1  ...  36  37  38  39  40  41  ...  101  |   Order by default

Aug 8, 2002, 5:30pm

I know, but it's far from the star trek idea of how it'd work. All you have
to do is resequence the photons in a different order for movement, then
resequence them as the arive in the new position. I think they can only
move them like 5 inches before the stream fades.

--Bowen--

[View Quote]

Aug 8, 2002, 5:56pm

Yeah they tested it with an apple.. needless to say the whole apple didn't
go with them. And if they moved it too far only half the apple came with
them.

--Bowen--

[View Quote]

Aug 8, 2002, 11:46pm

> Wow...you just got me to thinking......
> Imagine what they could do in medicine if this were possible!
> Cancer cells could be identified...located...then transported out of the
> infected body!

You'd have to hold the person completely still. The only place this would
be possible is probably in space so gravity doesn't affect it (you're in
free fall in space).

> Now Dion....please don't tell me you would have laughed at Columbus when
he
> said the world wasn't flat:)

Nuclear physics was developed by aristotle(or one of those greek/roman
dudes) I believe, he feared releasing his discoveries because of the way it
may have confliced with his riligion.

--Bowen--

Aug 9, 2002, 12:05am

> What about vacumn tube thingys?

Human life cannot survive in a complete vaccuum, not even a partial one.

--Bowen--

Aug 9, 2002, 12:35am

[View Quote] Is Columbus still sailing for the English? :)

> I do believe it is possible, just not with our current knowledge. It may
be
> possible in the future. Infact, with the rate we're going with Science, I
> wouldn't be surprised if we were taking teleportation for granted in 100
> years.

Doubtfully, it's not on the top of the physicist's list of things to do.
FTL tech is higher up.

--Bowen--

Aug 9, 2002, 3:14pm

> so?? most of the science used there is based on real science

Tell me which science the cloak is based off of. Or maybe the subspace
beacons. :P

> as it already has been said matter transport is not impossible
> anti-matter has been produced already in small quantities as well,
> warp drives and those wepons technologies used in ST are based on real
> science as well..
> so u cant say any of this isnt possible

Well, the warp drive is based off a matter anti-matter reaction right?
Firstly, we can't produce enough anti-matter to propel a space ship. Second
we can't get anywhere near the speed of light. Third, we can't enter
subspace to avoid hitting dust particles that would rip the ship to shreds.

--Bowen--

Aug 8, 2002, 4:48am

http://www.csh.rit.edu/~wxs/images/humor/switch.mov

--Bowen--

Aug 9, 2002, 3:49am

I found something neat while I was searching the web.

http://www.geoshellx.com/

This is definately a must have for all computer buffs that are sick of the
windows environment the way it is. I definately recommend it. I wouldn't
if you're not good with computers as you might get lost.

--Bowen--

Aug 9, 2002, 9:01pm

> Er, no, those are spelling differences, not intensity differences. "Worst"
is more extreme than "worse"; and there is no "worser" or "worsest".

That made no sense. You said they're not intensity differences then say
they are.

They are interchangable though, as says the couple of dictionarys that I
have looked at in the past 10 minutes. They have the exact same meaning,
just different spellings.

--Bowen--

Aug 9, 2002, 10:26pm

"Worst"
> Um, perhaps if you weren't so quick to cut out what I was replying to you
would understand the context. Go back and reread it. I was referring to your
spelling differences (hence why I said "those are spelling differences").
The difference between "worse" and "worst" isn't JUST one of spelling but of
intensity also.

Move on through, that's not what it says. Read it again yourself.
"...those are spelling differences, not intensity differences. 'Worst' is
more extreme than 'worse'." By using extreme you're saying that are
different intensities, but in the sentence earlier your just said they're
not different in intensity. I think you put the "not" in the wrong spot.

> Don't know what kind of wacky dictionaries you're using but dictionary.com
says "worse" is a comparative
(http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=comparative) while "worst"
is a superlative
(http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=superlative).

That's nice, did you put in worse and worst themselves? It shows identicle
information even using that as one of my "wacky dictionaries". Right on.

--Bowen--

Aug 9, 2002, 10:36pm

> Not sure what crazy dictionaries *you're* looking at, but mine makes a
> clear distinction between the two words:
>
> worse - adj. Bad or evil in a greater degree; less good
> worst - adj. Most bad, evil, ill, or corrupt; Most unfavorable,
> unpleasant, or painful
>
> See the difference? :P
>
> If not, I'm surprised you don't consider better and best
> interchangeable, or less and least, or more and most. What did they
> teach *you* in grade school? :P

Bad analogy, you can interchange them in a sentence and still have
completely the same meanings. The other words you could not.

