約 6,888,521 件
https://w.atwiki.jp/bfgmatome/pages/190.html
ゲーム情報（登録されているタグ） ジャンル＞アーケード＆アクション ジャンル＞タイムマネージメント 製作会社＞Playrix Entertainment 製作会社＞未確認 言語＞英語 コメント欄へ移動 ゲーム配布ページ 英語 http //www.bigfishgames.com/download-games/2809/magic-seeds/index.html 日本語 紹介文 Jane leased a lot of land and started her business of growing plants and vegetables. She has little money, few Magic Seeds but a big desire to grow plants. Help her make some money. Grow plants, take care of them, and protect them from mice and crows. Cross plants in order to get new varieties. By selling plants you can make money to cultivate your land, buy the lot and build your own house. Cultivate magic plants. Build up your home. Cross breed plants. 画像 « » var ppvArray_0_f0e82aaaf1919b80dd85155c45160ba0 = new Array(); ppvArray_0_f0e82aaaf1919b80dd85155c45160ba0[0] = http //w.atwiki.jp/bfgmatome/?cmd=upload&act=open&page=Magic+Seeds&file=en_magic-seeds-screen1.jpg ; window.onload=function(){ ppvShow_0_f0e82aaaf1919b80dd85155c45160ba0(0); }; function ppvShow_0_f0e82aaaf1919b80dd85155c45160ba0(n){ if(!ppvArray_0_f0e82aaaf1919b80dd85155c45160ba0[n]){ alert( 画像がありません ); return; } ppv_0_f0e82aaaf1919b80dd85155c45160ba0$( ppv_img_0_f0e82aaaf1919b80dd85155c45160ba0 ).src=ppvArray_0_f0e82aaaf1919b80dd85155c45160ba0[n]; ppv_0_f0e82aaaf1919b80dd85155c45160ba0$( ppv_link_0_f0e82aaaf1919b80dd85155c45160ba0 ).href=ppvArray_0_f0e82aaaf1919b80dd85155c45160ba0[n]; ppv_0_f0e82aaaf1919b80dd85155c45160ba0$( ppv_prev_0_f0e82aaaf1919b80dd85155c45160ba0 ).href= javascript ppvShow_0_f0e82aaaf1919b80dd85155c45160ba0( +(n-1)+ ) ; ppv_0_f0e82aaaf1919b80dd85155c45160ba0$( ppv_next_0_f0e82aaaf1919b80dd85155c45160ba0 ).href= javascript ppvShow_0_f0e82aaaf1919b80dd85155c45160ba0( +(n+1)+ ) ; } function ppv_0_f0e82aaaf1919b80dd85155c45160ba0$(){ var elements = new Array(); for (var i = 0; i arguments.length; i++){ var element = arguments[i]; if (typeof element == string ) element = document.getElementById(element); if (arguments.length == 1) return element; elements.push(element); } return elements; } ボリューム レス一覧 186 名前： 名無しさんの野望 [sage] 投稿日： 2010/01/24(日) 17 08 26 ID UtcqVPj4 . 184 入院ライフを楽しめるようなゲームに出会えていますよう。お大事にね。 magic seeds買ってみた。time managementなのにまったりし過ぎｗ コメント 名前 コメント トップページに戻る
https://w.atwiki.jp/cohstatsjp/pages/203.html
Infantry Pioneers Categories Wehrmacht Infantry | Infantry From CoH-Stats Jump to navigation, search •• Contents 1 Pioneers Veterancy 2 Tactics 3 History 4 Built/Called In From 4.1 Reich Headquarters 4.2 Wehrmacht Reinforcements 5 Can Construct 5.1 Wehrmacht Quarters 5.2 Krieg Barracks 5.3 Sturm Armory 5.4 Panzer Command 5.5 Barbed Wire 5.6 Sand Bags 5.7 Tank Traps 5.8 Bunker 5.9 Wehrmacht Observation Post 5.10 Kampfkraft Centre 5.11 Mine 5.12 Wehrmacht 88mm Flak 36 6 Doctrinal Abilities 6.1 For the Fatherland 6.2 Blitzkrieg 6.3 Inspired Assault 7 Squad Abilities 7.1 Medical Kit 7.2 Field Medical Kit 7.3 Salvage Wrecks 7.4 Barbed Wire Cutters 7.5 Repair 7.6 Battlefield Repair 7.7 Pioneer Antispam 8 Squad Upgrades 8.1 Frankfurt 42 Mine Detector 8.2 Flammenwerfer 42 9 Squad Weapons 9.1 MP40 Sub Machine Gun Pioneer 9.2 Flammenwerfer 42 Pioneers Squad Size 2 Capture Rate 1 Sup Threshold 0.2 Health 140 Sight 35 Pin Threshold 0.6 Cost 120 Detection 7/0 Recovery Rate 0.008 Hotkey P Population 2 Time 14 Retreat Modifier 0.5 Target Type infantry Upkeep 6 Reinforce Cost 0.5 Critical Type infantry Squad Slots 2 Reinforce Time 1 Pioneers Veterancy [Expand][Hide] Health Regeneration 10.56/min Upgrade to Infantry Elite Target Type Maximum Health Unlock Battlefield Repair 1.2 Tactics Pioneers are a very important part of the early Wehrmacht game, and contribute to the Wehrmacht s force in the following ways Construction of base buildings. Can upgrade to use a very unique and powerful weapon, the Flammenwerfer (Flamethrower). Can capture points. Can construct tactical emplacements - wire, sandbags, tank traps, mines, bunkers. The ability to salvage wrecked vehicles, which adds to the Wehrmacht player s munitions reserves. They are, however, very vulnerable and should be treated as such. Flammenwerfer supplement regular combat units in several ways. More effective against units in cover, instead of less effective. Deals area damage. Highly effective against buildings and emplacements. Due to the nature of the weapons, they are better paired up with Volksgrenadiers upgraded with the MP40. Put simply, the Flammenwerfer equipped Pioneers are effective at much of what regular infantry is not, and complement them wonderfully. One tactic employed by some Wehrmacht players is dubbed PioSpam, in which the player will mass large numbers of Flammenwerfer equipped Pioneers. This can be an effective tactic against a British player who plays defensively with excessive numbers of trenches and emplacements, but is typically less effective against an American player. Note that the Pioneers have a negative Zeal effect, meaning the more squads in close proximity, the more damage they take. This was introduced to specifically tone down the effectiveness of the PioSpam tactic. History Pioniere (Pioneers) were the engineering troops of the German forces, and could be found in various units. Unlike the combat engineers of other nations, Pioneers were intended to be able to fight as infantry on their own, and were used as the premiere assault