This is a voluntary opt-in advertisement. Any profit generated goes to Comic Fury for hosting.

Comic 1587 - Negotiations

11th Apr 2018, 12:00 AM
Negotiations
Average Rating: 5 (18 votes)
Post a Comment

Comments:

megados 11th Apr 2018, 12:27 AM edit delete reply
Re: Alt text, yes she looks in bad shape, but then you realize what goes into having her look bad, and she looks . . . good! :D

NTAS body would be a model 3?

Well Jordan and Ivy seem fairly smart. At least they know who the Cassians are! Things could work out after all.
Marcus Ramesy 11th Apr 2018, 9:36 AM edit delete reply

NTAS stands for New Troy Android Standards.. so it couldl be anything that conforms to the Standards.
megados 11th Apr 2018, 9:57 AM edit delete reply
Agreed :)

My question was more geared toward which model they had. Centcomm commented on the last page, that they could do a body swap, (The MACCS allows for it) if the head and body were compatible. Some time ago, it was stated that the New Rome androids didn't really comform to NT standard, but the Cassians were likened to being around what would be an NT model 3. With all the various mods and specializations the Cassians have, my own thought was maybe late model 3, (maybe proto 4) so I am curious as to whether the body they have there is a model 3. :D
Guest 11th Apr 2018, 8:21 PM edit delete reply
… a patched up CeCi? is that possible?
antrik 12th Apr 2018, 4:40 AM edit delete reply
No, definitely not possible. Her body self-destructed quite thoroughly from what we were told; and what's more, that happened in Roma -- so she wouldn't end up on a Troy auction anyway. (If it somehow ended up in Troy, it would *definitely* not be auctioned off, for the same reasons it self-destructed...)
Marcus Ramesy 12th Apr 2018, 12:06 PM edit delete reply

Casians are many different types of androids... from roma based Kali, to NT based Hrist and Ophilia... all have been modified in to satisfy the needs of Roma... NTAS is not the only way to build androids... its just the most popular and the standard that most places in north america subscribe to... there are still positronic androids and other tech that is out there .. a lot of times the cassians are ... what ever they could get their hands on or what ever was laying around and could be modified for their needs. the MACCS system is pretty much universal... its what allows for the interface from the brain to body......
antrik 12th Apr 2018, 12:12 PM edit delete reply
@Marcus Ramesy I thought that information was classified :-P
Marcus Ramesy 12th Apr 2018, 2:05 PM edit delete reply

Nothing I have said here is classified... its common knowledge about how Roma gets their cassians... you can tell just by looking at them that they are different types/generations of androids from various locations.. and the MACCS system is universal so no classification there. :P
antrik 12th Apr 2018, 4:47 PM edit delete reply
@Marcus Ramesy as far as I'm aware, questions regarding the Cassians' origin have never been answered before; rather just getting hints at some kind of secret being involved.
Marcus Ramesy 12th Apr 2018, 5:35 PM edit delete reply

the question never really came up... and its not NT technology secretes that are given up here: (or story spoilers :P)
megados 12th Apr 2018, 1:52 PM edit delete reply
@Marcus Ramesy, thanks! That sort of explains Nova Roma's approach to android creation: Use what you have, not what you want! :D I wasn't aware that they used any NT designs. I should have known better though, since MACCS would have to have originated in NT. That has me wondering, then though, who is responsible for inhibitor design, since they are illegal in NT, and further, the internal type used in the Cassians.
antrik 12th Apr 2018, 4:46 PM edit delete reply
What makes you think "MACCS would have to have originated in NT"?

As for inhibitors, Troy has medical restraints -- same thing, different name. They may have very well invented it.
megados 12th Apr 2018, 5:28 PM edit delete reply
The reason I think the standard MACCS would have originated there because I believe it is part of the NT standard, also because New Rome being technophobic, is not really a leader in tech development. NT, however, is a tech development leader, with people like Calliope Taylor, and Veronica Silver.

I don't really think that inhibitors are the same as medical restraints, especially internal inhibitors. Medical restraints would seem to imply rendering someone immobile, but wouldn't hold them in place, for instance, during transport. The impression I get of an inhibitor is something that can take motor control, or provide uncomfortable punishment. It seems like the opposite of a restraint.

Could be wrong.
antrik 12th Apr 2018, 7:19 PM edit delete reply
@megados I thought it was canon that "medical restraint" and "inhibitor" are really the same thing? Not sure though.
megados 12th Apr 2018, 8:12 PM edit delete reply
Honestly, I'm not sure either. :D
Marcus Ramesy 12th Apr 2018, 5:13 PM edit delete reply

Actually I believe the MACCS creation comes from a Russian doctor .. Dr. Kotko as part of his creation of the Speaker Galina ... he was the grandfather of the technology that eventually became know as the MACCS
megados 12th Apr 2018, 5:38 PM edit delete reply
That makes sense, Marcus. To become standardized into what is known as MACCS would take some more development, I would think. But yes, I believe Dr Kotko originally invented the tech.

I'm left with the impression that further development and standardization came from NT. They would be the most likely to do so.
robnot 13th Apr 2018, 11:42 AM edit delete reply
an soon after the MACCS,, wood(would) be the "inhibitor"... cuz we got to control that "thing" somehow....
megados 13th Apr 2018, 1:07 PM edit delete reply
Yep, @robnot, that is what I'm trying to figure out. I'm guessing that the MACCS was developed into a standard (plug and play) most likely in NT (possibly New Sparta as well, but NT seems a bit more likely). I agree that Dr. Kotko's work with Galina was the beginning of that tech. But like anything, further development would be needed, just like USB plug and play capability was developed out of the old serial ports. It requires connection standardization so that the connection fits, and the correct wires get connected. I would think the same sort of development would be needed for MACCS, so that everything connects the same, and devices can detect each other.

OK, so if the bulk of development actually DID go on in NT, as I'm guessing, the inhibitor would come later. Presently, inhibitors are illegal in NT, and that means that they were developed and then outlawed in NT, or developed elsewhere where NT laws don't apply. The law would come later, since it doesn't make sense to outlaw something that doesn't exist.

My belief that they were developed elsewhere, comes from the fact that android laws in NT are generally favorable, granting rights and privileges that they don't enjoy in other places. They don't seem like they would be the ones to exert control by force that way.

Going further, I would have to believe that the internal inhibitors such as the Cassians have, were developed after the collar type, and would have had to have been designed well after inhibitors in general were outlawed in NT. If they were developed there, it would have been in secret, I would think.

New Rome, however, DOES have the mindset that androids are something that needs to be controlled. That's why I kinda suspect them.
antrik 13th Apr 2018, 4:49 PM edit delete reply
While I agree with the assumption that standardisation of the MACCS likely only happened some time after Kotko originally invented it, I think it quite possible that it happened long before New Troy emerged as the science centre of the "new" America... Many centuries passed between these events, after all.

Also, I suspect inhibitors were created long before Android rights advocacy gained prominence. (Before New Troy was even founded, most likely.)
megados 13th Apr 2018, 7:38 PM edit delete reply
You could be right. Without much to go on, it's kind of up in the air. I thought of it more as a case of New Troy growing both as a city-state simultaneously with growing as a science center, both because of Helios Taylor's work and because of cutting edge AI, and android development work. These developments wouldn't have happened overnight, and certainly not in a vacuum.

Whenever the inhibitors were devised, they would most likely have emerged after the MACCS standard came about. That is essential to the inhibitor's ability to take control of the MACCS. Without that, all it could do would be to jumble signals randomly, and cause discomfort, and disability. The standardization of the MACCS is likely the reason it had this vulnerability to exploit.
antrik 13th Apr 2018, 8:29 PM edit delete reply
Lack of standardisation wouldn't preclude the existence of inhibitors... They would just have to be adapted to each type of MACCS.

(As long as they use the same basic principle, it would most likely be a software-only adaptation.)
megados 13th Apr 2018, 8:43 PM edit delete reply
Like I said, early inhibitors would be scramble, and discomfort devices only. With the complexity of the pre-MACCS pathways, adapting an inhibitor instance by instance would be a daunting task. Probably not worth the considerable effort involved, except in extenuating circumstances and each being a one-off, and very expensive. With MACCS standardization, the pathway architecture is still complex, but would be uniform, and the inhibitor could be developed to where it can assert actual control, using a common architecture.
antrik 14th Apr 2018, 7:22 AM edit delete reply
Seems we are talking past each other here... For me, "standardisation" implied settling on a *single* standard. But that doesn't mean that before that, every individual had a different MACCS -- I would strongly assume that apart from some one-off prototypes, there were never more that just a few different designs in use.
megados 14th Apr 2018, 8:18 AM edit delete reply
Now I understand the difficulty. :D

MACCS is the standardized version. (Multiplexing Activity Command and Control System). It is to android command pathways what USB is to serial ports.

And yes, there could be hundreds without a standard. Even work by the same engineers yields many iterations of development. That's true even today. One common example would be automobiles. Decidedly simple compared to androids, there is very little that remains constant. The ECM (the main control module) changes year to year, and model to model, and even several iterations within the same model year. That's just ONE component! Now let this play out over several centuries, and you cannot really say there would be only a handful of systems. Multiply the complexity of the subject in question, such as androids, and the problem increases by an order of magnitude.
antrik 15th Apr 2018, 10:49 AM edit delete reply
I'm confused. Your remark about "MACCS [being] the standardised version" sounds to me like you are actually thinking of a unified interface, rather than standardisation...

As for Automobiles, that's in fact a wonderful example demonstrating the exact opposite of your interface diversity claim: while individual components in cars change a lot, *the various electronics are always connected with the same globally standardised interface*!
megados 15th Apr 2018, 11:19 AM edit delete reply
"Your remark about "MACCS [being] the standardised version" sounds to me like you are actually thinking of a unified interface, rather than standardisation..."