I have the worse teacher.
I have the worst teacher.

They still mean the same thing. They can mean mine is a bad teacher or is
more bad than yours.

I have the best teacher.
I have the better teacher.

We just changed the meaning completely.
Let's try with the other 2 words:

I have more than you do.
I have most than you do.

Does that work at all? I hope not. I guess that's my boonie blood showing
through y'all.

--Bowen--

Aug 9, 2002, 10:42pm

> http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=worst#W0230600
> http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=worse#W0230100

Try again, without looking at just one part. They show the same information
arranged differently. This is the showing of a databse set up.

Which still rests clear, that the way I stated it was perfectly fine with
all these definitions. It still means bad. Maybe I didn't mean the most
absolutely bad you could get, just bad. In which case, this thread has no
meaning anymore.

--Bowen--

Aug 9, 2002, 10:44pm

> "My teacher is not as good as yours."

But we still know it's a bad teacher don't we?

> "My teacher is less good than all other teachers."

Again, it's still a bad teacher.

If I say "I have the worst teacher." and I say "I have the worse teacher."
Can we at least get to the point where we know it's a bad teacher? If not I
guess there's more subtle differences in our dialect than I thought. I at
least figured you could make a clear distinction on what I meant. On
another note, I thought you were leaving the AW Newsgroups?

--Bowen--

Aug 9, 2002, 10:51pm

> No, it doesn't make any sense at all. "[T]hat's most certainly the worse
place to have an flame war." is not correct English.

As was your quotation. Commas can be used to combine sentences and so
therefore I combined that. If you're going to quote do it right.

"...that's most certainly the worse place to have an flame war."

Pardon me, I forgot the y on any. Surprised you didn't catch that one, oh
mighty Canadian god of English.

--Bowen--

Aug 9, 2002, 10:54pm

> ::rolleyes:: That was merely an overreaction to a flood of total crap... I
did return.

OH NO! You forgot the two spaces after your colons. Oh no, after the
elipses too! Why pick on my use of grammar other semanticle mumbo jumbo if
you don't follow it strictly yourself?

--Bowen--

Aug 9, 2002, 10:55pm

> OH NO! You forgot the two spaces after your colons. Oh no, after the
> elipses too! Why pick on my use of grammar other semanticle mumbo jumbo
if
> you don't follow it strictly yourself?

Oh oh, I forgot an and after grammar... don't punish us God of English.

--Bowen--

Aug 9, 2002, 11:28pm

> Actually, I did catch it. Though I did think it was just you saying "an"
instead of "a"... By the way, usually "God" is spelled with
> a capital 'G' ;)

Nope, only if you want it to take the place of someone's name. It's just an
adjective as it is. Until I feel like using it differently.

--Bowen--

Aug 9, 2002, 11:29pm

> I've never heard of that sort of rule. Anyway, the original problem was
with your confusion of words, not about punctuation or
> spacing.

That's the way colons have always been used. Semi-colons are single spaced.
Ellipsis are double spaced as well. Maybe I've seen worse and worst
interchanged so much it's leaked into my mind?

--Bowen--

Aug 9, 2002, 11:39pm

> But "Canadian god of English" *is* taking the place of someone's name...

Not until I use it in place of your name. Like Canadian God of English says
this. Not just you're the Canadian god of English.

Think of it as:

Well Mom says this. and then : She is my mom.

--Bowen--

Aug 10, 2002, 12:29am

> Um, Bowen, stop being lame. Punctuation is MUCH more lax than word usage
and spelling. It doesn't matter if there are 1 or 2 spaces after
punctuation; I use 1 simply because it's more efficient and less typing.
<shrug> I also put punctuation not originally in the quote OUTSIDE of the
quotation marks because it too is more efficient and exact. Get over it and
learn how to use words correctly--which is what this thread is about.

Efficiency is your excuse for much, but it won't make it proper written
English.

That use of lame is slang by the way, that's not proper English.

Hey if you want to nitpick, I'll nitpick back. You must spell out words
that are less than or equal too ten, but not less than negative ten.

That's fine, because if it wasn't there you usually don't put it in if it's
a quote. Unless you're taking part of a quote, in which case you lead and
end with an Ellipsis with no spaces.

I was being efficient in my own terms though. I was simply saving myself a
fraction of a second by reaching upward to hit the E rather than reaching
upward and across to hit the T.

