Has anybody been to SDN lately?

Did a related website in the community go down? Come back up? Relocate to a new address? Install pop-up advertisements?

This forum is for discussion of these sorts of issues.
ILikeDeathNote
Jedi Knight
Posts: 430
Joined: Wed Jun 18, 2008 9:31 am

Has anybody been to SDN lately?

Post by ILikeDeathNote » Fri May 29, 2009 9:11 pm

Looks like Wong actually added some new stuff to his site, mainly resources on how to plan space naval strategies and science fiction resources, for what that's worth. A link to the Imperial Wiki has also been added.

Mike DiCenso
Security Officer
Posts: 5836
Joined: Fri Aug 18, 2006 8:49 pm

Post by Mike DiCenso » Sat May 30, 2009 1:34 am

So what do you think is there in these resources that is worthwhile to go and take a look at?
-Mike

ILikeDeathNote
Jedi Knight
Posts: 430
Joined: Wed Jun 18, 2008 9:31 am

Post by ILikeDeathNote » Sat May 30, 2009 4:34 am

Actually I was kind of hoping someone else here would know that.

GStone
Starship Captain
Posts: 1016
Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2006 10:16 am
Location: Undercover in Culture space

Post by GStone » Sat May 30, 2009 1:12 pm

Well, some of his stuff isn't up yet, but I found myself surprisingly agreeing with a possible explanation of his, assuming he's the one that wrote it. Others contributed and he doesn't say explicitly what's his and what isn't. It's about how Vader still had head/facial scars by ep 6. However, the explanation that haste was done for repairing damaged vertebrae with cybernetics instead of fixing the flesh makes no sense. If it exists to hook cybernetics into muscles and nerves, the attachment of bones, nerves and blood vessels should be a snap. There was one example in the news about 6 or 7 months ago about replacing someone's thumb with their big toe and that included reconnecting the nerve tissue. We know they have exceptional cloning tech, regardless of how long it takes for a full clone to mature. We're talking about a few specific tissues and bone for a small area.

I'd also expect there to be less cybernetics over time because of cloning and repair surgury. I know they have bacta with its limits, but their surgury capabilities have been good, right, especially if they can hook machines into people? Over time, Vader should have done the reverse of Grevious.

ILikeDeathNote
Jedi Knight
Posts: 430
Joined: Wed Jun 18, 2008 9:31 am

Post by ILikeDeathNote » Sat May 30, 2009 5:52 pm

It sounds like most of that is at least based on Saxton's article about Vader's injuries.

Mike DiCenso
Security Officer
Posts: 5836
Joined: Fri Aug 18, 2006 8:49 pm

Post by Mike DiCenso » Sun May 31, 2009 1:27 am

Exactly. With the ridiculous level of technology that Star Wars is supposed to have according to the Saxtonites, you have to wonder why Vader's injuries were never healed using cloning and stem cell therapies to regenerate or replace his lungs, legs, arms, and remove the external scarring. The use of cybernetics should have only been an interm means by which to keep Vader alive long enough for the other techniques to regenerate his body.
-Mike

Jedi Master Spock
Site Admin
Posts: 2164
Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 8:26 pm
Contact:

Post by Jedi Master Spock » Sun May 31, 2009 4:51 am

Well, it's been in the works for some time. I think I've seen an earlier version of some of it before. I see they are labeled as "Works in progress." Looks a little better than most of the older material on his website, in terms of coherence, but it's a bit long-winded.
On these pages, some basic concepts of strategy will be discussed. This page is not meant to serve as an education in strategy by any means, as I am not an expert in that field and the subject is beyond the scope of such a paltry collection of brief articles. Rather, it is meant only to highlight some very basic strategic concepts which are so fundamental that they should be considered common knowledge, and to which fans and writers of science fiction should pay heed.
Nor is he an expert on ethics, logic, argumentation, and for that matter, his math and science expertise falls pretty low on the scale, all things considered.
In terms of science fiction, homeland insurrections and political unrest do not seem to happen to any of the major powers in Star Trek, although they have played major roles in the story development of other science fiction series such as Star Wars and Babylon 5.
Error alert!