It would have to be a more or less a unified interface for Centcomm's statement: "There are some things about a Android that are 'plug and play ' provided they know what they are doing and the body and brain are compatible. The Maccs system makes that possible." to be accurate. I consider Centcomm's statements to be accurate; it is their story after all. Standardized in that the unified interface would be specified in the NTAS. I can scarcely believe that it wouldn't be included, so thus 'standard'.

"As for Automobiles, that's in fact a wonderful example demonstrating the exact opposite of your interface diversity claim: while individual components in cars change a lot, *the various electronics are always connected with the same globally standardised interface*!"

Obviously, you never worked on too many modern cars, nor looked at any service manuals. They are certainly not globally compatible. The interfaces change year to year; model to model, and sometimes multiple changes within a model year. That's just within one manufacturer. Sure, two Toyota harnesses, for instance, have a likelihood of being similar within a model, and model year, but are only similar to a Fiat in that they used colored wire. Were you thinking of those ten minutes wherein they started to look at CAN bus?

Global manufacturers compete with one another. Domestic manufacturers compete with one another. Look at the harness in a Ford, then one in a Chevy, then a Dodge. Did any connectors look the same? No? Hmmm. Find that mass airflow sensor. Compare them. Oh? This model doesn't use one? Hmmm.
That's only two items out of thousands.

Now let's go international. All I can say is there are sure a lot of different ways to do the same thing! ;) About the only thing they even sort of agree on is that they should have four wheels.
robnot 15th Apr 2018, 2:51 PM edit delete reply
i agree with meagados,, example:: diagnostic tool , Called a " scan tool " reads engine fault codes,, 90 an earlier don't work, a general purpose reader will only read a few car types, then you have to have adapters, and those still don't read every thing,,
that said, my scan tool is set to ford, at present i have 4 adapters, 3 OS's, an only covers certain years..
Gilrandir 15th Apr 2018, 7:24 PM edit delete reply
The true standards are not hardware or software, they are specifications. We've seen lots and lots of hardware, national and international, but things like 10-base T, SCSI, and USB are still interoperable (even if several of them are currently obsolete).

There was even the MIPS specification, which was essentially an instruction set -- any chip maker could make their own CPUs, with their own extras, and as long as they supported the instruction set, they could market their chips as "MIPS-compliant". Software written for MIPS chips would (mostly) run on any of them, not even needing to be recompiled -- except when interfacing with specialized hardwdare (typically through vendor-supplied drivers).

I think the MACCS would be the same -- it isn't hardware, it is a specification for hardware interoperability. As long as both the brain and the chassis are developed to the same interface specification, there is a reasonable expectation that they will (mostly) operate together correctly. ("Mostly" because, when you get down to the little stuff, there are always idiosyncracies that require a bit of adjustment and fine tuning to flush out bugs and achieve optimal performance. Thanks, vendors.)

People can talk about "The MACCS" just like we talk about "The MIPS chip", when in reality you might be referring to a Texas Instruments MIPS 3081, or a Digital Solutions MIPS II-R (fake chip names made up for no extra cost ^_^) or whatever. The actual hardware tended not to be described, because it was much less relevant to the design solution.
megados 15th Apr 2018, 8:37 PM edit delete reply
That's it exactly, @Gilrandir! Well done! I might add that the specification does sometimes have to indicate specific hardware such as to facilitate interconnection of system devices, or when using application specific proprietary devices. The main thing as you say though, is interoperability, and a reasonable expectation of compliance. That is what I am trying to convey with regard to MACCS. I think I can be reasonably sure that replacing an android's body requires more than connecting + and - (even that would have a voltage and current specification), so some connection means and termination will have a specification for instance, for compatibility. Beyond that, specific component embodiments can vary, as long as they are compliant as well.

@robnot, yes you are right. A long time friend of mine (we grew up together) owns an automotive repair shop. He has the same problem with keeping up with all the adapters and software updates. His shop works on all makes and models, foreign and domestic, it can cost him upwards of $1500 a year to keep updated, and he STILL has cars he can't read.
antrik 15th Apr 2018, 9:15 PM edit delete reply
@Gilrandir why are you talking about MIPS in the past tense? Admittedly, they are kinda niche nowadays -- but last I checked, they totally exist in present tense as well...
Gilrandir 15th Apr 2018, 10:13 PM edit delete reply
Because, @antrik, I don't work with them any more, so I don't know if they are still a 'relevant' design solution. But I do know that they were.
antrik 15th Apr 2018, 10:13 PM edit delete reply
@megados well, yeah, I was thinking more of the fundamental protocols rather than the specific connectors/wiring...

I guess cars are much like smartphones in this regard: since they are designed as a single complex device with a fixed configuration (beyond a few peripherals being optional depending on trim), plug-and-play interoperability would be rather pointless -- totally unlike personal computers, which tend to be highly configurable.

Since we have seen various hints that Android bodies come in all kinds of custom configurations, I guess it makes sense that they should lean more on the PC side of the continuum...

I see no reason though to think this would become a concern only hundreds of years after the original development of Android technology.
megados 15th Apr 2018, 11:18 PM edit delete reply
"I was thinking more of the fundamental protocols rather than the specific connectors/wiring..."

It's going to be some of both, I would think. :D

"I see no reason though to think this would become a concern only hundreds of years after the original development of Android technology."

My reason for thinking that is because before the founding of the city-states, people were more scattered, and there was likely less collaboration or determination to set standards, when day to day existence was a higher priority. This would be because the war was starting just as the androids were being created. I would think that anyone who knew anything about android construction or repair might work in a certain amount of isolation. A confluence of events seemed to cause an amount of scientific pursuit to gravitate to New Troy. CentComm is responsible for overseeing the generation of 'seeds' which mature into the NT androids' personas, which would essentially either contain the protocol part or operate with or within the NTAS and the MACCS, it seems reasonable that the remainder, the hardware part of the standard, was developed there too, resulting in a complete NTAS compliant MACCS.

As NT grew, they were producing more androids, so it seems logical they would standardize the systems.

Basic assumption, supposition, and conjecture 101. :D
antrik 16th Apr 2018, 10:30 AM edit delete reply
That raises an interesting question: how much of the present Android technology was developed before, during, or after the apocalypse war?...

Lunastar contains hints that pre-war, Shinedo was at the forefront of Android research (apparently nothing changes in this regard between today and 2911 ;-) ) -- most notably Tokyo Rose's claim that before Amy, Androids have never sparked "outside a Shinedo lab".

We don't know whether they were able to keep this advantage through the war -- but considering that Tokyo Rose seems to have been closest to Dr. Kotko's research (especially after Moscow was nuked, presumably eradicating all his local colleagues and records), it would make sense for Shinedo to be the first to mainstream the MACCS. (Though I guess the Lunarians and/or Epiphytes might also have had a hand in it?...)
megados 16th Apr 2018, 11:24 AM edit delete reply
It's certainly possible that Shinedo was the developer of MACCS, and in that case, CentComm could have adopted the standard. Also possible, would be that Shinedo (or someone) developed something similar, and CentComm appropriated it, and modified it into it's current form. Hard to say, really without a timeline. One thing stands in the way of the notion that the current-form system was just copied, is that it might be a huge security breach when it comes to Black and White Angels, since they also use MACCS. Since the AISs decided to stop the war, it's not a problem, but before then, it might have been a proprietary system.

It was my understanding that Dr. Kotko worked out of Lunar Base Nadia 01. Nuking Moscow shouldn't have destroyed his work. ;)
antrik 16th Apr 2018, 9:54 PM edit delete reply
IIRC he moved to Luna only after creating Galina?
megados 16th Apr 2018, 10:50 PM edit delete reply
So . . . there's no way he could have brought his notes along? Bummer. :D
antrik 16th Apr 2018, 11:04 PM edit delete reply
Which doesn't change my conclusion that there was most likely nobody left who was more familiar with his research that Tokyo Rose (if there ever was) -- especially since the Luna base *also* went bust... (And wasn't very welcoming of his research to begin with.)
megados 16th Apr 2018, 11:24 PM edit delete reply
I can't be as certain. Nadia base went bust, but everyone knew Galina was there/came from there, and I might guess that someone could have easily gone over there looking. Especially if they didn't think too highly of the Russians. There might be all kinds of advantageous materials to be found. And Sebastian would have at least thought about it.

No one says they did, but no one said they didn't.
robnot 17th Apr 2018, 10:56 AM edit delete reply
yes , Nadia based was raided/looted/scavenged,, how do you think they got the Autodoc..?
and i'll put all my money on Tokyo Rose as to the one who had it done.!! ... i wood say as soon as Rose found out bout Galina , an where she was,, she had a strike team gutting that base.!!!
megados 17th Apr 2018, 1:19 PM edit delete reply
I might put a few bux on it, but not all my money. If Tokyo Rose was following Dr Kotko's work, she probably also already had this information. If that's the case, the only reason for her to do that, would be to keep anyone else from getting it.

