the possiblity to achive amazing results, etc.

I would need to race them, but I do honestly belive a max experimented motive system put into an LE makes him shuffle faster. Tough to call though because they seem to randomly slow down all the time.