We see that matters are unrestful enough on Earth to merit declaring martial law in "Homefront" (DS9). A political coup in the Romulan Empire launches the movie "Nemesis" (aka ST X); STVI, "The Undiscovered Country," displays rifts within the Klingon Empire, and the Klingon civil war in the two-part "Redemption" (TNG) shows that the different factions within the Empire do indeed manage more than just the occasional assassination. Political unrest even erupted within the Borg as a result of Hugh ("I, Borg") and breakaway Borg sects later show up in both TNG and Voyager.
Similarly, the Dominion had a prominent religion, but the motivation of the Dominion to conquer the Star Trek powers appeared to be nothing more than simple territorial expansionism.
Both the Borg (not mentioned in the article) and the Founders appear to have an ideological imperative behind their expansionism. This is interesting, but many historians seem to fall on the side of saying ideology is used to justify conflicts, rather than inspiring them, more often than not.

He's clearly nowhere near finished with this project, which looks like it will be a long one, but I do have one final criticism: The division between "weapons of mass destruction" and "weapons of astronomical destruction" will probably not be merited.

User avatar
Mr. Oragahn
Admiral
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
Location: Paradise Mountain

Post by Mr. Oragahn » Sun May 31, 2009 1:58 pm

It's going to be interesting to read the claims regarding SW in his new pages, considering it comes from the one who said, about ICS deniers, that they lost the debate a long time ago and didn't notice it, and there's no debate anymore but they don't know it.

Long winded?
"I noticed that there are no countries which committed suicide," so blah blah blah about survival over countless pages.
Largely pointless is more the definition, counting absolutely superficial references to al-Qaeda and Hitler's regime.

I'll let people here find what's worth it when it will be complete. It's more a waste of time than anything else thus far.

GStone
Starship Captain
Posts: 1016
Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2006 10:16 am
Location: Undercover in Culture space

Post by GStone » Sun May 31, 2009 2:45 pm

Jedi Master Spock wrote:Nor is he an expert on ethics, logic, argumentation, and for that matter, his math and science expertise falls pretty low on the scale, all things considered.
Guest authors would serve this purpose well, especially since some of the sdn members are military people. Even if you you assumed that some of their strategic knowledge was top secret, there's enough available to the public that if they are concerned, they can do a search to see how widespread it is. It's not like it'd require security codes. And with the availability of older training manuals from the different branches makes it even easier to say 'okay, they might know this'.

User avatar
l33telboi
Starship Captain
Posts: 910
Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2006 7:15 am
Location: Finland

Post by l33telboi » Sun May 31, 2009 3:06 pm

I'm more interested in seeing if he'll make the same mistake he's done on most of his pages so far, i.e. going too far with the modern day comparisons. He did it in the pages dealing with firearms and military vehicles (basically assuming that a futuristic army would look exactly like a modern one, field almost identical weapons and vehicles in similar force compositions rather then trying to figure out what a futuristic force should look like given the changed technology and conditions that come with sci-fi). And then the spacebattle tactics page where he simply deduced that SW is better because they fight more like modern carriers, which kinda sidesteps the issue of fighters in space being rather ridiculous. Worst part being the whole 'transporters are equal to boarding planks on old age-of-sail type vessels' deal. A direct comparison would’ve revealed that closer to modern tactics in this case meant that ships sit still and shoot at the enemy, while launching fighters, which is a pretty damn poor idea in space combat.

So far it looks very much like he's going to be doing the same mistake, since he starts off with a rather lengthy modern analysis. Whether it applies correctly or not remains to be seen though.

User avatar
Who is like God arbour
Starship Captain
Posts: 1155
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 3:00 pm
Location: Germany

Post by Who is like God arbour » Sun May 31, 2009 3:38 pm

GStone wrote:[...] Guest authors would serve this purpose well, especially since some of the sdn members are military people [...]
Only because some are military people does not mean that they are proficient in tactics and strategy.