Can't say she did, can't say she didn't.
robnot 17th Apr 2018, 11:32 PM edit delete reply
jus a reminder,, Galina's back was hurt, called in a "Specialist " (Rose),, an she went knuts.!!
cuz he finally dun it..
an a couple days later ,, operation ,, with the autodoc,, how and why,?? cuz Rose said so.!!
sooo yeah.! bet my last dollar that rose said , " I want every last scrap of info from that base, YESTERDAY.!,, and before some asinine club footed fuckwit, gets there first and ruins it.! ,, i don't think i used enough expletives or was forceful enough to match Rose by half...
Centcomm 12th Apr 2018, 12:05 PM edit delete reply

Yeah Ceci is a nuke. quite literally in one case.
Sheela 15th Apr 2018, 8:06 AM edit delete reply

While the origins of the MACCS would be assigned to Dr Kotko, wouldn't the inhibitors be traced to a certain Sebastian Edgewick ?
megados 15th Apr 2018, 8:48 AM edit delete reply
I see what you're saying. I suppose you could consider his collar a sort of inhibitor. Pain inhibitor, anyway. :D Good call!
antrik 15th Apr 2018, 10:51 AM edit delete reply
I've been pondering this too. I can't say whether the working principle is indeed the same -- but it seems a distinct possibility...
megados 15th Apr 2018, 12:28 PM edit delete reply
It is, sort of. This seems to work like novacaine; dampen/suppress signals.
Haegan2005 11th Apr 2018, 12:45 AM edit delete reply

So..

Squashed is code for... squashed?

:)
robnot 11th Apr 2018, 1:12 AM edit delete reply
hehe good thing they did NOT try an ransom poor Feelie.. when they found out shes a Cassian
an for a good laugh ,, it's a "Pinky" body... i know , i know, there is no way Centcomm would let one of those "out"
and finally , last panel, that's a lot of prewar ammo.. 105mm bout that size , if it is then its short 2 crates of a Abrams basic load..( counted 18 )
Tokyo Rose 11th Apr 2018, 2:25 AM edit delete reply

Ammo canisters are great for storing non-ammo stuff, too. :D
Sheela 11th Apr 2018, 8:30 AM edit delete reply

Yeah, ammo cannisters really are quite good for storage.
My mum had some old boxes from WWII, that said something like PAK 38 on the side, which apparently was a fairly common anti tank round.
Anyways, it had room for four 5cm shells inside (about 2 inch in diamater each), and was made of metal, you could put all sorts of good stuff into one of those. :)
robnot 12th Apr 2018, 12:00 PM edit delete reply
yeah..that would be "ammo can" ,, what i was commenting on would be "shipping crate".. those crates would hold 6 of your cans...
CptKerion 13th Apr 2018, 3:52 AM edit delete reply
My bookshelf started life as a crate holding several cases of .30 cal machine gun rounds. Got emptied out, acquired by my grandfather, and repurposed. I'd not be surprised if those crates had been repurposed.
robnot 13th Apr 2018, 11:53 AM edit delete reply
".30 cal machine gun rounds." wow really ,, i would like to see a picture of that label .!!
because ALL the labels i've seen , just say ".30 cal ammo" ,, maybe linked , or ball, tracer,, but never "machine gun:..
CptKerion 16th Apr 2018, 4:41 PM edit delete reply
Oh by the time I was around the box had already been painted white. I've never seen any of the original markings on it.
I just happen to put the effort into listening to my older relatives because you learn things when you do.
My understanding of it is that the rounds in it were .30 cal, and had been used in a machine gun.
By the time I was around, my mother had decided she didn't like how it looked and had painted it white.
I didn't know it was anything but a cheap and sturdy bookshelf until my father handed it off to me as I was going off to college and told me the story behind it.
Sheela 16th Apr 2018, 6:11 PM edit delete reply

My mum painted flowers on hers. :)

She did keep one in the original livery, because she thought it would be worth something to some war-geek in the future.
And she was right, some historian was besides himself to get an original tin from the german occupation. He was even more delighted when grandma said she stole them from "ze germans", tossed the ammo in a lake, and kept the cannisters. XD
Howard 11th Apr 2018, 1:19 AM edit delete reply
She kinda looks like a steel barbie doll that had an unfortunate encounter with a flame thrower...
mjkj 11th Apr 2018, 1:34 AM edit delete reply

Wow..., they look nice... - except for poor Ophie... (agrees with @alt text)

...hmm, might be the one that fired at Ophie's team... =S

...I guess that would be Dolly's decomissioned body...
megados 11th Apr 2018, 9:11 AM edit delete reply
If Ophelia is getting Dolly's decommissioned body, she's doing quite well! I wonder if you are right! :D
antrik 11th Apr 2018, 10:06 AM edit delete reply
I had the same thought -- but I wonder how likely it is? Would they just auction off Dolly's old body? Would it end up here, of all places?...
Centcomm 11th Apr 2018, 1:01 PM edit delete reply

Dolly and Calli wouldnt Junk Dollys old frame.
robnot 16th Apr 2018, 11:30 AM edit delete reply
oh oh jus had a thought,,, the Nanny/mom from the side story.. ( now i have to dive,, an get her name...)
robnot 16th Apr 2018, 11:35 AM edit delete reply
... Kaye .. dive successful...
Sheela 16th Apr 2018, 6:13 PM edit delete reply

A bit of deep diving, eh ? :)

And wouldn't it be more likely to be Connies old body ?
After all, she did tell Mr Black that she upgraded on an "impulse buy".
antrik 16th Apr 2018, 10:02 PM edit delete reply
Kaye's body was pretty broken; so that wouldn't qualify as "not a junker"... Even if it wasn't for the fact that Kaye was *buried*.

Also, we don't know when that story took place. There is no reason to assume that it was anywhere near the current events.
robnot 17th Apr 2018, 11:17 AM edit delete reply
Kaye was not fixed because she was at the end of her 100 year cycle, an ran away.. but that does not mean she could not be fixed..
also "buried" have we not heard bout looters, scavengers, an tomb raiders.??? ,, how you think these guys ( girls ) got Feelie in the first place..
an finally i meant this as a light hearted joke,, the girls prolly got some random type 3, that we will see 2 or 3 times , then she will be put in a Cassian...
antrik 17th Apr 2018, 2:07 PM edit delete reply
Kaye's body was broken from the crash landing, not from age.
megados 17th Apr 2018, 2:22 PM edit delete reply
He didn't say she was broken from age; he said she wasn't fixed because of her age. Read robnot's post again.
antrik 17th Apr 2018, 3:06 PM edit delete reply
Details! ;-)

Either way, it doubt anyone would go the trouble of fixing it up just to sell it as a cast-off at a salvage meet... (After being fixed, it would be sold as "refurbished" rather than "salvage" I think?) More likely, it would be auctioned off as salvage *before* being fixed up; so it wouldn't meet the "not a junker" claim -- which was my entire point...
megados 17th Apr 2018, 3:23 PM edit delete reply
If we're speculating, then since Centcomm alluded to Jordan and/or Ivy "knowing what they're doing", salvage could also mean using parts from two non functional ones, and making one working one. Refurbished means to repair and/or replace all parts which are not up to spec, whether they are functional or not, usually with new components, bringing it up to original factory operating condition.

Kaye's body had a broken 'zero moment point' (whatever that is) and they could have replaced that with one from another junker.

Having said that, I don't think odds are high that it's hers, but it is still possible.
antrik 17th Apr 2018, 3:28 PM edit delete reply
Yes, they could certainly have done all that -- but IMHO it wouldn't fit with what Ivy said.
xpacetrue 11th Apr 2018, 1:36 AM edit delete reply

Why do I get the feeling that, somehow, Ophelia will still end up in their Krogo and fight in the robot arena...?
Sheela 11th Apr 2018, 8:04 AM edit delete reply

Hah, yeah like if Ophelia commands them to put her in Krogo so she can go after the enemy straight away, and then they work in some arena work deal because it's such a big economic loss. :)

Ofcourse, a Cassian in a proper combat body is probably gonna wipe the floor with anything it meets.
megados 11th Apr 2018, 8:57 AM edit delete reply
"Ofcourse, a Cassian in a proper combat body is probably gonna wipe the floor with anything it meets."

It didn't really happen that way in the last encounter though. Just sayin' :D
Hornet 13th Apr 2018, 10:37 AM edit delete reply
More she'll be using it to chase our gold and blue friend.
Sheela 15th Apr 2018, 8:11 AM edit delete reply

Well, ok, yeah .. Ophelia's track record isn't perfect so far! >_<
xpacetrue 11th Apr 2018, 2:16 AM edit delete reply

BTW: Am I the only one to notice that both of these robot tinkerers are gals? Does that make me sexist or very old fashioned? I can't help but think of how few women go into STEM fields (and, statistically, how those who do tend to favor certain fields).

Come to think of it: A significant majority of characters in the comic are female, especially the main characters. Offhand, I can think of Cent-Comm, Tokyo Rose, Lynn, Dolly, Ceci, Calliope, Ada, Teedee, Sarah, Cella, Dr. Silver, Acantha, Kali, Noctis, Julia, Miraiko, Mira, Dari... not to mention all Cassians and several more bit characters. Even all of the human-resembling Epiphytes we've seen are in a female shape - all three of them. Also, there are the "Speakers" the Epiphytes make in Galina's image.

Am I correct in my understanding that New Troy, Nova Roma, Luna and the Epiphytes make most (if not all) of their humanoid-shaped bots and androids in the female image?

Sorry to bring this up. And it does not actually bother me. But, at this point, it's beginning to seem a bit weird...
Gilrandir 11th Apr 2018, 3:10 AM edit delete reply
As I recall, @xpacetrue, the DataChasers backstory canon explains that a disparity in gender distribution is one of the consequences of the Oblivion Virus. This is mentioned on the Tech Page, under Bio-Weapons.

Presumably the android and epiphyte forms are an outgrowth (conscious or otherwise) of the predominantly female human population with which they are intended to interact.
TheSkulker 11th Apr 2018, 7:45 AM edit delete reply

Well the story is set some 2000 years into the future. There's a slight possibility that there might be s small shift in culture over the course of 20 centuries.

