[7.3.5] "What year is it?" - Syntax - 7/9/07

#36300278082 07/10/2007 14:10:00 Re:[7.3.5] "What year is it?" - Syntax - 7/9/07

(( Awesome! Great to see that finally elaborated upon!

Gratz to Sisko, even if it took a little work on Tick Tock's behalf ;-) ))

SkyJackal's MxO Video Collection

#36300278090 07/10/2007 14:20:19 Re:[7.3.5] "What year is it?" - Syntax - 7/9/07

cloudwolf wrote:

(( Awesome! Great to see that finally elaborated upon!
Gratz to Sisko, even if it took a little work on Tick Tock's behalf ))

Yes but we still want to answer the question: what year is it?
That is, in the real.

#36300278091 07/10/2007 14:22:31 Re:[7.3.5] "What year is it?" - Syntax - 7/9/07

Hint to anyone who meets a LE char on their own, try and get your brain in gear. SMILEY

4 8 15 16 23 42

#36300278092 07/10/2007 14:23:32 Re:[7.3.5] "What year is it?" - Syntax - 7/9/07

Skill wrote:

cloudwolf wrote:
(( Awesome! Great to see that finally elaborated upon!
Gratz to Sisko, even if it took a little work on Tick Tock's behalf ))
Yes but we still want to answer the question: what year is it?
That is, in the real.

He'll tell us when we're older SMILEY

odj wrote:

Hint to anyone who meets a LE char on their own, try and get your brain in gear.

At least there wasn't any "z0mg! Live Event! ROFL! CAN I HAVE j00 BABEES?!!!11!one!1" SMILEY

SkyJackal's MxO Video Collection

#36300278093 07/10/2007 14:23:43 Re:[7.3.5] "What year is it?" - Syntax - 7/9/07

Hm, I'll have to get on TimeMaker and talk to this man...

#36300278101 07/10/2007 14:32:52 Re:[7.3.5] "What year is it?" - Syntax - 7/9/07

((Blast, I wish I'd been at this event SMILEY Great job, that was a very difficult subject to tackle.))

#36300278130 07/10/2007 15:45:46 Re:[7.3.5] "What year is it?" - Syntax - 7/9/07

cloudwolf wrote:

odj wrote:

Hint to anyone who meets a LE char on their own, try and get your brain in gear.

At least there wasn't any "z0mg! Live Event! ROFL! CAN I HAVE j00 BABEES?!!!11!one!1"

Hah true, but anyone who would behave like that one on one with a LE char doesn't deserve to be on this game.

4 8 15 16 23 42

#36300278131 07/10/2007 15:45:59 Re:[7.3.5] "What year is it?" - Syntax - 7/9/07

((

TickTock: They couldn't go too far foward. They'd run into themselves.
TickTock: They couldn't go too far back--not enough information.

I have spent a lot of time wondering about things like this... Wicked event, I would have loved to have been there, but it is nice to see folks getting one-on-one events. SMILEY

Much easier to read through too... ))

#36300278135 07/10/2007 15:50:11 Re:[7.3.5] "What year is it?" - Syntax - 7/9/07

Interesting... It seems there is more to be learnt from the schematics of time within the simulation. It is no wonder we are all using chunky old phones... by my research in the year 2020 humanity was using earpeices to communicate throughout the globe... evidently, the matrix cannot progress and implement new education, society... art and literature with time because The Machines do not know enough about it.

(( Man this has just blown me away. Events like this are superb - ones where we learn a little more about 'the universe'... Unfortunatley, It also happens to be a great excuse for Rarebit for implementing new features to the game - "Why cant we use ipods?" - "Havent been invented yet, kid!" ))

#36300278147 07/10/2007 16:25:47 Re:[7.3.5] "What year is it?" - Syntax - 7/9/07

((Best LE thread ever. Does Tick Tock remind anyone else of the Doc from Back to the Future?))

#36300278175 07/10/2007 17:27:58 Re:[7.3.5] "What year is it?" - Syntax - 7/9/07

Skill wrote:

Yes but we still want to answer the question: what year is it?
That is, in the real.

That's something I've wondered about myself. I think the Architect said it was to be the 6th time Zion had been destroyed.. and allowing a minimum of 200 years for Zion to rebuild it's population again, a rough estimate would at least put us at the year 3200.