troops for clearing enemy fortifications. Pioneers in Panzer and Panzergrenadier divisions were called Panzerpioniere, and Pioneers in Flieger divisions (Airborne divisions) were called Fallschirmpioniere. Built/Called In From Reich Headquarters [Expand][Hide] Health 1500 Target Type building Cost 500 Critical Type panel_building Time 61 Hotkey Effects Deploy Pioneers and escalate Battle Phases to call in additional Reinforcements. ESee Structure Reich Headquarters for details. OR Wehrmacht Reinforcements [Expand][Hide] Cost 100 Activation targeted Duration 0 Target tp_any Recharge 40 Hotkey Effects Infantry Reinforcements. Use these Units to rebuild and continue the struggle. ESee Ability Wehrmacht Reinforcements for details. Can Construct Wehrmacht Quarters [Expand][Hide] Health 500 Target Type building Cost 22015 Critical Type building Time 60 Hotkey W Effects Deploys Volksgrenadier Squads, Snipers, Heavy Machine Gun teams and Motorcycles. ESee Structure Wehrmacht Quarters for details. Krieg Barracks [Expand][Hide] Health 500 Target Type building Cost 22025 Critical Type building Time 90 Hotkey B Effects Deploys Grenadier Squads, Mortar Teams, Pak 38 Anti Tank guns, and Halftracks. ESee Structure Krieg Barracks for details. Sturm Armory [Expand][Hide] Health 635 Target Type building Cost 24035 Critical Type building Time 120 Hotkey S Effects Deploys the Officer, 234 Heavy Armored Cars, Stug tanks, and the Nebelwerfer Rocket Artillery. ESee Structure Sturm Armory for details. Panzer Command [Expand][Hide] Health 775 Target Type building Cost 26050 Critical Type building Time 165 Hotkey P Effects Deploys the most powerful Units in the Axis Army. Panther tanks, Panzer IV tanks, Ostwind Flak tanks, and Knights Cross Holders. ESee Structure Panzer Command for details. Barbed Wire [Expand][Hide] Health 110 Target Type defenses Cost Critical Type defenses Time 5 Hotkey W Effects Barbed Wire fences stop Enemy Troops from entering your Territory. ESee Structure Barbed Wire for details. Sand Bags [Expand][Hide] Health 220 Target Type defenses Cost Critical Type defenses Time 12 Hotkey S Effects Sand bags provide Troops with cover. ESee Structure Sand Bags for details. Tank Traps [Expand][Hide] Health 750 Target Type defenses Cost Critical Type defenses Time 30 Hotkey T Effects Tank Traps are used to stop Enemy armor from penetrating friendly Territory. ESee Structure Tank Traps for details. Bunker [Expand][Hide] Health 600 Target Type building_bunker Cost 150 Critical Type building Time 60 Hotkey B Effects Primary defensive Structure. Can upgrade to an Aid Station, Repair Station or an MG Emplacement. ESee Structure Bunker for details. Wehrmacht Observation Post [Expand][Hide] Health 420 Target Type building_checkpoint Cost 200 Critical Type light_building Time 30 Hotkey P Effects Secure Sectors, which increases Resource production of that Sector and prevents enemy units from capturing that Sector. ESee Structure Wehrmacht Observation Post for details. Kampfkraft Centre [Expand][Hide] Health 475 Target Type building Cost 100 Critical Type building Time 60 Hotkey K Effects Contains the upgrades to request experienced Veteran Troops and Tanks. Veterans are well trained to deal with battlefield situations. ESee Structure Kampfkraft Centre for details. Mine [Expand][Hide] Weapon Mine See Weapon Mine for details. Wehrmacht 88mm Flak 36 [Expand][Hide] Health 325 Population 11 Cost 40075 Target Type flak Time 60 Hotkey F Effects The 88mm Flak 36 provides fearsome Anti Tank and Anti Air firepower. ESee Vehicle Wehrmacht 88mm Flak 36 for details. Doctrinal Abilities For the Fatherland [Expand][Hide] Cost 45 Activation timed Duration 30 Target tp_any Recharge 30 Hotkey Effects All Infantry are ideologically motivated, and fight better in their own Territory. ESee Ability For the Fatherland for details. Blitzkrieg [Expand][Hide] Cost 150 Activation timed Duration 30 Target tp_any Recharge 60 Hotkey Effects All Tanks and Armored Vehicles move more quickly, crush everything in their path, and fire more frequently. Infantry sprint to keep pace. ESee Ability Blitzkrieg for details. Inspired Assault [Expand][Hide] Cost 50 Activation timed Duration 20 Target tp_any Recharge 45 Hotkey Effects All infantry will unleash a fearsome assault for the Leader at the cost of their safety, increases rate of fire and damage, but more susceptible to being hit. ESee Ability Inspired Assault for details. Squad Abilities Medical Kit [Expand][Hide] Cost 35 Activation timed Duration 60 Target tp_any Recharge 60 Hotkey K Effects Use of the Medical Kit will heal your Squad over time. This Medical Kit can only be used in friendly territory. ESee Ability Medical Kit for details. Field Medical Kit [Expand][Hide] Cost 35 Activation timed Duration 60 Target tp_any Recharge 60 Hotkey K Effects Use of the Medical Kit will heal your Squad over time. This Medical Kit can be used anywhere. ESee Ability Field Medical Kit for details. Salvage Wrecks [Expand][Hide] Cost Activation targeted Duration _ Target tp_any Recharge 0 Hotkey S Effects Salvage Munitions from Wrecked Vehicles. ESee Ability Salvage Wrecks for details. Barbed Wire Cutters [Expand][Hide] Cost Activation targeted Duration _ Target tp_any Recharge 0 Hotkey C Effects Wire Cutters are used to cut through Barbed Wire fences. ESee Ability