Did women even attend STEM classes at all 2000 years ago?
Sheela 11th Apr 2018, 8:07 AM edit delete reply

Yeah, it's a birth rate thing, if I remember correctly.
Males are kinda scarce.
xpacetrue 11th Apr 2018, 9:26 AM edit delete reply

@TheSkulker I would never suggest that women aren't just as capable as men in STEM. But, you're assuming that the gender disparity in STEM is due to culture. Granted, this is the narrative being pushed by far left media outlets these days...

It's almost funny, though, how such articles are quick to point out how women are just as capable as men, yet they never bring up the possibility that - just maybe - there aren't that many women in STEM because there is some degree of gender disparity in the kinds of things people tend to be interested in and the kinds of careers people are interested in persuing - a difference that might not be cultural. (AFAIK, the whole "Nature vs. Nurture" debate in psychology has not been settled yet and has been a point of strong contention for decades.)
antrik 11th Apr 2018, 10:45 AM edit delete reply
@xpacetrue after reading a bunch of psychology articles, my impression is that actual scientists have a fairly good idea regarding "nature vs. nurture" -- and it's most likely contested chiefly by pseudo-scientists pushing an agenda...

(Just like some people claiming that there is no consensus on climate science, when in fact virtually all actual scientists have no doubts whatsoever that human-made climate change is very real, and models only differ in magnitude -- such as whether we are already past the point where average global temperature rise could be kept below 1.5° Celsius, or we still have a couple years left if some *radical* changes were to happen...)

From what I have seen, it's just as you say: while there is no indication of any significant difference in the *ability* of women vs. men to work in STEM fields, it seems to be pretty much established as fact that the majority of women tend more towards "people-oriented" rather than "things-oriented" occupations, regardless of culture. This is not something that's going to change significantly over a mere 2000 years.

Having said that, in a world where males are much rarer in general, it's kinda obvious that most jobs -- including engineering jobs -- would be filled by women nevertheless...
antrik 11th Apr 2018, 5:06 PM edit delete reply
Maybe I should clarify that I'm *not* saying the current strong disparity in technology/engineering fields faithfully represents actual distribution of interests -- there are probably still too many external factors discouraging women from entering these fields in spite of interests. On the other hand, it's illusory to think that absent any cultural factors, we would see anything close to equal proportions...
Deoxy 11th Apr 2018, 6:42 PM edit delete reply
"in fact virtually all actual scientists have no doubts whatsoever"

No TRUE Scotsman doubts climate change!
antrik 12th Apr 2018, 4:44 AM edit delete reply
Very apropos -- exactly the kind of meaningless pseudo-argument you'd get from climate change deniers :-) (And other types of science deniers or pseudo-scientists, for that matter.)
antrik 12th Apr 2018, 12:10 PM edit delete reply
I shall elaborate, for those following along:

In spite of alluring wisecracks about "no true Scotsman", the distinction between real scientists and pseudo-scientists is not at all arbitrary, and thus *not* a case of the "no true Scotsman" fallacy. Scientific methodology has been established over centuries, in response to what has proven effective in producing reliable results. Scientists are not always right of course -- but when there is a whole body of science agreeing on the same conclusions, and a bunch of guys propagating contradictory results while blatantly ignoring scientific methodology, it's not really hard to establish who is likely to be in the wrong.

I guess this is somewhat related to the observation that only a good programmer can tell good code from bad code. Similarly, only someone understanding scientific approaches can tell real science from pseudo-science.

Luckily, in many fields it's easy to tell the difference even without understanding the science, simply by pondering the question: who benefits from a conspiracy?

Who would benefit from a conspiracy of climate scientists against the public at large? (Hint: it's *not* the Chinese ;-) )

Sure, nowadays there is a growing green-tech industry, which would benefit from overstated climate concerns -- but then again, these only came up as a *response*, after man-made climate change has been well established, and large groups of activists with no financial interests have been calling for change.

On the other side, who would benefit from a conspiracy of climate change deniers? That's obvious: greedy investors and executives of the multi-trillion-dollar fossil fuel industry, who have been denying climate science for a long time, while verifiably knowing better. (#ExxonKnew)

And back to psychology, who would benefit from a conspiracy overstating inherent personality differences in humans (i.e. the "nature" aspect)? I frankly can't think of anyone.

(Note: the patriarchy clearly *does* benefit from claims of a general difference in *competence* levels between genders -- but nobody in their right mind still claims this nowadays, so it's beside the point...)

But who would benefit from overstating the importance of cultural influences (i.e. the "nurture" aspect)? That's probably not obvious, but totally makes sense once you realise it: it's self-help gurus, who want to convince you that you can be anyone you want to be -- and *they* can teach you how. (You just have to purchase their courses... Which aren't cheap of course, but who'd want to be cheap when it's about becoming *anyone you want to be*??)
Deoxy 13th Apr 2018, 12:03 PM edit delete reply
Sorry, didn't notice your second post before I responded.

"when there is a whole body of science agreeing on the same conclusions, and a bunch of guys propagating contradictory results while blatantly ignoring scientific methodology, it's not really hard to establish who is likely to be in the wrong."

You and I are in complete agreement on that... we just point that description at opposite sides.

Before I came to that conclusion, I spent YEARS with an open mind actually looking at the data. Did you? Or are you just trusting someone to do it for you?

"Luckily, in many fields it's easy to tell the difference even without understanding the science, simply by pondering the question: who benefits from a conspiracy?"

Not a bad question, and certainly, your answer on the one side is correct... but you leave the other side out entirely. NEITHER side is without benefit! (And honestly, neither side is without bad actors - I make NO claim that corporations are anything other than self-interested.)

And it's actually quite easy to see who benefits if you just take a little longer view. Who has been pushing the exact same set of actions regardless of the current consensus on warming or cooling? WHY would they push those things?

Hint: it's NOT the climate scientists! Their actions are a response - "follow the money" applies to all people, all the time, not just evil, evil corporations.

So who benefits? "That's obvious": the politicians and other "elites" who think they can use it as a form of control.

There is FAR FAR FAR more money in societal control than in ANY business.

"nobody in their right mind still claims this nowadays"

Now, personally, I don't claim that, but there you go making sweeping logical fallacies again, and of exactly the same kind.

I'm sure it feels good to hand-wave any opposition away, simply by denying their credentials or sanity for daring to disagree with your beliefs, but it's not useful for any honest pursuit of truth.
antrik 13th Apr 2018, 6:16 PM edit delete reply
You are mistaken: my statement about nobody in their right mind still claiming women are inferior in technical/engineering fields, is not any kind of logical fallacy. Rather, it's a judgement on my part. I stand by it -- and if anyone should take issue with that, I frankly don't care :-)

As for the rest... Let me get this straight: in your view of the world, a certain faction of politicians forms a big conspiracy making the real bucks, while oppressing all these poor multi-billion-dollar corporations? I have to say, I'm kinda fascinated -- it must be a pretty interesting world to live in ;-)

Even under this premise, I fail to see how false climate science would help them with that... But maybe my logic just doesn't work in a world so radically different from the one I know.

Anyway, I didn't mean to start a climate change debate. I only used that for what I hoped to be an obvious example...
Deoxy 16th Apr 2018, 3:26 PM edit delete reply
As I stated before, must be nice to simply dismiss anyone who disagrees with you as crazy, living in a different world, etc.

But let me make it slightly more difficult for you, first by taking YOUR words out of MY mouth.

"Let me get this straight: in your view of the world, a certain faction of politicians forms a big conspiracy making the real bucks, while oppressing all these poor multi-billion-dollar corporations?"

You don't "have it straight", at all. I didn't say almost ANY of that, nor anything even resembling most of it. If I were like you, I would now call you crazy (using some polite euphemism, such as "what color is the sky in your world?").

No "conspiracy" is required. No oppression of corporations is required.

It's very, very simple: take the same questions you ask about those evil corporations and apply to equally, everywhere... especially governments, which are essentially overly large and far more empowered corporations, in practice.

What is their goal? For corporations as well as governments, the goals are generally set by high-level executives (as neither governments nor corporations are actually alive to set their own). The people who put in the years of hard work required to get into those kinds of positions are generally fairly similar, and they want two things: money and power.

If you want money more than power, you generally go into business, and if you generally want power more than money, you go into politics or government bureaucracy, but the desire is for both.

This is why governments and corporations work so well together in many instances - those directing them are similar creatures with similar goals.

The instance of climate change is one where the difference in focus (money vs power) comes into play. There's more money in following the market, but there's more power in the control that comes with "emergency" situations. That doesn't mean the corporations and the government directly fight (too much bribery, I mean "campaign contributions" going on for that), they just work at different purposes.

Grant money doesn't go to people who get the "wrong" results, for instance, so grant money from corporations goes to one side, while grant money from government goes to the other. "Follow the money" - BOTH sides are tainted.

You actually have to look at the evidence FOR YOURSELF and make up your own mind. It's not hard, assuming you are of at least average mathematical ability, though for some of it you will need to put in some work on educating yourself in mathematics if you don't already have a good bit more education on the subject than average. Basic ability to follow the evidence logically, ignoring ones own pre-existing prejudices, is also a requirement, but that's SUPPOSED to be a requirement for ANY scientific endeavor - pretty rare these days, though.

Now, I haven't done as much the last 10 years or so (as the climate-change dogma has increasingly bashed its own head in against its own predictions, even more publicly than before... and honestly, as my own life has been more demanding of my time), so I'm a bit rusty, but I can point out some specific points of inquiry for you, if you actually want to look and understand.
antrik 16th Apr 2018, 10:52 PM edit delete reply
Funny how only a fraction of politicians are environmentalists, yet virtually all research funded by public money (and even that funded by Exxon half a century ago!) arrives at more or less the same conclusions... Something's not adding up in your conspiracy theory :-P

Not to mention that you still haven't presented any coherent explanation how governments (but only some of them) would benefit from those allegedly forged climate research findings. (Just to be clear, vague hand-waving about "control" is *not* an actual explanation.)
Deoxy 17th Apr 2018, 11:42 AM edit delete reply
Still not a conspiracy theory, as no conspiracy is required. YOU keep going there, not me.