((Nicely played Sisko. And seriously, there needs to be more events like this!))

#36300278196 07/10/2007 18:20:47 Re:[7.3.5] "What year is it?" - Syntax - 7/9/07

Finally, I now know how they kept it year 1999 and not have the bluepills catch on, very ingenious!

#36300278204 07/10/2007 18:30:17 Re:[7.3.5] "What year is it?" - Syntax - 7/9/99

((Glad to see that finally addressed. I assumed as much, but it's nice to have confirmation. A shame I wasn't there - Starschwar's backstory was that as a blue, he was trying to develop better AI - smater machines. He reached a tech impasse - couldn't get any better no matter how hard he tried. That was why - Machines can't allow tecnhological progress. I feel... validated.))

#36300278206 07/10/2007 18:35:03 Re:[7.3.5] "What year is it?" - Syntax - 7/9/07

This mean they fixed the subway tickets?

#36300278209 07/10/2007 18:35:50 Re:[7.3.5] "What year is it?" - Syntax - 7/9/07

Reikira wrote:

Skill wrote:
Yes but we still want to answer the question: what year is it?
That is, in the real.

That's something I've wondered about myself. I think the Architect said it was to be the 6th time Zion had been destroyed.. and allowing a minimum of 200 years for Zion to rebuild it's population again, a rough estimate would at least put us at the year 3200.

((Nicely played Sisko. And seriously, there needs to be more events like this!))

((Didn't Morpheus say in the first movie that is was somewhere close to the year 2199?))

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket

#36300278211 07/10/2007 18:37:47 Re:[7.3.5] "What year is it?" - Syntax - 7/9/07

zdn16 wrote:

Reikira wrote:
Skill wrote:
Yes but we still want to answer the question: what year is it?
That is, in the real.

That's something I've wondered about myself. I think the Architect said it was to be the 6th time Zion had been destroyed.. and allowing a minimum of 200 years for Zion to rebuild it's population again, a rough estimate would at least put us at the year 3200.

((Nicely played Sisko. And seriously, there needs to be more events like this!))

((Didn't Morpheus say in the first movie that is was somewhere close to the year 2199?))

((That was before they knew about the five past "One's". Up untill that point all they knew was about the first "One" that died and the Oracle prophicied the return of. So it is probably closer to 3200 but thats if the war started today thus the real date is unknown.))

#36300278212 07/10/2007 18:40:26 Re:[7.3.5] "What year is it?" - Syntax - 7/9/07

((I have to wonder if this event was inspired by my question about time in the Ask A Dev thread lol ))

#36300278228 07/10/2007 19:25:23 Re:[7.3.5] "What year is it?" - Syntax - 7/9/07

Top notch! I would have sold my left leg to be the one talking to Tick Tock.

Given that the war most likely happened some time around 2100 (look at the masses of construction in the Real along with the extensive "sewers" SMILEY even with all the machine labor, construction takes time.

Then say another another 200 years per Matrix implimentation/purge cycle puts us at around the 3300 mark with an error margin of anything up to 600 years.

However, the name plate of the Nebuchadnezza says it was made in the USA in 2069:

Given that they still had the concept of countries at that point, the ship had to be made some time around the start of the war, or just prior. So unless the ship is around 1000 years old, something isn't adding up.

phiAU - The Kings of Never - noblesse oblige

#36300278296 07/10/2007 21:38:17 Re:[7.3.5] "What year is it?" - Syntax - 7/9/07

That was seven different shades of awesome.

#36300278401 07/11/2007 01:35:41 Re:[7.3.5] "What year is it?" - Syntax - 7/9/07

that's got to be one of the best events going at the moment, this one on one events seemed to be more liked at the moment + we can acutely get some information across in them. also always wondered about that was a fun read

#36300278413 07/11/2007 01:50:46 Re:[7.3.5] "What year is it?" - Syntax - 7/9/07

Very good read... Makes me want to think more on the subject of time in the Matrix than the time in the real... and how its handled.... and Superb job Sisko on the well thought out RP to go along with Tick Tock. Now if only we can get ya to work on the emotions like think or mumble or something of the sort.. Then your a RP legend in the books =P

#36300278420 07/11/2007 02:00:58 Re:[7.3.5] "What year is it?" - Syntax - 7/9/07

phi wrote:

Top notch! I would have sold my left leg to be the one talking to Tick Tock.
Given that the war most likely happened some time around 2100 (look at the masses of construction in the Real along with the extensive "sewers" even with all the machine labor, construction takes time.
Then say another another 200 years per Matrix implimentation/purge cycle puts us at around the 3300 mark with an error margin of anything up to 600 years.
However, the name plate of the Nebuchadnezza says it was made in the USA in 2069:

Given that they still had the concept of countries at that point, the ship had to be made some time around the start of the war, or just prior. So unless the ship is around 1000 years old, something isn't adding up.