Barbed Wire Cutters for details. Repair [Expand][Hide] Cost Activation targeted Duration 0 Target tp_entity_and_squad_entity Recharge 0 Hotkey E Effects Repair a Structure or Vehicle for a nominal Resource cost. ESee Ability Repair for details. Battlefield Repair [Expand][Hide] Cost Activation targeted Duration 0 Target tp_entity_and_squad_entity Recharge 0 Hotkey E Effects Elite Pioneers can repair a Structure or Vehicle under battle conditions. ESee Ability Battlefield Repair for details. Pioneer Antispam [Expand][Hide] Cost Activation always_on Duration _ Target tp_any Recharge 0 Hotkey Effects $0 no key ESee Ability Pioneer Antispam for details. Squad Upgrades Frankfurt 42 Mine Detector [Expand][Hide] Cost 35 Time 20 Hotkey M Effects Equip your Pioneers with the Frankfurt 42 Mine detector. ESee Upgrade Frankfurt 42 Mine Detector for details. Flammenwerfer 42 [Expand][Hide] Cost 50 Time 30 Hotkey F Effects Equip Pioneers with the Flammenwerfer 42 portable Flamethrower. ESee Upgrade Flammenwerfer 42 for details. Squad Weapons MP40 Sub Machine Gun Pioneer [Expand][Hide] Weapon MP40 Sub Machine Gun Pioneer See Weapon MP40 Sub Machine Gun Pioneer for details. Flammenwerfer 42 [Expand][Hide] Weapon Flammenwerfer 42 See Weapon Flammenwerfer 42 for details. Retrieved from http //coh-stats.com/Infantry Pioneers
https://w.atwiki.jp/hitoshop/pages/41.html
Smarty派生クラス mysql操作関数 mysql_fetch_assoc関数 機能と返り値 mysql_fetch_array関数の第二引数に[MYSQL_ASSOC]を指定した場合と同じ 引数 mysql_query関数で返された結果セットID ?php $rst = query(sql文); while ($col = mysql_fetch_assoc($rst)) { echo $col[menberID]; echo $col[name]; } ? mysql_fetch_row関数 機能と返り値 mysql_fetch_arrayの第二引数で[MYSQL_NUM]で指定した場合と同じ 引数 mysql_query関数で返された結果セットID ?php $rst = query(sql文); while ($col = mysql_fetch_assoc($rst)) { echo $col[0]; echo $col[1]; echo $col[2]; echo $col[3]; } ? mysql_num_fields関数 機能と返り値 結果セットに含まれるフィールド数を返す。主にフィールドをループ処理する場合に使用 引数 mysql_query関数で返された結果セットID ?php $rst = query(sql文); $fldCnt = mysql_num_fields($rst); echo $fldCnt . のフィールド数があります ; ? mysql_field_name関数 機能と返り値 結果セットから指定のフィールド名を取得 引数 第一引数に、mysql_queryで返された結果セットID。第二引数に、取得したいフィールド番号を指定 ?php $rst = query(sql文); $fldCnt = mysql_num_fileds($rst); echo $fldCnt . のフィールド数があります ; for ($i = 0; $i $fldCnt; $i++) { echo mysql_filed_name($rst, $i) . br / ; } ? mysql_result関数 機能と返り値 結果セットから特定の行番号/列番号のデータを返す。ループ処理においてレコード番号やフィールド番号をインデックスとして扱いたい場合や、ランダムにデータを取り出したい場合に使用する 引数 第一引数に、mysql_query関数で返された結果セットID。第二引数にレコード番号。第三引数に、フィールド番号(省略可能) ?php $rst = query(sql文); echo 1行1列目の値は、 . mysql_result($rst, 0, 0); echo 3行2列目の値は、 . mysql_result($rst, 2, 1); ? mysql_list_tables関数 機能と返り値 指定データベース内のテーブルの一覧を結果セットとして返す 引数 第一引数に、データベース名。第二引数にmysql_connect関数で返された接続ID(省略可能) ?php $con = mysql_connect($DBSERVER, $DBUSER, $DBPASSWORD); $rst = mysql_list_tables($DBNAME); while ($col = mysql_fetch_array($rst)) { echo $col[0] . br / ; } ? mysql_list_fields関数 機能と返り値 指定テーブルのフィールド名の一覧を結果セットとして返す。結果セットにはレコードはなく、結果セットの各フィールド名が指定テーブルのフィールド名を表す 引数 第一引数にデータベース名、第二引数にテーブル名。第三引数にmysql_connect関数で返された接続ID(省略可能) ?php $con = mysql_connect($DBSERVER, $DBUSER, $DBPASSWORD); $rst = mysql_list_fields($DBNAME, testTable ); $fldCnt = mysql_num_fields($rst); for ($i = 0; $i $fldCnt; $i++) { echo mysql_fields_name($rst, $i); } ? mysql_errno / mysql_error関数 機能と返り値 発生したエラーについて、mysql_errno関数は「エラー番号」を返す。(エラーが発生しなければ[0]を返す)。mysql_errorは「エラーメッセージ」を返す 引数 mysql_connect関数で返された接続ID(省略可能) ?php $con = mysql_connect($DBSERVER, $DBUSER, $DBPASSWORD); //実在しないデータベースに意図的に選択 $selectDB = mysql_select_db( nothingDB , $con); //エラー番号取得 $errorNo = mysql_errno(); if ($errorNo != 0) { echo $errorNO; echo mysql_error(); } ?
https://w.atwiki.jp/rs_wiki/pages/185.html
The familiar search procedures will provide outcomes somewhat nonetheless it follows that you must consult the lawyer since it can not inform you a lot on the lawyer s tangible history. Every attorney has its own repute in the court in addition to out, what other lawyers start thinking about will give you a more appropriate representation of the lawyer s dexterity in the court. Therefore, take your time to find a specialist injury attorney to gain the best quantity of damages. Therefore, you will need to find a specialist private injury attorney, furthermore the lawyer must as well know the way to deal with certain injuries like brain and spinal cord injuries to strengthen your case. Throughout the trial, the insurance organisations appoint lawyers who are professional in individual injury law for this reason you require a lawyer who s just as capable. People attempting to get claims for brain injuries or any other injury demands lifetime medical care and hence cannot attend their work must at all occasions engage a attorney who s specialist in cracking these kinds of claims. For that reason while picking out your lawyer, see which sectors of injury is he specialist in, see if he has worked on circumstances akin to yours what their judgment was. Something useful for the accident victim is, in most of the circumstances, they don t need to expend any charge for the service because the injury lawyers generally receive their fees after the recompense is obtained by the victims. They might only must pay the costs that were expended to file the case in the court. In some instances, the pertinent information and references may be advantageous in getting a excellent outcome from