If he had just said to himself, hmm maybe he misspelt that, T and E are
really close together and I understand what he's saying and so does every
other person that speaks english. He didn't need to post that, which
clearly would've have started this. That's obvious, even I would've noticed
that doing that would've caused useless garbage.

I'm sure you'll retort with something like, "You could've admitted you were
wrong." But, I've yet to even see you do that when you're wrong. Or most
other "men." Yes that is sexist because I notice most females admit they
will, but most guys rarely do. Don't restate the obvious that that's a
generalization, because I used most, not all.

--Bowen--

Aug 10, 2002, 1:06am

> Oh puhleaze...now you're being REALLY lame--properly lame, even. You're
talking about Analglish, not English. Informal English isn't so lame, but
you had better know the difference between "worse" and "worst".

Lame - unable to accomplish the task; disabled.
slang. - weak; unsatisfactory

> Why did you capitalize "ellipsis"? Silly Bowen, English isn't for you.

Subtle emphasis, why do you capitalize unimportant words like JFK2 did?

> Uh huh...efficiently wrong, you mean.

So are most of your "efficient" actions. One space instead of two is
"efficiently wrong." As is not spelling out numbers less than 11.

> Oh, so you admit you made a mistake now? How funny you expect other people
to accept your mistakes when you in your hypocracy don't accept others.
Drive through, hypocrite-boy!

If it makes you happy, sure. Hypocrite boy should not be hyphonated.

> When have I been wrong? ;)

The issue with security for one. It's obvious that it was an sdk function
to get the object password. Functions like these are not overlooked and are
put there for a reason, even if they're not documented. Some of the public
ones aren't documented either. Andras is right, leave that stuff be, it
wouldn't have been just left in there. Give the programmers some credit,
even if you don't think they're that great. They wouldn't have left
something that gives away object passwords to uncreditied bots or
applications.

> Good god you're a geek. Get over it already.

Says he who plays games all the time and is the self proclaimed "expert" on
them.

By the way, stop changing the "reply to newsgroup." If you don't like what
I'm saying that's fine, ignore it then. It makes no emphasis on your point
either. Just get's rather annoying to have to change it whenever I reply to
you when you don't like the discussion.

--Bowen--

Aug 10, 2002, 9:13pm

Your outlook express is configured to have news messages expire after so
long.

--Bowen--

Aug 12, 2002, 9:52pm

What kind of setup do you have for your LAN?

--Bowen--

Aug 12, 2002, 10:41pm

The problem is probably the routers. Do they support loopback?

--Bowen--

[View Quote]

Aug 12, 2002, 11:16pm

Well, here's the big big question. Does the LAN work with any other
multiplayer TCI/IP game?

--Bowen--

Aug 13, 2002, 4:06pm

Wow, now I know why I dispise routers so very much. The way I do it is
simpler and doesn't hurt my head as much :). I'll post how I do it :

I think a simple fix for this would be to take one of your 12 computers and
set it up as a direct connection to the internet. Make sure this computer
has 2 network cards (one for the internet and one for the LAN). Get a hub
(I've seen one that supports 24 computers so that's no problem) and plug
this computer into port 1.

Now connect each of your computers to a different slot into the hub. If you
run out of room on your hub, you can either put another network card into
that one "gateway" computer (so it has 3) or try to connect the two hubs
together via the uplink port (that's in most hubs).

Now, you have to get Internet Connection Sharing to work on that gateway
computer, After you tell it which network card has the connection to the
internet and which one shares it with the LAN, it should be just running a
setup file it tells you to make on a disk for all those other computers.

If all goes well your connection should work, just as it did before. I'm
not saying yours is a bad setup but I know this works (it's hard to get
working at first though). To get it working, simply open ports up via ICS
configuration program :
http://practicallynetworked.com/sharing/ics/icsconfiguration.htm.

That's all for now :)

--Bowen--

Aug 13, 2002, 4:18pm

Ok, I suggest you completely remove the routers from the equation. Replace
them with a couple hubs and have the gateway give out the IP's. Instead of
going with the router VPN garbage. :P

--Bowen--

Aug 13, 2002, 4:33pm

[View Quote] Well that's simply solved. Log onto the gateway and use VPN to connect
whenever he needs to. No need to muck up your LAN just to make sure all the
computers can connect.

--Bowen--

Aug 13, 2002, 4:34pm

Wow all I'm going to say is that's messed up.

Aug 13, 2002, 4:45pm

> Shush you, it's the king of low-cost networking with a buncha computers.
:-P
> It works well.

And causes a lot of problems down the road!

--Bowen--

1  ...  36  37  38  39  40  41  ...  101  |   Order by default