"yet virtually all research funded by public money"

I did address that, rather directly. In fact, completely directly. Go read what I wrote.

"allegedly forged climate research findings."

Note also that I did not use the word "forged". That's you. Again.

While there is a little forgery (the infamous "hockey stick" that produced a hockey stick output no matter the input comes to mind), it's mostly just bias confirmation and sloppiness, which all sides engage in far too easily.

As to benefits, it's called "power" - the power to say who does what. Any method will do, so long as it motivates the populace. Fear is the most commonly used method, usually in the form of scape-goating some "out" group (Jews were a common target, using both fear and jealousy as motivation) or foreign entity (usually just fear).

The currently useful method is "climate change" (it produces the fear needed to herd the people), and it will be dropped for something else the moment it ceases to be useful.

The accuracy of the claims are utterly irrelevant to the politicians using them - they will use them if they are useful even if they are false, and they will stop using them if they aren't useful *even if they are true*.

That last bit is something I come back to regularly in these kinds of discussions. If there IS a real problem that we can address at some point, how would you convince people who have been on the receiving end of this BS for decades? (More like a century, really - there are stories from 30s and forward that, if typed in a modern font, could be read out of a paper today, all that varies is which way, hot or cold, and that bounces back and forth every couple of decades.)
antrik 17th Apr 2018, 2:36 PM edit delete reply
When many people (politicians and scientists in this case) band up to deceive the public at large, that clearly would qualify a conspiracy; and consequently, when you make claims to that effect, that's a conspiracy theory.

What you are saying about instrumentalising fear, certainly does have merit in general: fear of terrorism for example clearly has been instrumentalised repeatedly, as well as fear of an economic downturn. The motivations in these cases are very clear though: fear of terrorism is used to push surveillance and other empowering laws -- so a rather explicit power grab. Fear of economic downturn is used to push legislation reducing taxes on businesses -- so a rather explicit money grab. I don't see how climate legislation on the other hand would bring anything remotely comparable.

I'd also like to point out that as far as I'm aware, no politician ever got elected to a leading position on an environmental campaign; while we are witnessing at least one very prominent case of someone elected in a large part on an *anti-environmental* campaign... (I think there might be other cases, e.g. in Australia; but I haven't followed these too closely.) I think this speaks volumes: fear of environmentalism is actually being instrumented much more effectively than fear of environmental degradation!
antrik 17th Apr 2018, 2:47 PM edit delete reply
I forgot to add that prominent examples, such as Al Gore or even Arnold Schwarzenegger, seriously engaged on their climate campaigns only *after* ending their political careers.
Deoxy 17th Apr 2018, 6:43 PM edit delete reply
Oops, didn't see this before I listed Al Gore... but that's OK, because your claim here is simply factually incorrect (at least about Gore haven't ever looked into Schwarzenegger)..

He's guy who negotiated the bloody Kyoto treaty, for goodness sake, and he did that while VP under Clinton! And that's just one of his enviro-cred claims from the Clinton years - that was one of his POINTS in running!

You know the "Gore claimed to invent the internet" bit? It's from an interview in 1999 when he was running for President, and his enviro claims are right there IN THE SAME QUOTE.

It was a bloody cornerstone of his campaign, but you say it was after his political career?

How about this one, straight off Wikipedia:

Gore has been involved with environmental issues since 1976, when as a freshman congressman, he held the "first congressional hearings on the climate change, and co-sponsor[ed] hearings on toxic waste and global warming."[60][61]

Yeah, sure, he really got into environmentalism *after* his political career. Pull the other one, eh?
Deoxy 17th Apr 2018, 6:27 PM edit delete reply
Once AGAIN, I didn't say they "band together". THAT IS NOT REQUIRED, so stop putting words into my mouth!

No coordinated action is required - look at the rules of the game, look at what people's goals and desires are, and certain actions are the likely outcome, without them ever talking to each other about it. Add in bribery (sorry, I mean "campaign contributions") from special interest groups, and voila - those on one side of the aisle get the bribery from one set of special interest groups and fall one way on those issues, those on the other side get the bribery from the other set and fall the other. As I said, BOTH sides are tainted. Tribalism with not help you find the truth.

"fear of terrorism for example clearly has been instrumentalised repeatedly, as well as fear of an economic downturn. "

Both of those have been used, as I pointed out above, regardless of whether they were right or wrong (I can give you good examples of each for both of those). How can you see that and not see the same thing in effect in the ultimate fear-mongering, the state of the planet? (And I use the term "fear-mongering" because that's what is going on, EVEN if they are correct - the politicians don't CARE if it's correct or not, so it's simple fear-mongering, the same as your examples).
Deoxy 17th Apr 2018, 6:28 PM edit delete reply
"I don't see how climate legislation on the other hand would bring anything remotely comparable."

Then you haven't been paying attention at all. Just in terms of "simple money grab", there has been more money given to crony "green" companies in the last 10 years than this entire tax cut (which is actually almost entirely paying for itself, according to the CBO, by increasing total taxable income almost enough to make up for the lowered rate - in other words, the government is still getting almost as much money, and the private sector is getting LOTS more - most people would call that "win-win") that you called a "simple money grab", and most of it was entirely wasted.

Non-money-related issues also abound - the simplest example is the power to give waivers, which can be used as favors/punishment or to extort "contributions".

"I'd also like to point out that as far as I'm aware, no politician ever got elected to a leading position on an environmental campaign"

Al Gore won the "popular vote" (even though that's not actually what it is) on a strong environmental campaign, as just one example among many. You "not hearing about it" does not seem to mean much, as your hearing seems to be highly selective.
Deoxy 17th Apr 2018, 6:29 PM edit delete reply
"I think this speaks volumes: fear of environmentalism is actually being instrumented much more effectively than fear of environmental degradation!"

And yet, actual environmental degradation, when people look at the evidence and believe it, is fought quite hard and quite without government help. Indeed, the worst environmental disaster in the US in decades (the King Mine spill) was explicitly and directly CAUSED by the government environmentalists, the EPA!

If you look at the history of environmental action in this country, you'll see that the federal government came to the party late and took credit for all kinds of things that were already done. The Clean Water Act? The river fire that sparked its creation was so small that no one got there in time to get a picture, and it was only picture worthy BECAUSE they had become so rare! Years before (LONG before the Clean Water Act), they were so common as to not be considered newsworthy.

The people DO care about the environment... which is why environmental scare-mongering works at all. Unfortunately, the more the scare-mongering, the less people will pay attention to REAL problems... you see where I'm going with this.

As someone who actually does care about the environment, I find the "environmental" movement, and most especially the anthropogenic climate change portion, to be actively harmful to their claimed cause, because they convince way too many people that the whole thing is a scam.

Trump didn't win because people don't want to care for the environment - to the extent that his "anti-environmentalism" (not that I agree with that term) helped him, it's because people no longer trust the "environmentalists" to act in good faith, and after that last few years of the EPA's well-and-publicly-documented unethical and lawless behaviour (and colluding with green groups in the process), I can't say that I blame them.

And that's BAD! If/when there is a real problem (and I am not beyond convincing that real problems could occur), few people will be willing to listen. A century of crying wolf tends to have that effect.
Deoxy 13th Apr 2018, 11:48 AM edit delete reply
Congratulations on completely missing the point, either actually or intentionally.

Just to make it painfully clear, when you write "no ACTUAL whatever does/believes whatever", you using your belief in something as the definition of what is acceptable, and it would be hilarious if it weren't so terrible in it's effects.

Let me give you some historical examples:

No actual man of faith would believe the world is round.

No true German would protect the lesser peoples from annihilation at the Fuehrer's command. (Things to this effect were actually said!)

No actual scientists doubt the accuracy of phrenology (as just one example of many "sciences" that enjoyed *consensus* in their day).

It's both an appeal to authority AND circular reasoning in one pile of useless (but scientific SOUNDING) fallacy.

In other words, "exactly the kind of meaningless pseudo-argument you'd get from climate change" acolytes.

And yes, I use a term that implies religion intentionally - no amount of evidence is ever enough to dissuade true believers in the Church of Climate Change.
Deoxy 13th Apr 2018, 2:29 PM edit delete reply
Whoa, replies got put in out of order somehow, there. Strange - the "missing the point" reply was to his first, short reply. Sorry about that.
antrik 13th Apr 2018, 5:26 PM edit delete reply
My second post was a reply to my original post -- that's probably why the replies got out of order.
antrik 13th Apr 2018, 6:42 PM edit delete reply
From what I can gather, there was never anything close to consensus on phrenology. It was based on not really scientific methods, and utterly discredited in scientific circles even before it gained wide popularity elsewhere.

The other examples do not pertain to scientists at all, and thus are beside the point... Though I can see how this wasn't clear before reading my follow-up :-)

BTW, by intentionally using loaded terms, you are belying your pretence of a logic-based argument...

(Yeah, I'm using loaded terms too. It's not hypocrisy though: I just have witnessed enough fruitless internet debates to know that trying to convince others with logic is a doomed endeavour anyway... Or trying to convince others holding strong beliefs at all, for that matter.)
xpacetrue 13th Apr 2018, 3:28 PM edit delete reply

"...Just like some people claiming that there is no consensus on climate science..."