the case. personal injury lawyer http //www.injurylawyerphiladelphia.com/ Philadelphia car accident attorneys personal injury lawyer The level of income you ve you lost till date of selection or trial on account of your injuries, time in the hospital and all that. In addition, your attorney must take in, where appropriate, an estimate of the loss concerning your pension too. Additional expenditures take account of housing, vehicles, home care other related expenses such almost like you can not accomplish the clean-up and repairs of your house you could be remunerated for those services since you ll right now need to employ a different person to complete these projects. Two unique types of brain injuries are there, which be composed of Traumatic brain injury that involves states like concussion, bumps attributable to direct blows or impact to the head or shaking the head brutally Acquired brain injury that s attributable to tumors, pollutants, anoxia (lack of oxygen) or ailments which are degenerative like Alzheimer s illness. Quite the opposite the injured person may find him/herself helpless without others; this along with certainty that they no longer are in charge of their life can have enormous emotional outcome. If you are fatally injured from no mistake of yours then again thanks to an accident triggered by carelessness or wrongful activity of an additional party, a private injury attorney will advise and take action in assistance of you. Professional personal injury lawyers are familiar with the law well together with all standards exemptions will file a lawsuit against any culpable party for the injury together with any discomfort and suffering. Slip fall injuries can happen caused by hazardous environment on a property, for instance ill-maintained footpaths or staircases, poor illumination and wet or ice/snow covered floor. If you ve suffered an accident and incurred a spinal cord injury because of one other individual s recklessness, you must consider a personal injury claim against the guilty individual or party. The moment you re in search of a lawyer to take care of your individual injury claim, it will be better in case you have understanding of the distinctive claims that your lawyer can claim for you. Do not get tempted by all the commercials by different individual injury lawyers on the Television or 1 with the showy videos giving the most candid look. Actually there s a definite time frame in which you could get a claim. Accidents can take place whenever wherever and it is correct with vehicle accidents too. People receiving injuries in the vehicle accidents can claim a number of compensation such as medical and rehabilitation claims, earnings loss claim, joblessness claim, monthly domestic expenditures claims that comprise utility bills, repairs, housekeeping and caretaker s earnings claims. Moreover, they help reduce all the tension that you might have due to the mishap. Lassen Law Firm br 1515 Market Street #1510 br Philadelphia, PA 19102 br (215) 510-6755
https://w.atwiki.jp/usb_audio/pages/58.html
原文：Audio Devices Rev. 2.0 Spec and Adopters Agreement(ZIP) USB Device Class Definition for Audio Devices Release 2.0 May 31, 2006 16 2 Management Overview The USB is very well suited for transport of audio ranging from low fidelity voice connections to high quality, multi-channel audio streams. The USB has become a ubiquitous connector on modern PC’s and is well-understood by most consumers today. As such, it has become the connector of choice for many peripherals and is indeed the simplest and most pervasive digital audio connector available today. With the advent of the High Speed USB, consumers can count on this medium to meet all of their audio needs today and into the future. Many applications from communications, to entertainment, to music recording and playback, can take advantage of audio features of the USB. In principle, a versatile bus specification like the USB provides many ways to propagate and/or control digital audio. For the industry, however, it is very important that audio transport mechanisms be well defined and standardized on the USB. Only in this way can interoperability be guaranteed among the many possible audio devices on the USB. Standardized audio transport mechanisms also help to keep software drivers as generic as possible. The Audio Device Class described in this document satisfies those requirements. It is written and revised by experts in the audio field. Other device classes that address audio in some way should refer to this document for their audio interface specification. An essential issue in audio is synchronization of the data streams. Indeed, the smallest artifacts are easily detected by the human ear. Therefore, a robust synchronization scheme on isochronous transfers has been developed and incorporated in the USB Specification. The Audio Device Class definition adheres to this synchronization scheme to transport audio data reliably over the bus. This document contains all necessary information for a designer to build a USB-compliant device that incorporates audio functionality. It specifies the standard and class-specific descriptors that must be present in each USB audio function. It further explains the use of class-specific requests that allow for full audio function control. A number