Forums of the Megaverse®

Thinyser wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Thinyser wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:People commonly think of lamps as machines, even when they're not used to hit people, so I don't really agree with you.

Really? You think the majority of people think of lamps as machines?
I really don't see the average person thinking that at all... lasers maybe, but lamps not so much.

I think most people think of machines as things that involve motion and/or moving parts (electric motors, gears, wheels, etc) to perform their function.

I think most people don't differentiate between machines and electronic devices.

So you honestly believe that most people would look at a TV or a lamp or an oven and if asked to classify it as either a "machine" or a "electronic device" would, as their first reaction, think "machine"?

Not necessarily if you present it like that (well, some still would).

But if you pointed at a TV or a Lamp, and asked, "Is that a machine?"
Most people would say, "Yes."

If you had a list of varioius objects, and asked people to circle every machines on the list, they'd circle TV and Lamp.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Thinyser wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Thinyser wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:People commonly think of lamps as machines, even when they're not used to hit people, so I don't really agree with you.

Really? You think the majority of people think of lamps as machines?
I really don't see the average person thinking that at all... lasers maybe, but lamps not so much.

I think most people think of machines as things that involve motion and/or moving parts (electric motors, gears, wheels, etc) to perform their function.

I think most people don't differentiate between machines and electronic devices.

So you honestly believe that most people would look at a TV or a lamp or an oven and if asked to classify it as either a "machine" or a "electronic device" would, as their first reaction, think "machine"?

Not necessarily if you present it like that (well, some still would).

But if you pointed at a TV or a Lamp, and asked, "Is that a machine?"
Most people would say, "Yes."

If they did, and they might, that would most likely be because that's a "leading question".

If you had a list of varioius objects, and asked people to circle every machines on the list, they'd circle TV and Lamp.

I disagree. Especially if there were things like cars, motor-boats, ferris wheels, clothes washers/dryers, bulldozers, drills, jackhammers, etc with obviously moving parts, interspersed with brooms, hammers, tables, chairs, toothbrushes, vases, soda cans, radios, telephones, etc on said list. People would see a lamp or TV and categorize it like a chair or table, thus not a machine like a car or jackhammer.

I seriously don't think that people would classify a lamp as a machine if either A) given the option of labeling it as an electronic device or B) if shown it with actual machines (things that perform mechanical work) and asked if it was a machine.

Even If you lead them to the answer you want "Is this lamp a machine?" I would still bet that a majority would say "No" or if it were not a majority then it would be by a very slim margin that people thought it a machine.

Thinyser wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:If you had a list of varioius objects, and asked people to circle every machines on the list, they'd circle TV and Lamp.

I disagree. Especially if there were things like cars, motor-boats, ferris wheels, clothes washers/dryers, bulldozers, drills, jackhammers, etc with obviously moving parts, interspersed with brooms, hammers, tables, chairs, toothbrushes, vases, soda cans, radios, telephones, etc on said list. People would see a lamp or TV and categorize it like a chair or table, thus not a machine like a car or jackhammer.

I seriously don't think that people would classify a lamp as a machine if either A) given the option of labeling it as an electronic device or B) if shown it with actual machines (things that perform mechanical work) and asked if it was a machine.

Even If you lead them to the answer you want "Is this lamp a machine?" I would still bet that a majority would say "No" or if it were not a majority then it would be by a very slim margin that people thought it a machine.

Print off some sheets and take a survey.
I await your research on this subject.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Thinyser wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:If you had a list of varioius objects, and asked people to circle every machines on the list, they'd circle TV and Lamp.

I disagree. Especially if there were things like cars, motor-boats, ferris wheels, clothes washers/dryers, bulldozers, drills, jackhammers, etc with obviously moving parts, interspersed with brooms, hammers, tables, chairs, toothbrushes, vases, soda cans, radios, telephones, etc on said list. People would see a lamp or TV and categorize it like a chair or table, thus not a machine like a car or jackhammer.

I seriously don't think that people would classify a lamp as a machine if either A) given the option of labeling it as an electronic device or B) if shown it with actual machines (things that perform mechanical work) and asked if it was a machine.

Even If you lead them to the answer you want "Is this lamp a machine?" I would still bet that a majority would say "No" or if it were not a majority then it would be by a very slim margin that people thought it a machine.

Print off some sheets and take a survey.
I await your research on this subject.

I consider a lamp and a tv a machine. If they are not machines, then what would you consider them as? They are not plant, animal, mineral, silicon, ect. The best desription of them is machine. And I consider electronic devices machines.

verdilak wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Thinyser wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:If you had a list of varioius objects, and asked people to circle every machines on the list, they'd circle TV and Lamp.