You mean, like, pointing out that 31,487 American scientists (including 9,029 with PhDs) have signed a petition to reject the Kyoto Protocol and saying that there is "no convincing scientific evidence" that human release of gases is causing a catastrophic disruption of the Earth's climate?
( Source: http://www.petitionproject.org/ )
BTW: Have you watched congressional hearings on the subject of global warming? I found them rather interesting...
antrik 13th Apr 2018, 6:46 PM edit delete reply
I was obviously talking about *climate* scientists, not a random bunch of self-proclaimed "scientists" holding bachelors or masters (and sometimes PhDs) in unrelated fields...
xpacetrue 14th Apr 2018, 4:37 AM edit delete reply

"Self-proclaimed" scientists? How about this:

More Than 1000 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims - Challenge UN IPCC & Gore

Some excerpts: "This Climate Depot Special Report is not a 'list' of scientists, but a report that includes full biographies of each scientist and their quotes, papers and links for further reading."
"It also features their own words, biographies, and web links to their peer reviewed studies, scientific analyses and original source materials..."
"The distinguished scientists featured in this new report are experts in diverse fields, including: climatology; geology; biology; glaciology; biogeography; meteorology; oceanography; economics; chemistry; mathematics; environmental sciences; astrophysics, engineering; physics and paleoclimatology."

And it goes on from there, pointing out how they hail from prestigious institutions worldwide and how some of them have earned Nobel Prizes for their exceptional contribution to their field.

As for the so-called "consensus" of climatologists agreeing:
"Background: Only 52 Scientists Participated in UN IPCC Summary

The notion of 'hundreds' or 'thousands' of UN scientists agreeing to a scientific statement does not hold up to scrutiny. (See report debunking 'consensus' LINK)"


And, yes, this article does provide references for these claims. Though, you'd have to download the 321-page PDF to find all the references, the names of scientists and their statements. Also, since this report is from 2010, some of the links are broken as websites and articles come and go. But, in many cases, you can find an archived copy on archive dot org.

Here are some more articles to show that my position does not rely on just one source:
Manipulated IPCC Science supported by Manipulated Appeals to Authority
Climate change: no consensus on consensus
Top Ten Reasons Climate Change is a Hoax
NASA Scientist: Global Warming Is Nonsense

Even if there was a majority of published studies and data from climatologists supporting Global Warming, even that would not be conclusive proof. Have you ever heard of "confirmation bias"?

YouTube > Is Most Published Research Wrong?
PLOS > Why Most Published Research Findings Are False
The Economist > Scientists like to think of science as self-correcting. To an alarming degree, it is not
Science Isn’t Broken

Is the Government Buying Science or Support? A Framework Analysis of Federal Funding-induced Biases
Is federal funding biasing climate research?
Understanding Climategate's Hidden Decline In How Science Was Bastardized - The $50 Billion New Socialist Media? - Big Brother's Money Grab
1350+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarmism

Global Warming is about a "carbon tax" - an excuse to add a tax onto carbon-based fuels. It's about "carbon trading", where nations literally buy and sell the 'right to pollute'. It's about "carbon farming" - government programs and financial incentives to buy up thousands and thousands of acres of some of the richest farmland in order to sequester excess carbon by growing trees. (Imagine what that might do to food prices.) Don't believe me? Search the phrases in quotations above.

It's about treaties which would impose significant burdens (or even sanctions) on nations which do not abide by certain 'standards'. The emissions chart for the Kyoto Protocol uses skewed data (cherry picking, such as by choosing to start with the year 1990, after the U.S. enacted tough environmental protections but before Europe had started theirs) to inaccurately portray the U.S. as doing very little to curb pollution and greenhouse emissions while making Europe look rosey by comparison. Thus, the U.S. would be forced to pay for most of it. Moreover, it would discourage 3rd world nations from catching up with the West by encouraging them to sell their "carbon quotas" to other nations. This would hamper, if not restrict, them from building more industry.

BTW: Some conflate "climate deniers" - those who remain skeptical that there has been a significant warming trend - with "Global Warming deniers" - those who remain skeptical that the causes of this is mostly due to mankind's release of greenhouse gases. But the two are not synonymous. Indeed, many deniers admit that there is a warming trend. But they believe that it mostly stems from natural causes. And many believe that it is far less severe than alarmists make it out to be.

With so much to refute the Global Warming narrative, I find it interesting how many still defend it religiously. Is it really so hard to believe that this might be natural? Is it because accepting this possibility would mean that there may be little, if anything, that mankind can do to stop it? Is it because the thought of being helpless against climate change sounds so scary that we must believe otherwise?
Deoxy 17th Apr 2018, 11:45 AM edit delete reply
"With so much to refute the Global Warming narrative, I find it interesting how many still defend it religiously. Is it really so hard to believe that this might be natural? Is it because accepting this possibility would mean that there may be little, if anything, that mankind can do to stop it? Is it because the thought of being helpless against climate change sounds so scary that we must believe otherwise?"

The religious angle covers it for some, but I think the simplest explanation is purpose and meaning in life.

If I'm crusading to SAVE THE PLANET, I have purpose and meaning. That's very very very hard to give up.
antrik 17th Apr 2018, 3:26 PM edit delete reply
That bit about meaning etc. is very much to the point (indeed I considered bringing it up myself) -- except it goes both ways!

I find it ironic how both of you keep accusing climate campaigners of being dogmatic, considering that climate change denial is strongly associated with conservatism (especially in the US) -- and conservatives are obviously more receptive to believing things on faith rather than evidence...

That's why I'm not even trying to refute all the obvious flaws in that "evidence" narrative and heap of propaganda links -- it would be completely useless against such strongly held beliefs.

(Well, that, and the fact that THIS IS NOT THE PLACE FOR IT.)
Deoxy 16th Apr 2018, 3:32 PM edit delete reply
"I was obviously talking about *climate* scientists, not a random bunch of self-proclaimed "scientists" "

And back to "No true Scotsman" we go. Who could possibly have seen this coming... Oh right, everyone.
Some Ed 11th Apr 2018, 11:03 AM edit delete reply
It's not a statistically significant number nor an entirely random data sample, but every one of the women I've known who had the capability to go into STEM but chose not to and I knew well enough to know her reasons for not doing so did so primarily because of the social effects of doing so. Secondary reasons were all over the place, of course.
Icefall Kitsune 11th Apr 2018, 12:19 PM edit delete reply

It looks like my girls are going to buck the norm. My oldest (19)is in college and majoring in Psychology. My youngest (14) is working on high school course towards a Marine Biology degree (likely animal & plants). My son who is 17 is working on being a delinquent. Fun times :)
Oldarmourer 11th Apr 2018, 1:05 PM edit delete reply
at least he's working at something, that in itself is a wonder these days
robnot 11th Apr 2018, 12:33 PM edit delete reply
@xpacetrue: " But, you're assuming that the gender disparity in STEM is due to culture. " .. there is NO assume.! at least 60% of modern tech was patented by female. it is a male dominated culture ..
xpacetrue 14th Apr 2018, 12:13 AM edit delete reply

"there is NO assume.! at least 60% of modern tech was patented by female."

Can you provide a reference to back that up? Even if that's accurate, how does the latter claim (60%+ of modern tech was patented by female) support the former claim (gender disparity in STEM is 100% culture-based)? Can you explain that to me? Also, both are strong claims, leaving no room for debate. But the very nature of science demands strong evidence for strong claims.
Guest 11th Apr 2018, 6:10 PM edit delete reply
"It's almost funny, though, how such articles are quick to point out how women are just as capable as men, yet they never bring up the possibility that - just maybe - there aren't that many women in STEM because there is some degree of gender disparity in the kinds of things people tend to be interested in and the kinds of careers people are interested in persuing - a difference that might not be cultural. (AFAIK, the whole "Nature vs. Nurture" debate in psychology has not been settled yet and has been a point of strong contention for decades.) "

There is actually some very strong evidence on this point: as cultures become more wealthy, the number of women in STEM DECLINES. That is, the more people can afford to express their preferences in career, the fewer more sex differences show themselves in career. This has been shown across multiple continents over the last hundred+ years.

The other issue that you don't point out is that men and women have a different distribution, and it is swallows any difference in average. To put that another way, the "bell curve" for men is WIDE and short, while for women, it is (comparably) narrow and tall. The difference in their width is so large that any difference in their average (the middle point of their bell curve) is negligible in comparison.

As such, for almost ANY given thing, the more you select for outliers, the more men you get.

Super geniuses? More men than women, not close. Mental capacity so low you can't care for yourself? ALSO more men than women, not close.

For an easy experiment that gets a similar idea across, roll 100 sets of 3 6-sided dice, then roll a single 20-sided die 100 times. The average number of the two is exactly the same (10.5), but the single die will have FAR more numbers above 16 and above and FAR more numbers 5 and below.
antrik 12th Apr 2018, 4:55 AM edit delete reply
Indeed that's not limited to career choices: studies show that differences in general personality traits between genders are *more* pronounced in more egalitarian cultures... The effect is not strong, but consistent across studies. Apparently in more egalitarian cultures, women feel more free to indulge their own nature, rather than following the male "ideal"...
Siren 13th Apr 2018, 2:48 AM edit delete reply
You might want to talk to more women in the field. Male egos can be sensitive when women outperform them in areas they expect to be naturally superior. The biggest challenges we face aren't skill/knowledge based.
antrik 13th Apr 2018, 6:34 AM edit delete reply
Did anyone here suggest that the challenges are skill/knowledge-based? I didn't see that...

Just to be clear, I'm not at all denying that there are unfair challenges. (Indeed I mentioned somewhere that we are still far from equal opportunities in some areas.) I'm just pointing out that these are not the *only* reasons we see less women in technical/engineering fields -- but rather there are *also* some fundamental (non-cultural) differences in inclinations.

