In response to "Unknown Quantities" from The Escapist Forum: Nice discussion of the placebo/nocebo effect. I think I would have referenced the first study by Jon Levine that showed the naloxone/placebo relationship back in 1978. There was another study from the Benedetti group (2001) that shows that post-op pain killers worked significantly better if patients knew they were taking them. Give them the drugs without them knowing, and they didn't work nearly as well. That was pretty cool, relating placebo to something that could be immediately clinically useful.

- Zerbye

I logged on just to say similar to what sayvara has said, though I think I would have been a little more succinct. One point I want to reiterate is that a theory in science, is not what people usually think. It starts out as an idea that is tested, but after sufficient factual support, it becomes something more substantial. Essentially it retains the title of a theory, only because further refinement to the definition can take place. Core elements will likely never be replaced, evolutionary theory, the theory of relativity are not going to change substantially, they are far more solid than you portray in your article. I don't know if you have something against science, or fundamentally doubt it, but you do it a great disservice by portraying theory the way you do. I don't expect you to know it if you aren't serious about the pursuit of science, but as a journalist I hope you'll listen.

The remainder I'll abandon as someone has already gone into depth on this. But I have to say the opening of your article I found almost offensive and a little destructive. People who aren't studied will read a published article and think it's true pretty often. That isn't to say a given article is or isn't, but science doesn't need vagaries eroding people's confidence any further, which is why I felt it necessary to comment on that part of your article.

- the_carrot


In response to "Arsenal Freedom" from The Escapist Forum:

C J Davies:
Arsenal Freedom

Just as speculative fiction foretold computers and the Internet, some of the weapons in today's shooters might just end up in tomorrow's armies. C J Davies profiles some of new military advancements that may have been inspired by videogames.

Read Full Article

I've heard of quite of few of these innovations, and I love how they work. For example, the trophy system acts through using radar to fire counter-projectiles at the RPGs before they hit, causing the round to explode before penetration (you can see it working on Honey Badger in the beginning of "Exodus" in MW2). However, I can do you one better: there's a real laser cannon developed by Israel.

It's called the MTHEL which stands for Mobile Tactical High Energy Laser (though in the video it lacks the M) It works by firing a microwave laser at any airborne object, such as a missile or artillery round, and exploding the charge or fuel supply in mid-air. I can hazard that this could potentially even destroy enemy planes on their way to a target.

- daheikmeister

Now I'm having a hard time deciding which weapon is more badass, a giant satellite laser, or a satellite that drops giant metal poles at 7000 MP/H. I hope some game developer read this article, 'cause I can't wait to to try it out.

As for the robotic drones; I doubt technology will be able to emulate human insight and intuition, at least not in the near future, while these aspects are vital things to have in combat. More research funding will probably be poured into making tanks even more indestructible, instead of advanced robot AI, and I'm okay with that.

- Magnalian

Comments on