of predefined data formats are listed and fully documented. Each format defines a standard way of transporting audio over the USB. Provisions have been made so that vendor-specific audio formats and compression schemes can be handled. Many of the changes introduced in Version 2.0 of the USB Specification for Audio Devices take advantage of the new features provided in the USB 2.0 Specification. With the additional bandwidth made available, high speed USB operation allows the transport of multiple channels of high bit rate audio. This expands the range of solutions provided by USB audio devices but also challenges the way in which they operate. In addition to supporting the additional bandwidth, the specification supports new codec types for consumer audio applications, provides numerous clarifications of the original specification and extensions to support various changes in the core specification. The changes are not generally backwards compatible to 1.0 because that would too severely limit this new class of devices. 2.1 Overview of Key Differences between ADC v1.0 and v2.0 The following list is not an exhaustive list of all changes that have been introduced. For complete information, refer to the full specification. Pay special attention to Sections 1 through 6! • Complete support for high speed operation - no longer are audio class devices limited to full speed operation. • The notion of physical and logical Audio channel clusters. • The number of predefined spatial locations has increased. In addition, a virtual spatial location called Raw Data was introduced. • Use of the interface association descriptor - The standard Interface Association mechanism is used to describe an Audio Interface Collection. The former class specific mechanism was deprecated. • Descriptor updates fixed offsets associated with many descriptors and enlarged three byte fields into four bytes. • Extensive support for interrupts to inform the host about dynamic changes that occur on the different addressable Entities (Clock Entities, Terminals, Units, interfaces and endpoints) inside the audio function. • More clarification text on the audio function. USB Device Class Definition for Audio Devices Release 2.0 May 31, 2006 17 • Audio Control Changes. – Control attribute changes. – Mixer Unit control request (set/get pairs changed). – Many updates in the control descriptions. • Added support for clock domains, clock description and clock control. • Added additional Audio Controls inside a Feature Unit (Input, Gain, Input Gain Pad …) • Added bit pairs in descriptors to indicate presence and programmability of every Control • Prohibited the use of Alternate Setting switching to change sampling frequencies. Instead, Clock Entities are introduced that can be manipulated (through the AudioControl interface) to select operating sampling frequencies. • Split off the examples in a separate document. • Allowed binding between physical buttons on the audio function and the corresponding Audio Control. Prescribed how this is done. • Added an Effect Unit to group algorithms that work on logical channels separately but require multiple parameters to manipulate the effect (as opposed to basic (single parameter) manipulation, performed in a Feature Unit). • Introduced Parametric Equalizer Section Effect Unit. • Rearranged Reverb, Modulation Delay and Dynamic Compressor PUs under the new Effect Unit. • Added the concept of audio function Category. The Category indicates the primary use of the audio function as envisioned by the manufacturer. • Added the Sampling Rate Converter Unit. • Added a means to express Latency of individual building blocks within the audio function. • Added Encoder support. USB Device Class Definition for Audio Devices 3 Functional Characteristics 3.1 Introduction In many cases, audio functionality does not exist as a standalone device. It is one capability that, together with other functions, constitutes a “composite” device. A perfect example of this is a DVD-ROM player, which can incorporate video, audio, data storage, and transport control. The audio function is thus located at the interface level in the device class hierarchy. It consists of a number of interfaces grouping related pipes that together implement the interface to the audio function. An audio function is considered to be a ‘closed box’ that has very distinct and well defined interfaces to the outside world. Audio functions are addressed through their audio interfaces. Each audio function must have a single AudioControl interface and can have zero or more AudioStreaming and zero or more MIDIStreaming interfaces. The AudioControl (AC) interface is used to access the Audio Controls of the function whereas the AudioStreaming (AS) interfaces are used to transport audio streams into and out of the function. The MIDIStreaming (MS) interfaces can be used to transport MIDI data streams into and out of the audio function. The collection of the single AudioControl interface and the AudioStreaming and MIDIStreaming interfaces that belong to the same audio function is called the Audio Interface Collection (AIC). A device can have multiple Audio Interface Collections active at the same time. These Collections are used to control multiple independent audio functions located in the same composite device. An Audio