Lol, would you rather have it say:
Mark 3.45
Nebuchadnezza
Prdouced in Factory XYZ in 01
Date 3068

I doubt the Machines would have wanted to arise suspicions by adding REAL dates and facts.

#36300278476 07/11/2007 03:59:10 Re:[7.3.5] "What year is it?" - Syntax - 7/9/07

(( Genius. Just genius. ))

#36300278477 07/11/2007 04:00:32 Re:[7.3.5] "What year is it?" - Syntax - 7/9/07

(( This thread = win ))

- Ð

#36300278490 07/11/2007 04:29:41 Re:[7.3.5] "What year is it?" - Syntax - 7/9/07

GamiSB wrote:

This mean they fixed the subway tickets?

I remember that from the merv event. It was funny when they had to correct the ticket.

#36300278524 07/11/2007 06:05:25 Re:[7.3.5] "What year is it?" - Syntax - 7/9/07

((Excellent event, Sisko you got there in the end SMILEY

Overall great event to end the chapter with.))

TH

#36300278568 07/11/2007 08:00:42 Re:[7.3.5] "What year is it?" - Syntax - 7/9/07

(( Excellent event. Not epic in scope, but it's these little story and setting driven events that really push the game further. ))

#36300278570 07/11/2007 08:09:23 Re:[7.3.5] "What year is it?" - Syntax - 7/9/07

((Sweet, Its good to see questions being answeared, maybe more can be handled like this in future at the end of a chapter.))

#36300278580 07/11/2007 08:26:52 Re:[7.3.5] "What year is it?" - Syntax - 7/9/07

((When he said "Time doesn't matter!?" the second time I could just picture him 300 style kicking that guy off the roof.))

#36300278601 07/11/2007 08:49:43 Re:[7.3.5] "What year is it?" - Syntax - 7/9/07

Tick Tock eh? A program that is pissed off due to the Machines repeating 1999 all the time... I like it.

Time is a concept made up by man, it's not surprising that the Machines wanting to keep humans on the verge of creating AI, would come up with their own techniques to work around the human concept while still appearing to approximate realtime.

If humans were to create AI within the simulation... would it be true AI? Would it dream......?

#36300278763 07/11/2007 12:18:12 Re:[7.3.5] "What year is it?" - Syntax - 7/9/07

I've always wondered about time in the Matrix -- what a cool idea for an event!

Illyria

#36300278808 07/11/2007 13:00:54 Re:[7.3.5] "What year is it?" - Syntax - 7/9/07

Croesus wrote:

If humans were to create AI within the simulation... would it be true AI? Would it dream......?

An AI simulating itself? Brain . . . hurts . . . *pop*

#36300278880 07/11/2007 13:46:07 Re:[7.3.5] "What year is it?" - Syntax - 7/9/07

(( I'm glad the year thing's been cleared up properly, but I'm still not happy with it. The whole 1999 idea is one of the most stupid ideas the Wachowski brothers came up with.

Think about it: all that effort to make people think they've lived in different years. All the effort to change their memories, change the writing on paper, the data in computers and make it seem believable. The one reason they should have for going to all that trouble is to make sure that time doesn't progress too far and they 'run into themselves'. Makes sense. That's great.

Except that they're already having to make sure that nothing important gets invented! Why can't they just do that with the natural progression of time? Obviously people don't find it odd that nothing gets invented in the past - why should they feel differently about the future? To them it's just a period of 80 or so years where nothing happens. There's no call to keep it the year 1999 whatsoever. ))

#36300278911 07/11/2007 14:03:33 Re:[7.3.5] "What year is it?" - Syntax - 7/9/07

((Paranoid much, Proc? SMILEY

))

#36300278924 07/11/2007 14:11:01 Re:[7.3.5] "What year is it?" - Syntax - 7/9/07

(( No, just bloody annoyed. SMILEY

))

#36300279075 07/11/2007 15:55:22 Re:[7.3.5] "What year is it?" - Syntax - 7/9/07

One of the few "good" events fueled entirely by conversation. Great job.

