Youre the one who said BPOs dont exist in the real world.
Either we are discussing this video game from a real world perspective, in which case real world colloquialisms are valid, or we are discussing this video game from a lore perspective, in which case real world colloquialisms do not exist.
Care to explain why my example is irrelevant, instead of just asserting it is?
Where did you get this definition of “And”?
The definition of “Nor” is different than the definition of “And”.
Seriously, look it up.
Its not a personal attack. I have no idea if English is your first language. If you truly do not understand what the word means, then I would be happy to explain it to you.
False choice dichotomy.
We are talking from a game mechanism perspective.
It’s literally the 2nd sentence of the quote. If you make a quote out of context, then your argument based on it is irrelevant.
So you don’t know what “and” means.
I already answered that several times.
indeed. Strangely enough I did not write it was.
Seriously, look it up.
But it is. It’s not related to the topic, and it’s targeted at me.
A non-personal-attack form would be, that YOU don’t understand what I’m saying which is actually what happened. Because the way you consider that “I don’t like sweet vegetables” is the same thing as “I don’t like sweets and I don’t like vegetables” is just wrong.
Even in your own example from wikipedia, it clearly states:
is true if and only if {\displaystyle A} is true and {\displaystyle B} is true.
So a statement “A and B” is only true if “A is true” and “B is true”.
Now, back to my example.
“You did not write about cats and their ability to hunt mice”
The A would be “Cats”.
The B would be “Their ability to hunt mice”.
In other words, “You did not write about A and B”.
This statement would only be correct if “You did not write about A(A is true)” and “you did not write about B(B is true)”.
Further, youve confused “And” with “Or”.
Heres a good article you should read, concerning their differences.
What an irrelevant argument to make.
Its not related to the topic, but were discussing it right now, which means it is relevant to our discussion. Its completely irrelevant to bring up the fact that its not related to the topic, when youve been discussing it with me for a day now.
Youre the one who confused “Or” with “And”.
Its the opposite, actually.
“I dont like sweet vegetables” does not mean “I dont like sweets, and I dont like vegetables”.
But the opposite is true. “I dont like sweets and i dont like vegetables”, means you also dont like sweet vegetables, because “sweet vegetables” fits both of A and B, or “Sweets” and “Vegetables”.
So, yes, “I dont like sweets, and i dont like vegetables” means “I dont like sweet vegetables.”
I find it funny that this entire time, weve been discussing things in the form of “A and B”, and you come back with “but the opposite is false”.
I already answered that.
if you did not get it first, then there is no reason to repeat it.
Nope.
You are completely off topic.
Therefore if A is false, then “A and B” is also false.
Which is what I wrote : you can add an “and x” after something false, it remains false.
So you claiming this was wrong was just you being … well, wrong. and making personal attacks.
No I did not. you made a negative form , and the negative of a “and” translates into an “or”.
“I don’t talk about cats AND I dont talk about mices” = “I dont talk about cats nor mices”
which is not “I dont talk about cats and mices” , which is what you affirmed and was wrong.
It’s the definition. Sorry that you believe definitions are irrelevant.
I am not. You on the other hand are the one making stupid arguments and having no idea what logic actually is.
Yes it is exactly what you affirmed by saying “I did not talk about cats and them hunting mice” is the same thing as adding an and to “I did not talk about cats”
No, it implies but does not mean.
And I find it trolling that you are just making strawman, false quotes, and personal attacks.
It’s clear by now that you lack the minimal education to understand what logic is, and rather make strawman that try to actually understand my point.
When the laboratory service is turned off, but not removed, the jobs are frozen (IIRC) . I had that issue once when I tried to use public structures before those retarded updates, which was enough to convince me to never use one anymore - maybe it changed since.
When the structure is in abandoned state, all the items it contains drop at the destruction, whatever they are (T2 or T12 BP included)
When the structure is destroyed, the laboratory service is removed, therefore all your jobs are cancelled and the bpos are put back in your inventory ; if the structure was abandoned (or WS), it means they drop, else it means they go to safety.
So if you just turn the laboratory off, as well as the other services, and wardec your own structure (or unanchor it ?) so that it will be removed after getting into abandoned state, then you can make half the blueprints that were being researched in the structure drop.
That’s what I get for not paying attention to the forums for a couple days, I missed the opportunity to be part of yet another 100 post discussion about definitions.
There was no discussion, he was using the word “and” inappropriately, made false quotes, and personal attacks.
Maybe. What is sure, is that if you can be damaged, then you are not an Eve station - until CCP changes that of course.
The main reason being, stations don’t have HP while structures do. So you can’t remove HPs from something that don’t have them to start with.
Ok, then let us assume I am a Structure owner. And I want to guarantee my clients safety of their BPOs researched.
If I keep all modules working, and my Structure is attacked, after shield is down there is 22 to 50 hour time before attacker can damage armor. I still keep the fuel in the structure. The Structure is attacked, armor down. All modules go offline and 7 day abandoning timer starts. For how long will the hull be reinforced? Different diagrams from CCP give different time, some say 4.5 days in highsec, less in lowsec/nullsec even less in WH. But I am sure I saw the last reinforcement timer in Ordion was over 5 days. Ok, maybe CCP mean it is 4.5 days at least. Eve Uni wiki claims its is 5d ± 6 h. Which is way less than 7 days of abandoning time. Hull reinforcement timer comes, the structure is destroyed, BPOs are in asset safety. The only thing that I, as Structure owner, should do is to keep enough fuel when armor reinforcement timer arrives - my client researchers will have their precious BPOs safe.
Another perspective: I am attacker, I want to demolish a Structure that simply went out of fuel. The worst case scenario for timers for me is 22h armor + ( 5d - 6h ) hull. Which means I should attack in 1d 8h or later after the message about Structure running out of fuel. And I could simply drop 1 Tritanium on every single structure in highsec, whether I have docking access or not (thank you CCP for dropbox option for citadels without docking access) - this way I am informed about Structures running out of fuel in one part of highsec or another. For highsec pirate groups Forsaken Fortress update is therefore a pinjata rally.
is true if and only if {\displaystyle A}
is true and {\displaystyle B}
is true.