Interface Collection is described through the standard USB Interface Association mechanism that expresses interface binding via the Interface Association Descriptor (IAD). Note All MIDI-related information is grouped in a separate document, Universal Serial Bus Device Class Definition for MIDI Devices that is considered part of this specification. The remainder of this document will therefore not mention MIDIStreaming interfaces and their specifics anymore. The following figure illustrates the concept Audio FunctionAudio-StreamingInterfaceINUSBAudio-StreamingInterfaceINAudio-StreamingInterfaceINAudio-StreamingInterfaceOUTAudio-StreamingInterfaceOUTAudio-StreamingInterfaceOUTAudioControl InterfaceAudio InterfaceCollectionAlternate Settings Figure 3-1 Audio Function Global View 18 Release 2.0 May 31, 2006 USB Device Class Definition for Audio Devices Release 2.0 May 31, 2006 19 All functionality pertaining to controlling parameters that directly influence audio perception (like volume) are located inside the central rectangle and are exclusively controlled through the AudioControl interface. Streaming aspects of the communication to or from the audio function are handled through separate AudioStreaming interfaces. The AudioStreaming interface is primarily used for transporting audio data between the audio function and the outside world. However, all control data that is related specifically to the streaming behavior is also conveyed through the AudioStreaming interface. In particular, all control data that is used to influence the decoder or encoder process that potentially resides between the actual streaming endpoint and the audio function (e.g. conversion from AC-3 encoded stream to 5.1 physical audio channels) is conveyed through the AudioStreaming interface. Note that in some cases an AudioStreaming interface is only used to perform controlling functions while no actual data is transported over the interface. A physical S/PDIF connection to the audio function is a typical example. Although the actual audio data is coming in from the outside world (not through the USB), it might be necessary to control some aspects of the S/PDIF connection. In that case, the S/PDIF connection is represented by an AudioStreaming interface so that it becomes addressable through USB. Also note that the connection between the AudioStreaming interfaces and the audio function is not ‘solid’. The reason for this is that when seen from the inside of the audio function, each audio stream entering or leaving the audio function is represented by a special object, called a Terminal (see further). The Terminal concept abstracts the actual AudioStreaming interface inside the audio function and provides a logical view on the connection rather than a physical view. This abstraction allows audio channels within the audio function to be treated as ‘logical’ audio channels that do not have physical characteristics associated with them anymore (analog vs. digital, format, sampling rate, bit resolution, etc.). 3.2 Audio Interface Collection (AIC) On USB, an audio function is completely defined by its interfaces. An audio function has one AudioControl interface and zero d into an Audio Interface e The Audio Function class and Subclasses can be further qualified by the Function Protocol code. The ion sion of this specification so that enumeration stantiated. or more AudioStreaming interfaces, groupe Collection. The standard USB Interface Association mechanism is used to describe the Audio Interface Collection i.e. to bind those interfaces together. Interface Association is expressed via the standard USB Interface Association Descriptor (IAD). Every Interface Association Descriptor has a FunctionClass, FunctionSubClass and FunctionProtocol field that together identify the function that is represented by thAssociation. The following paragraphs define these fields for the Audio Device Class. 3.3 Audio Function Class An Interface Association has a Function Class code assigned to it. This specification requires that the Function Class code be the same as the Audio Interface Class code. The Audio Function class code is assigned by this specification. For details, see Appendix A.1, “Audio Function Class Code”. 3.4 Audio Function Subclass The Audio Function class is divided into Function Subclasses. At this moment, the Function SubClass codeis not used and must be set to FUNCTION_SUBCLASS_UNDEFINED. The assigned codes can be found in A.2, “Audio Function Subclass Codes” of this specification. All other Subclass codes are unused and reserved by this specification for future use. 3.5 Audio Function Protocol Funct Protocol code is used to reflect the current versoftware can decide which driver versions need to be in The assigned Protocol codes can be found in Appendix A.3, “Audio Function Protocol Codes” of this specification. All other Protocol codes are unused and reserved by this specification for future use. USB Device Class Definition for Audio Devices Release 2.0 May 31, 2006 20 h USB belong to this class. t, f this class, the only requirement is that it exposes one in aming interfaces for consuming or ss code is assigned by the USB. For details, see Appendix A.4, “Audio Interface Class Code”. re part of a certain Interface • AudioStreaming Interface Subclass ion. the current version of this specification. . ion Category indicates the primary intended use for the audio function. The following . ne A device set up to record audio from audible sources. • Headset A device with at least one speaker and at least one microphone designed to be worn or held ck and voice input capabilities. o another converting audio data from one encoding format to another (e.g. th at least one microphone and at least one speaker that is d optical inputs and outputs for connection to other devices. 