I disagree. Especially if there were things like cars, motor-boats, ferris wheels, clothes washers/dryers, bulldozers, drills, jackhammers, etc with obviously moving parts, interspersed with brooms, hammers, tables, chairs, toothbrushes, vases, soda cans, radios, telephones, etc on said list. People would see a lamp or TV and categorize it like a chair or table, thus not a machine like a car or jackhammer.

I seriously don't think that people would classify a lamp as a machine if either A) given the option of labeling it as an electronic device or B) if shown it with actual machines (things that perform mechanical work) and asked if it was a machine.

Even If you lead them to the answer you want "Is this lamp a machine?" I would still bet that a majority would say "No" or if it were not a majority then it would be by a very slim margin that people thought it a machine.

Print off some sheets and take a survey.
I await your research on this subject.

I consider a lamp and a tv a machine. If they are not machines, then what would you consider them as?

They are electronic devices. They perform no mechanical work so are not machines.

They are not plant, animal, mineral, silicon, ect.

Actually a lamp and TV are primarily mineral (metal and silicon)

The best desription of them is machine.

I think the BEST description of them is an electronic device.

And I consider electronic devices machines.

Then you lump them in where they do not truly belong. Which is I guess what a person whom doesn't know that mechanical work doesn't involve light and heat, as they act on a atomic level not on a macro level, does.

How many people are you going to argue with about this in order to prove that most people think of lamps as machines?

Killer Cyborg wrote:How many people are you going to argue with about this in order to prove that most people think of lamps as machines?

9

Thinyser wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:How many people are you going to argue with about this in order to prove that most people think of lamps as machines?

9

Fair enough.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Thinyser wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:How many people are you going to argue with about this in order to prove that most people think of lamps as machines?

9

Fair enough.

Oh and thats to prove that most people DON'T think of lamps as machines... atleast not when presented as either a machine or an electronic device or if given a list that includes actual machines (that do mechanical work) and non-machines and asked to catogorize them.

Thinyser wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Thinyser wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:How many people are you going to argue with about this in order to prove that most people think of lamps as machines?

9

Fair enough.

Oh and thats to prove that most people DON'T think of lamps as machines... atleast not when presented as either a machine or an electronic device or if given a list that includes actual machines (that do mechanical work) and non-machines and asked to catogorize them.

Too late!
You already agree to argue with 9 people in order to prove that most people think of lamps a machines!

Damnit foiled by your pesky wordses...

You know, nearly every machine uses electricity, including cars.

verdilak wrote:You know, nearly every machine uses electricity, including cars.

Inclined planes don't.

Usually.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

verdilak wrote:You know, nearly every machine uses electricity, including cars.

Inclined planes don't.

Usually.

They don't... unless you're using the really cool ones!

Gravitus Everlast wrote:yeah... but an inclined plane is as easy as rolling a ball down a hill... Isn't it?

no, going down hill you have gravity working with you. Going up hill you have to fight against gravity. This thread jumped the tracks weeks ago and is straying into oblivion!

Gravitus Everlast wrote:DUH! Inclined... not declined... my bad. I still say there's got to be a way to work around that line of sight thing though, should read more closely to being aware of something you're affecting, but preferably without obstruction.

hehe I wasnt knit picking like that, a plane is a plane, call it inclined or declined its the same object.
There are ways to manipulate line of sight. Mirrors and cameras leap to mind, as does Telepathic Omnisight (Pyscape).

Max™ wrote:A few things.

Who says Psychics can't use more than one power at a time? I do not recall ever reading this limitation.

Mind Block, or Astral Projection (which says you can use powers), or Psychic senses of various types all have good lengths to their duration, why would they have to be shut off to use other powers?

I don't think I would rule for sure that TK doesn't allow some pressure sense, otherwise how could you manipulate anything without crushing it or dropping it.

I've never read a limitation on the use of powers to only one at a time, unless specified an a power's description.

Also, I just read the power of TK in RUE three times, and NOWHERE does it say that TK doesn't provide any sense of touch.

In fact, I would postulate that TK provides you with a GREATER sense of touch, as regards an object, then does touching it with your hand, as the physicality of the object is being touched with your mind, eliminating things like your crude nervous system from the equation. You are touching it on the level of matter, so more than a simple level of sensational feedback makes sense.

Now since the power does require line of sight, I would say that it cannot be used to pick a lock by itself, but...

If the player had the power of telemechanics, I would say that their current knowledge as to the state of the machine (A lock is a mechanical device, using mechanical force to acheive a goal - note they include bicycle in the power description, and that also works on gearing and levers, remarkably similar to a lock's structure in many ways, just not as complex) then they could pick the mechanical lock with telekinesis (though depending on the lock I would impose both a skill and time penalty on the player).

Of course, if they had telemechanics and TMO, I would let them pick the lock with no penalties, as at that point the TK provides the psionicist with the motive power needed to operate the device.

And all that ISP burned out for a lock? Hope it was worth it.

Ok, I'm ready: Tomatoes - LAUNCH!