As for male egos, I can well imagine that to be a problem (can't really talk from experience, since in the fields I work in women are virtually non-existent...) -- though I guess this problem should go away as the notion that men are "expected" to be naturally superior in these fields is dying out...
knuut 11th Apr 2018, 10:35 PM edit delete reply
@ xpacetrue And likely to remain so for generations. Personally, I come down solidly on both sides.
robnot 16th Apr 2018, 11:44 AM edit delete reply
umm story takes place less than 900 years from now ,, 2911 ,, (893)
megados 11th Apr 2018, 9:26 AM edit delete reply
"Am I correct in my understanding that New Troy, Nova Roma, Luna and the Epiphytes make most (if not all) of their humanoid-shaped bots and androids in the female image?"

Aside from the biological reasoning behind human gender distribution, this point is something that would have to be a separate set of causes. In fact, one might go as far as to think that since the biological existence of males is rarer, that their production in androids would tend toward filling the void, but this appears not to be the case.

In humans, the weight distribution in males differs significantly from that of females, and in some cases the female form seems better balanced in many positions. (The old 'pick up the chair' exercise comes to mind) Could it be possible that the female form in an android (gynoid) is simply better balanced to a point where it is preferred?
Centcomm 11th Apr 2018, 1:03 PM edit delete reply

GUys made a lot of the andriod templates.. Why is it another female! " because i want to look at a hot chick. " Supervisor faceplams. " fine "
sigpig 11th Apr 2018, 4:30 PM edit delete reply

But Centcomm, YOU made all the android templates. "I want to see hot chicks!" <grin>
Tokyo Rose 11th Apr 2018, 6:08 PM edit delete reply

Hilariously, the out-of-universe reason for the gender disparity is essentially what Cent mentioned. She makes the characters, and she likes working with the female DAZ figures more than the male ones. (Also, there are more outfits available for said female figures than there are for the male ones, overall.)
megados 11th Apr 2018, 7:46 PM edit delete reply
@Cent and Rose, for the record, I am not at all adverse to your choices in this matter! XD
xpacetrue 11th Apr 2018, 4:24 PM edit delete reply

@megados
"...In fact, one might go as far as to think that since the biological existence of males is rarer, that their production in androids would tend toward filling the void, but this appears not to be the case."

Indeed. Knowing (now) that in the Datachasers universe women outnumber men due to the Oblivion virus and assuming a majority of women still prefer male romantic companionship, one may wonder why this void is not filled. Is polygamy, with a husband having two wives, a thing in this fictional future? No, I am not saying that a woman has to have a man to feel complete. But you know that there would be many women like Dr. Silver - at least in city-states like New Troy and New Sparta - who would be more than happy to date a male android. There aren't enough men or even male androids to go around? What about supply vs. demand? Even today, cutting-edge robot sex dolls are flying off of shelves - despite the huge price tags - to meet the demand as an increasing number of men have written off the very prospect of marriage by figuring the risks far outweighing the rewards.

"In humans, the weight distribution in males differs significantly from that of females, and in some cases the female form seems better balanced in many positions. (The old 'pick up the chair' exercise comes to mind) Could it be possible that the female form in an android (gynoid) is simply better balanced to a point where it is preferred?"

Ah, good point. Though, perhaps it's more about size and resource requirements? Despite being androids, it at least appears that females are manufactured to be somewhat smaller than males. Smaller means that New Troy needs a bit less resources to manufacture them. And I would assume that this, in turn, might mean slightly less "body debt" for gynoids to pay off compared to males. Also, a smaller body means less food and/or energy to maintain and operate them. How do city-states like New Troy obtain food, energy and resources? Isn't there usually a shortage in a post-apocalyptic future?
megados 11th Apr 2018, 7:32 PM edit delete reply
" . . . perhaps it's more about size and resource requirements?"

I have to be honest, and admit that I had not given due consideration to size comparison. Good point, and very likely to be a big factor. In addition to resource requirements, the smaller frame also allows for greater speed and agility. Additionally, it may help offset weight/mass penalties when looking at combat frames.

Having seen Rose's and Centcomm's explanations above now, I'm glad to have plausible explanations to help keep my suspension of disbelief intact. :D

"How do city-states like New Troy obtain food, energy and resources? Isn't there usually a shortage in a post-apocalyptic future?"

Fusion and micro fusion reactors are the oft stated power source, although I don't remember the fuel being specified. Obtaining food and other resources pose some questions also. Possibilities include lab grown protein and hydroponically grown flora. There again, I don't recall anything specifically stated. New Rome likely has a more 'organic' process, because they don't have a lot of, or even like technology. As you say, shortages are the norm, but that doesn't seem apparent. I should add that we have seen more of the life of those in authority, and I would wonder if that holds true for everyone, or is the population more stratified than it seems? Personally, if I had to guess, I might say that New Troy might be more homogeneous, while New Rome would be more class based.

Outside of the city-states, in the wastes, life does seem as one might expect.
Centcomm 12th Apr 2018, 12:18 PM edit delete reply

New troy uses underground alge farms for the basics and seafood farms in protected underground tanks using hardy fish and shellfish that could be grown and processed. Cows sadly were not viable so had to be replaced by Synthetic proteins - a offshoot of the Android technology actually or vise versa. The most basic being the " synth " molecule a multi purpose basic protein that is used for dozens of applications and made from processing fish and algae this is a efficient method that produces a lot of food fast. but its .. not that good looking - think Pink goo or white Goo. nor is it piticularly tasty .. as in bland as eating raw flour, but the result can be made into almost any food visually. with a .. margin of error. a lot of people dont even bother with " real food " Shapes. Now the Ephiphytes also produce foods and ship them to earth from the home ship and from orbital gardens surrounding Saturn and Mars. They are also hard at work restoring the " bread basket " for the planet and seeing what zones can be cleaned up and used. common power is heavy water fusion and " fusion cells " a closed loop energy box that has only enough fuel for several years and is then recharged/ recycled.

large scale power is from solar farms and underground fusion / nuclear reactors Epiphytes use gravity pulse reactors - a totally different animal. anyway i think i got off track here
megados 12th Apr 2018, 1:28 PM edit delete reply
Wow, Cent, that's an awesome answer! Thank you!
antrik 12th Apr 2018, 1:41 PM edit delete reply
That's a LOT of interesting info :-)

"Synth" sounds a lot like tofu... Not a coincidence, I presume? ;-)

I'd love to see some of these solar farms show up in the landscape!
Centcomm 12th Apr 2018, 5:28 PM edit delete reply

its actually short hand for " Synthetic Molecule. " hur hur
antrik 12th Apr 2018, 7:21 PM edit delete reply
What I meant is that the description of "synth" sounds a lot like a description of tofu (apart from the different origin) -- not any similarity in the words...
Gilrandir 12th Apr 2018, 2:19 PM edit delete reply
"Soylent Green is Androids?"

"But aren't androids people?"

"Soylent Green is people!!!" ^_^
antrik 11th Apr 2018, 10:15 AM edit delete reply
@xpacetrue actually, there has been at least one Epiphyte in Lunastar who chose a male-looking form.

Presumably, the reason most of the Epiphytes we have seen chose a female-looking form, is that they wanted to appear non-threatening to humans -- which a female form is more suitable for. I have a vague recollection that this was indeed mentioned explicitly in Lunastar?...
Centcomm 11th Apr 2018, 1:02 PM edit delete reply

Thats correct Antrik
Sheela 15th Apr 2018, 10:15 AM edit delete reply

Synthetic Meat is sort of a thing.
Though they call it Cultured Meat instead.
antrik 15th Apr 2018, 10:56 AM edit delete reply
Not the same thing though: what these scientists are doing today, is directly growing something like real meat, rather than growing a generic tofu-like protein that can be processed to emulate other foods...
robnot 16th Apr 2018, 12:16 AM edit delete reply
..try some,, its made with soy beanie goodness..
"while i respect that you don't eat meat,, please respect that i don't eat FAKE meat.!!
Sheela 18th Apr 2018, 5:12 PM edit delete reply

Ugh, the soy-bean fakes get so darn dry if you try to make a patty and fry it on a pan.
It's so-so in cooked meals, where the rest of the meal add to the flavor.

Still, I'm not a fan of plant based fake-meat.
Lurker314 11th Apr 2018, 3:39 AM edit delete reply
Looks like we have two more Two-Cells. Good. Hate to have minor characters dying more mere stupidity. Except for the Red Shirts<bs><bs><bs><bs>uits. F*** them.
Just_IDD 11th Apr 2018, 9:13 AM edit delete reply
For Nova Roma it's really the blue shir<bs>ts you want to kill!
Greenwood Goat 11th Apr 2018, 5:24 AM edit delete reply
"Krogo" as in the Krogoth bot unit from Total Annihilation's Core Contingency expansion pack?

Jordan: *plays Total Annihilation on emulator* ...and a Krogoth would be a great unit to enter in the bot fights...

Ivy: You and your ultra retro games... it's a completely impractical design, not to mention that cannon fists aren't allowed, and neither is that high energy weapon on its head. "Krogoth" might make a good name for the new fighter-bot we're building, though.

Jordan: Huh... call it "Krogo". No plasma cannon or missiles or high energy weapon, it ain't no Krogoth. *pout*

>:=)>
Sheela 11th Apr 2018, 8:08 AM edit delete reply

Not only that, they make references to Bolo's as well.
Centcomm and Rose are proper Sci-Fi nerds. :)
Centcomm 11th Apr 2018, 1:04 PM edit delete reply

thankys
Gilrandir 11th Apr 2018, 1:21 PM edit delete reply
If Krogo is being likened to a Bolo, it had better have treads, instead of legs! ^_^ (It should also be at least ten stories tall, but I think we can write off any chance of that.)