3.6 Audio Interface Class The Audio Interface class groups all functions that can interact with USB-compliant audio data streams. All functions that convert between analog and digital audio domains can be part of this class. In addition, those functions that transform USB-compliant audio data streams into other USB-compliant audio data streams can be part of this class. Even analog audio functions that are controlled throug In facor an audio function to be part of AudioControl interface. No further interaction with the function is mandatory, although most functionsthe audio interface class will support one or more optional AudioStre producing one or more isochronous audio data streams. The Audio Interface cla 3.7 Audio Interface Subclass The Audio Interface class is divided into Subclasses. All audio functions a Subclass. The following three Interface Subclasses are currently defined in this specification • AudioControl Interface Subclass • MIDIStreaming Interface Subclass The assigned codes can be found in Appendix A.5, “Audio Interface Subclass Codes” of this specificatAll other Subclass codes are unused and reserved by this specification for future use. 3.8 Audio Interface Protocol The Audio Interface class and Subclasses can be further qualified by the Interface Protocol code. The Interface Protocol code is used to reflect The assigned codes can be found in Appendix A.6, “Audio Interface Protocol Codes” of this specificationAll other Protocol codes are unused and reserved by this specification for future use. 3.9 Audio Function Category The Audio Funct Function Categories are currently defined in this specification • Desktop Speaker One or more speakers set up in a small environment to provide audio intended primarily for one person. • Home Theater Several speakers set up in a moderately sized environment to provide audio levels significantly louder than a Desktop Speaker setup and intended to be clearly heard by multiple people• Micropho by a user to provide personal audio playba• Telephone A Headset or handset type device that also connects to a telephone system, (e.g. POTs, PBX, VoIP) capable of making and receiving telephone calls. • Converter A device that allows conversion of audio from one electrical or optical format t electrical or optical format, and/or AC-3 to PCM, etc.). • Voice/Sound recorder A device set up wi designed to operate, at least some of the time, independently of the Host to record and store audible sources and play back its recorded content. • IO Box A device designed to deliver one or more, possibly different, electrical an 1 - 6 - 11 - 16 - 21 - 26 - 31 - 36 - 41 - 46 - 51 - 56 - 61 - 66 - 71 - 76 - 81 - 86 - 91 - 96 - 101 - 106 - 111 - 116 - 121 - 126 - 131 - 136 - 141 ここを編集
https://w.atwiki.jp/jikkyosha_ust/pages/401.html
Logical positivism and logical empiricism, which together formed neopositivism, was a movement in Western philosophy that embraced verificationism, an approach that sought to legitimize philosophical discourse on a basis shared with the best examples of empirical sciences. In this theory of knowledge, only statements verifiable either logically or empirically would be cognitively meaningful. Seeking to convert philosophy to this new scientific philosophy was aimed to prevent confusion rooted in unclear language and unverifiable claims.[1] The Berlin Circle and the Vienna Circle propounded logical positivism starting in the late 1920s. Interpreting Ludwig Wittgenstein s philosophy of language, logical positivists identified a verifiability principle or criterion of cognitive meaningfulness. From Bertrand Russell s logicism they sought reduction of mathematics to logic as well as Russell s logical atomism, Ernst Mach s phenomenalism—whereby the mind knows only actual or potential sensory experience, which is the content of all sciences, whether physics or psychology—and Percy Bridgman s musings that others proclaimed as operationalism. Thereby, only the verifiable was scientific and cognitively meaningful, whereas the unverifiable was unscientific, cognitively meaningless "pseudostatements"—metaphysic, emotive, or such—not candidate to further review by philosophers, newly tasked to organize knowledge, not develop new knowledge. Logical positivism became famed for vigorous scientific antirealism to purge science of talk about nature s unobservable aspects—including causality, mechanism, and principles—although that goal has been exaggerated[who said this?]