#36300279178 07/11/2007 17:03:15 Re:[7.3.5] "What year is it?" - Syntax - 7/9/07

Cool looking event It lost me for a second but I got it back

Image</font>
</body>

<!-- Mirrored from forums.station.sony.com/mxo/user/signature.m?user_id=10997 by HTTrack Website Copier/3.x [XR&CO'2008], Sun, 21 Jun 2009 06:41:17 GMT -->
<!-- Added by HTTrack --><meta http-equiv=

#36300279355 07/11/2007 18:34:04 Re:[7.3.5] "What year is it?" - Syntax - 7/9/07

"Art, Science, Society, Politics, --all stuck in a permanant rut."

Kinda makes you wonder what they do to all the pioneers in those fields, or to those who push the borders of the 'norm'. Makes me think of poor Dan Davis from "World Record". The post is a bit of a change of pace but I like it since it shows that theres still things in the Matrix that aren't clear and need explaining. Also the fact that when you read the logs you don't even notice at how fast the game time is progressing during the conversation. Very nice touch. SMILEY

#36300281002 07/12/2007 17:26:58 Re:[7.3.5] "What year is it?" - Syntax - 7/9/07

Wow, lucky guy, 1 on 1 event.

#36300282867 07/14/2007 13:22:44 Re:[7.3.5] "What year is it?" - Syntax - 7/9/07

Procurator wrote:

(( I'm glad the year thing's been cleared up properly, but I'm still not happy with it. The whole 1999 idea is one of the most stupid ideas the Wachowski brothers came up with.

Think about it: all that effort to make people think they've lived in different years. All the effort to change their memories, change the writing on paper, the data in computers and make it seem believable. The one reason they should have for going to all that trouble is to make sure that time doesn't progress too far and they 'run into themselves'. Makes sense. That's great.

Except that they're already having to make sure that nothing important gets invented! Why can't they just do that with the natural progression of time? Obviously people don't find it odd that nothing gets invented in the past - why should they feel differently about the future? To them it's just a period of 80 or so years where nothing happens. There's no call to keep it the year 1999 whatsoever. ))

See, this is the thing that still continues to baffle me.

Nobody ever said, in any of the movies, that the matrix was permalocked in 1999.

"You think it is the year 1999, when it is actually closer to 2199...."

I just don't understand how this ever ended up being translated into "the matrix is permanently locked in 1999". its like some crazy fanboy idea that has somehow refused to die over the years and has now wormed its way into "official" continuity.

As nobody ever said anything about it being locked at 1999 in the film, its entirely reasonable to assume that Morpheus was explaining what the matrix was to neo at the point where the simulation just happened to be at some point in 1999, and time in the matrix would have continued to rumble on inside the simulation regardless.

If the matrix had just happened to be at 1991, or 95, or 90-something else during that conversation, I doubt anyone would have latched onto this idea. But purely because they happened to use the year 1999 (with all the loaded significance such a year brings with it), some people somewhere made the decision that this meant it was permanently 1999.

How? Why?

Did the W Bros themselves ever say it was locked into 1999?

#36300283111 07/14/2007 19:41:47 Re:[7.3.5] "What year is it?" - Syntax - 7/9/07

((Great to see some in-depth stuff on this. *CENSORED* the week I missed was good))

#36300284502 07/16/2007 19:53:34 Re:[7.3.5] "What year is it?" - Syntax - 7/9/07

Paperghost wrote:

Procurator wrote:
(( I'm glad the year thing's been cleared up properly, but I'm still not happy with it. The whole 1999 idea is one of the most stupid ideas the Wachowski brothers came up with.

Think about it: all that effort to make people think they've lived in different years. All the effort to change their memories, change the writing on paper, the data in computers and make it seem believable. The one reason they should have for going to all that trouble is to make sure that time doesn't progress too far and they 'run into themselves'. Makes sense. That's great.