What do you think how much GI Joe learns from these subjects, especially in US forces? They teach him to point the business end of his gun always away and to follow orders.

But tactics and strategy is usually a subject taught only to the higher ranks.

No, to be a military people does not make someone an expert in anything. To have been on foreign assignments is also not evidence for expertise. To many soldiers are members of non combat formations.

GStone
Starship Captain
Posts: 1016
Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2006 10:16 am
Location: Undercover in Culture space

Post by GStone » Sun May 31, 2009 5:28 pm

Who is like God arbour wrote:Only because some are military people does not mean that they are proficient in tactics and strategy.
Well, I was gonna give them some benefit of the doubt that they weren't total idiots when they switch their brains into real world stuff. A lot of people are like that. Something makes their brain fart when it comes to things they don't like.
No, to be a military people does not make someone an expert in anything. To have been on foreign assignments is also not evidence for expertise. To many soldiers are members of non combat formations.
No, that's true, but if I'm not mistaken, I thought a couple of them had been in service during either the recent wars in Afghanistan and/or Iraq or in some number of engagements during the last couple decades (I might be wrong on that) that would speak of some strategizing experience, even if they were just told of what to do and they knew why when the enemy came at them and then, extrapolate from that.

User avatar
Who is like God arbour
Starship Captain
Posts: 1155
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 3:00 pm
Location: Germany

Post by Who is like God arbour » Sun May 31, 2009 6:19 pm

GStone wrote:
Who is like God arbour wrote:No, to be a military people does not make someone an expert in anything. To have been on foreign assignments is also not evidence for expertise. To many soldiers are members of non combat formations.
No, that's true, but if I'm not mistaken, I thought a couple of them had been in service during either the recent wars in Afghanistan and/or Iraq or in some number of engagements during the last couple decades (I might be wrong on that) that would speak of some strategizing experience, even if they were just told of what to do and they knew why when the enemy came at them and then, extrapolate from that.
  1. They really would have to be a member of a combat formation (no cooks, truckers, pilots, medics etc.) to even get the intense combat training and not only the 08/15 training each soldier gets in the beginning.
  2. They would have to have participated in real fire fights to really know what it is. Training gets you only so far. Only if real bullets are flying around your ears and you know that you or one of your comrades can die every moment, you know what it is to be in a combat situation.
  3. And even then, they would have only tactical experience but no strategical experience. The simple soldier does not makes strategical decisions but is merely subjected to such.

ILikeDeathNote
Jedi Knight
Posts: 430
Joined: Wed Jun 18, 2008 9:31 am

Post by ILikeDeathNote » Sun May 31, 2009 11:55 pm

GStone wrote:
Guest authors would serve this purpose well, especially since some of the sdn members are military people.
Would I trust a first class private in the army to know the same as a first lieutenant in the air force?

In way too many places (including what I've seen from SDN) someone in the military thinks they're the final authority on the board for all military matters. So yeah talk about appeal to credentials. In one board I go to we banned a commissioned lieutenant in the Navy because he thought his "military expertise" entitled him to basically run the board and usurp the guy who actually pays $100 out of his own pocket to run the site.

Mike DiCenso
Security Officer
Posts: 5836
Joined: Fri Aug 18, 2006 8:49 pm

Post by Mike DiCenso » Mon Jun 01, 2009 12:27 am

ILikeDeathNote wrote: Would I trust a first class private in the army to know the same as a first lieutenant in the air force?
It depends on the circumstances, really. Each of them will know certain aspects of military operations that the other won't. The private in the Army may have first hand combat experiance, that the AF lieutenant most likely won't, or will be of a different kind.
ILikeDeathNote wrote:In way too many places (including what I've seen from SDN) someone in the military thinks they're the final authority on the board for all military matters. So yeah talk about appeal to credentials. In one board I go to we banned a commissioned lieutenant in the Navy because he thought his "military expertise" entitled him to basically run the board and usurp the guy who actually pays $100 out of his own pocket to run the site.
Really? Which forum was this, if you don't mind my asking.
-Mike

Post Reply