Tasha Posted September 12, 2011 Report Share Posted September 12, 2011 Re: Blasters: why? Maybe we need a "blasters v. bullets v. big rocks" poll.... In a Sci Fi game the quote "Rocks Fall, Everyone Dies!!" takes on a new meaning... http://somethingpositive.net/sp05032002.shtml Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tasha Posted September 12, 2011 Report Share Posted September 12, 2011 Re: Blasters: why? Heh. The "Wunderland Treatymaker" for instance. In Larry Niven's "Known Space" universe, the residents of Wunderland tired of being attacked by the Kzinti (intelligent, carnivorous cat-like species). So they scaled up the Slaver Disintegrator, which had a slow but effective single-barrel digging mode and a fantastically destructive double-barrel mode, and threatened the Kzinti on a nearby world to surrender "Or else." The Kzinti, of course, refused to surrender. So the Wunderlanders used the Treatymaker to dig a mile deep canyon the size of Southern California into the planet in question. At which point, the Kzin decided that maybe negotiating an end to hostilities wasn't such a bad idea. Hence, "treatymaker". Also part of Niven's thought that Mankind will find a way to turn nearly anything into a weapon when properly motivated. AKA "The don't mess with the nice humans theory". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christopher Posted September 12, 2011 Report Share Posted September 12, 2011 Re: Blasters: why? I do think durability is going to be an issue due to lenses and alignment' date=' but not necessarily an issue that can't be overcome.[/quote'] Who says we are even going to use lenses forever? For a long time we considered digital, magnetic Storage on spinning solid platers as the only viable way to store data in suficcient density and acess times. They could easily loose their data from magnetic fields, when you move them while they read, they require much energy and produce a lot of heat. Plus they have a physical upper limit for reading speed. Now NAND-based EEPROM's are state of the art. They have none of the issues above. They still have somewhat limited durability for writing operations, but in all other regards they are quickly becomming superior or are it already. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shadow Hawk Posted September 13, 2011 Report Share Posted September 13, 2011 Re: Blasters: why? Who says we are even going to use lenses forever? For a long time we considered digital, magnetic Storage on spinning solid platers as the only viable way to store data in suficcient density and acess times. They could easily loose their data from magnetic fields, when you move them while they read, they require much energy and produce a lot of heat. Plus they have a physical upper limit for reading speed. Now NAND-based EEPROM's are state of the art. They have none of the issues above. They still have somewhat limited durability for writing operations, but in all other regards they are quickly becomming superior or are it already. See David Drake's "Hammer's Slammers" discussion on 'Powerguns'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.