Except that they're already having to make sure that nothing important gets invented! Why can't they just do that with the natural progression of time? Obviously people don't find it odd that nothing gets invented in the past - why should they feel differently about the future? To them it's just a period of 80 or so years where nothing happens. There's no call to keep it the year 1999 whatsoever. ))

See, this is the thing that still continues to baffle me.

Nobody ever said, in any of the movies, that the matrix was permalocked in 1999.

"You think it is the year 1999, when it is actually closer to 2199...."

I just don't understand how this ever ended up being translated into "the matrix is permanently locked in 1999". its like some crazy fanboy idea that has somehow refused to die over the years and has now wormed its way into "official" continuity.

As nobody ever said anything about it being locked at 1999 in the film, its entirely reasonable to assume that Morpheus was explaining what the matrix was to neo at the point where the simulation just happened to be at some point in 1999, and time in the matrix would have continued to rumble on inside the simulation regardless.

If the matrix had just happened to be at 1991, or 95, or 90-something else during that conversation, I doubt anyone would have latched onto this idea. But purely because they happened to use the year 1999 (with all the loaded significance such a year brings with it), some people somewhere made the decision that this meant it was permanently 1999.

How? Why?

Did the W Bros themselves ever say it was locked into 1999?

Reloaded also has several anachronisms that back up this perspective. (i.e. car models, samsung sph-n270, etc)

#36300284511 07/16/2007 20:10:17 Re:[7.3.5] "What year is it?" - Syntax - 7/9/07

Wouldn't it be easier to backdate the Matrix to 1968 or 1975 or 1980 or 1946? That way you have more of a progression of time and historicity (is that a word?) making the simulation more natural.

#36300284626 07/16/2007 23:25:54 Re:[7.3.5] "What year is it?" - Syntax - 7/9/07

What I want to know is what is the current year in the real?

#36300284634 07/16/2007 23:35:37 Re:[7.3.5] "What year is it?" - Syntax - 7/9/07

MetaLogic wrote:

What I want to know is what is the current year in the real?

Well id say its like 3XXX or even 4XXX for the mater... guess only ... Time will soon tell.......
What i made a funny now you laugh.... *hears the chirping of crickets* Sheesh cant make a living at al these days... *CENSORED*

#36300284655 07/17/2007 00:16:51 Re:[7.3.5] "What year is it?" - Syntax - 7/9/07

Time is relative - the world has existed for billions, likely trillions, if not more, of years.

There was time before us, and there will be time after us.

Lest we forget that this is really something like the year 3,436,894,003,999 since the emergance of the Earth, and some infinite measure of time since the emergance of existance. But that's assuming existance didn't always exist, which is another matter, entirely.

#36300284709 07/17/2007 02:19:29 Re:[7.3.5] "What year is it?" - Syntax - 7/9/07

Neoteny wrote:

Time is relative - the world has existed for billions, likely trillions, if not more, of years.
There was time before us, and there will be time after us.
Lest we forget that this is really something like the year 3,436,894,003,999 since the emergance of the Earth, and some infinite measure of time since the emergance of existance. But that's assuming existance didn't always exist, which is another matter, entirely.

Hmm well what about the planets that are around the earth. Like the sun and the Moon? Has the sun either by now did a Big Red and gone to a supernova or did to succede in becoming a non supernova kind. Same with the moon, does it still affect the earth current wave patterns and such on earth in the oceans. =/ most confusing indeed. *sighs* Oh well least it gives me more book reading to do (( and more of an excuse to keep from work.. Hehe call in saing im doing work on the solar system now... XD ))

#36300285153 07/17/2007 13:44:39 Re:[7.3.5] "What year is it?" - Syntax - 7/9/07

What I want to know is, does Prince receive royalties every year for his song? SMILEY

#36300285478 07/17/2007 21:01:28 Re:[7.3.5] "What year is it?" - Syntax - 7/9/07

Neoteny wrote:

Time is relative - the world has existed for billions, likely trillions, if not more, of years.
There was time before us, and there will be time after us.
Lest we forget that this is really something like the year 3,436,894,003,999 since the emergance of the Earth, and some infinite measure of time since the emergance of existance. But that's assuming existance didn't always exist, which is another matter, entirely.

I'm pretty sure earth is no more than 6 billion years old... assuming time is relative and all that stuff..