Properly speaking, a Bolo should be a mobile A.I.S. with the firepower of a flotilla of Battleship Yamatos. Aeneas out joyriding in the entire Central Complex on a Saturday Night. I'd guess Krogo will have much more in common with a Terminator or an ED-209. But that's just a guess.
sigpig 11th Apr 2018, 4:37 PM edit delete reply

Don't forget that the Yamato has a little thing called the Wave Motion cannon...

Kind of like the SDF-1's main gun...
antrik 11th Apr 2018, 5:22 PM edit delete reply
Wave motion gun?... Let me remind you that the *real* battleship Yamato was an actual battleship (as in, big piece of steel floating in the ocean) during World War 2... Sure had a lot of big guns, but none of the "wave motion" variety ;-)
robnot 16th Apr 2018, 12:34 AM edit delete reply
i think sigpig meant Star Blazers "Space Battleship Yamato"..
an the SDF-1 was Robotech...
antrik 16th Apr 2018, 10:33 AM edit delete reply
Yeah, but is it also what @Gilrandir meant, when he brought "a flotilla of Battleship Yamatos [sic]" as a reference point? :-)
antrik 16th Apr 2018, 10:34 AM edit delete reply
Uh... Not sure why I put that "[sic]" in there.
sigpig 11th Apr 2018, 4:33 PM edit delete reply

Are Bolos more deadly than Col Hammer's hover tanks?
Gilrandir 11th Apr 2018, 7:31 PM edit delete reply
@sigpig had it right. A Bolo Mk XXX Continental Siege Unit (in my opinion) commanded the firepower of more than one Wave Motion Gun -- but of course arguing science fictional super-science details like that is pointless (if fun).

And, as far as I know, there's a game called Ogre by Steve Jackson games in which the Ogre Automated Tank was directly inspired by the Dinochrome Brigade. Col. Hammer's tanks? Those would be the GEVs. Waves of them would break on the shoals of the Ogre's armor and burn like fireflies in the beams of its main guns.
robnot 12th Apr 2018, 12:07 PM edit delete reply
Hammer's Slammers....
Sheela 15th Apr 2018, 10:43 AM edit delete reply

So, I don't know how close the Bolo's of the Datachasers universe mimic the Concordiat of Man storyline. But here's some details on them from the development of the Concordiat's Dinochrome Brigade.

Now, it's difficult to determine the raw power of Bolo tanks, as they have changed a lot over time - The latter models of Bolo's was *much* more powerful, than the first generations.
But by the same relation, they also met less dangerous enemies.
Mind you, most Bolo units have some sort of low earth orbit attack capability.

They are also generally highly sentient, though the earliest Bolo's were not. Around the Mark XV, sentience was possible, and by Mark XX they were not only sentient, but fully self-aware and capable of fully independent operation.

As for size, the Mark I was "only" a 150 tonne conventional tank. While the Mark XXXIII was a 32,000 tonne, fully self-willed, capable of full strategic planning and able to operate indefinitely without external support.

I think they said it took about 30 centuries to reach such development.
In other words, they change a lot.
Tokyo Rose 15th Apr 2018, 9:33 PM edit delete reply

There are no actual Bolos (as in 30,000-ton sentient tanks with ground-to-space attack capability) in the Datachasers universe, but the term *has* become a nickname for heavy tanks. :D
Sheela 18th Apr 2018, 6:11 PM edit delete reply

That, I can easily imagine.
And heck, they probably *do* have heavy tanks as capable as the early Bolo's ... ie. in the 150 - 300 ton range. :)

Just think of the Maus from WWII, that was around 188 tonnes !
And for you guys that think "Maus, isn't that 'mouse' in German ?"
Yes. yes indeed, you are exactly correct.

But it turns out that after making the Panther, the Lion, the Tiger, the JagdTiger, and even the King Tiger ... the german engineers had a bout of insanity and levity, and in a rare case of German humor named their biggest supertank for .. The Maus!

They even had an even bigger supertank on the table named .. The Ratte ! >_<
Oldarmourer 11th Apr 2018, 1:04 PM edit delete reply
Hadn't thought about Bolos in forever, now I have to go read the books again. Love the references and Feelie needs a nice shiny durachrome Bolo body "Arm Hellbores and Infinite Repeaters" :)
oldastronomer 11th Apr 2018, 3:46 PM edit delete reply
Yay!! Bolo!! Called it - although the large metallic foot in the last frame a couple comics back makes the 'Saberhagen' like berserker sort of humanoid more likely, as noted in a reply by @Gilrandir to my previous.
An interesting point: the girls *know* about Cassians, despite being in the New Troy tinkerers circuit. Evidently the influence of New Rome extends across half of what was the USA - to the Big Muddy? Lots of small , very small, communities making a go of things scavageing scrap and trading items, repairing things for money, and probably in kind as well. Not a huge population, and much of that concentrated in the 3 big cities, plus a few major trading centres, plus minor sites.
antrik 11th Apr 2018, 5:26 PM edit delete reply
AIUI, this is supposed to take place not too far from Roma; so it would be strange if they didn't know... The fact that they were getting supplies from a Troy auction doesn't really contradict that.
oldastronomer 12th Apr 2018, 9:22 AM edit delete reply
Hmm, the landscape of the vicinity of the recent action is more like the montaine SW of the USA than the New England/Maritimes of Canada. But, given the huge wrenches in the climate over the last 1800 yrs of storytime, I could buy something like the Ozarks or the Gt Smokey Mtns, even the Adirondacks?
The ubiquity of small fusion power plants and flying vehicles like the Navarro also speaks of enough range for a couple of roving geeks to be based east of the Mississippi and look in on New Troy area swap meets. Two girls as techs, given the deep story background, should not be surprising really. If that is what will put food and coffee on the table, girls will geek to the max. In our time girls get put off STEM by the crap thrown at them by idiot boys - family experience here...
antrik 12th Apr 2018, 11:26 AM edit delete reply
"Crap thrown at them by idiot boys" indeed seems to be a prevalent issue: a study once found that when girls learn maths in separate classes from boys during a certain age (somewhere around the onset of puberty IIRC), they do just as well as the boys; whereas in co-educational classes, the girls do significantly worse...

In other words, the old stereotype about girls being bad at maths is clearly a self-fulfilling prophecy.

(I don't know whether the co-education aspect is a well-established fact though, or it just from a single study, which might have been flawed...)

Either way, that's not the sole reason for the gender disparity in technical/engineering professions, though.
xpacetrue 12th Apr 2018, 4:24 AM edit delete reply

@Centcomm , @Tokyo Rose
Have you forgotten about this page where Ada asks Cent-Comm for permission to contact Kevin and let him know that she is still alive? Are we going to see her actually do that or at least a reference to her having done this?
oldastronomer 12th Apr 2018, 9:30 AM edit delete reply
Interesting... Jordan (?) is wearing a black body armour/suit like Dari McCarthy or the old Noctis suit, suggesting that a lot of New Rome style/stuff is knocking around the hinterland. Ivy is wearing something more generic but suitable for hotter weather. Both are probably armed for bandersnatch in the event of defending their bolthole.
antrik 12th Apr 2018, 11:29 AM edit delete reply
That's not black...
robnot 12th Apr 2018, 12:11 PM edit delete reply
hehe,,, just had to throw a "pipboy" in there....
Centcomm 12th Apr 2018, 12:24 PM edit delete reply

hahah good catch!
antrik 12th Apr 2018, 12:17 PM edit delete reply
Going by these gals' reaction, the Cassians' reputation is clearly very effective ;-)
megados 12th Apr 2018, 1:59 PM edit delete reply
That's because the Cassians are very effective. ;)
Johninaustin 13th Apr 2018, 2:30 AM edit delete reply
Any possibility that Korgo has already put in an appearance back at the gutter camp? Maybe these two new ladies have a secret.
Rashala 13th Apr 2018, 3:42 AM edit delete reply

A new troy body. Tossed out........oh Helios I think I have a bad feeling this body is gonna be familiar.
oldastronomer 13th Apr 2018, 9:15 AM edit delete reply
Probably not KLY Kelly's body - that is still being held for evidence by NTPD. Might be a 3 series body - eg Connie's old frame - she did upgrade to a 4C as I recall - a sale was on..!!
Agreed Dolly's old frame would *never* be junked by the Taylors - it would rest in their private museum for all time to come.
There could be a lot of 3's around as castoffs - which would be OK as most Cassians seem to be mid threes equivalent (see frame with Noctis and Ceci in the bounty office in New Rome).
antrik 13th Apr 2018, 7:23 PM edit delete reply
I'm pretty sure Kelly's old body would qualify as a "junker" anyway :-)

We never saw Connie in her old body -- so it wouldn't really be familiar...

(As for Connie's new body, it's indeed 4C by current canon.)
Hausof7Mau 13th Apr 2018, 1:12 PM edit delete reply
One of the best thoughts I picked up from Laumer's Stories was in regards to the Hell Bores the later models carried. "If the target was above the Horizon, it is in range."
DLKmusic 13th Apr 2018, 6:03 PM edit delete reply

"The Horizon is too far away. I decree that the horizon should be brought closer to the castle. So let it be written so let it be done"

From Shelley Duvall's Fairy Tale theatre: "The Princess and the Pea"

Free association is a terrible thing to waste!
Mirta 17th Apr 2018, 2:40 PM edit delete reply
@Centcomm If someone wanted to use the Datachasers universe in a Multiverse Fanfiction, would it be okay?
KarToon12 17th Apr 2018, 8:05 PM edit delete reply

By "squished", I think they mean that in the most literal sense. ;)
Post a Comment


Comic Basement - Webcomic Ranking Directory