. Still, talk of such unobservables would be metaphorical—direct observations viewed in the abstract—or at worst metaphysical or emotional. Theoretical laws would be reduced to empirical laws, while theoretical terms would garner meaning from observational terms via correspondence rules. Mathematics of physics would reduce to symbolic logic via logicism, while rational reconstruction would convert ordinary language into standardized equivalents, all networked and united by a logical syntax. A scientific theory would be stated with its method of verification, whereby a logical calculus or empirical operation could verify its falsity or truth. In the late 1930s, logical positivists fled Germany and Austria for Britain and United States. By then, many had replaced Mach s phenomenalism with Neurath s physicalism, and Carnap had sought to replace verification with simply confirmation. With World War II s close in 1945, logical positivism became milder, logical empiricism, led largely by Carl Hempel, in America, who expounded the covering law model of scientific explanation. The logical positivist movement became a major underpinning of analytic philosophy,[2] and dominated Anglosphere philosophy, including philosophy of science, while influencing sciences, into the 1960s. Yet the movement failed to resolve its central problems,[3][4][5] and its doctrines were increasingly assaulted, most trenchantly by W V O Quine, Norwood Hanson, Karl Popper, Thomas Kuhn, and Carl Hempel. Contents [hide] 1 Roots 1.1 Language 1.2 Logicism 1.3 Empiricism 2 Origins 2.1 Vienna 2.2 Berlin 2.3 Rivals 2.4 Export 3 Principles 3.1 Analytic/synthetic gap 3.2 Observation/theory gap 3.3 Cognitive meaningfulness 3.3.1 Verification 3.3.2 Confirmation 3.3.3 Weak verification 4 Philosophy of science 4.1 Explanation 4.2 Unity of science 4.3 Theory reduction 5 Critics 5.1 Quine 5.2 Hanson 5.3 Popper 5.4 Kuhn 5.5 Putnam 6 Retrospect 7 Footnotes 8 See also 9 References 10 Further reading 11 External links Roots[edit] Language[edit] Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, by the young Ludwig Wittgenstein, introduced the view of philosophy as "critique of language", offering the possibility of a theoretically principled distinction of intelligible versus nonsensical discourse. Tractatus adhered to a correspondence theory of truth (versus a coherence theory of truth). Wittgenstein s influence also shows in some versions of the verifiability principle.[6][7] In tractarian doctrine, truths of logic are tautologies, a view widely accepted by logical positivists who were also influenced by Wittgenstein s interpretation of probability although, according to Neurath, some logical positivists found Tractatus to contain much metaphysics.[8] Logicism[edit] Gottlob Frege began the program of reducing mathematics to logic, continued it with Bertrand Russell, but lost interest in this logicism, and Russell continued it with Alfred North Whitehead in their monumental Principia Mathematica, inspiring some of the more mathematical logical posivists, such as Hans Hahn and Rudolf Carnap.[9] (Carnap s early anti-metaphysical works employed Russell s theory of types.)[10] Carnap envisioned a universal language that could reconstruct mathematics and thereby encode physics.[9] Yet Kurt Gödel s incompleteness theorem showed this impossible except in trivial cases, and Alfred Tarski s undefinability theorem shattered all hopes of reducing mathematics to logic.[9] Thus, a universal language failed to stem from Carnap s 1934 work Logische Syntax der Sprache (Logical Syntax of Language).[9] Still, some logical positivists, including Carl Hempel, continued support of logicism.[9] Empiricism[edit] In Germany, Hegelian metaphysics was a dominant movement, and Hegelian successors such as F H Bradley explained reality by postulating metaphysical entities lacking empirical basis, drawing reaction in the form of positivism.[11] Starting in the late 19th century, there was "back to Kant" movement. Ernst Mach s positivism and phenomenalism were a major influence. Origins[edit] Vienna[edit] The Vienna Circle, gathering around University of Vienna and Café Central, was led principally by Moritz Schlick. Schlick had held a neo-Kantian position, but later converted, via Carnap s 1928 book Der logische Aufbau der Welt—that is, The Logical Structure of the World—which became Vienna Circle s "bible", Aufbau. A 1929 pamphlet written by Otto Neurath, Hans Hahn, and Rudolf Carnap summarized the Vienna Circle s positions. Another member of Vienna Circle to later prove very influential was Carl Hempel. A friendly but tenacious critic of the Circle was Karl Popper, whom Neurath nicknamed the "Official Opposition". Carnap and other Vienna Circle members, including Hahn and Neurath, saw need for a weaker criterion of meaningfulness than verifiability.[12] A radical "left" wing—led by Neurath and Carnap—began the program of "liberalization of empiricism", and they also emphasized fallibilism and pragmatics, which latter Carnap even suggested as empiricism s basis.[12] A conservative "right" wing—led by Schlick and Waismann—rejected both the liberalization of empiricism and the epistemological nonfoundationalism of a move from phenomenalism to physicalism.[12] As Neurath and somewhat Carnap posed science toward social reform, the split in Vienna Circle also reflected political views.[12] Berlin[edit] The Berlin Circle was led principally by Hans Reichenbach. Rivals[edit] Both Moritz Schlick and Rudolf Carnap had been influenced by and sought to define logical positivism versus the neo-Kantianism of Ernst Cassirer—the then leading figure of Marburg school, so called—and against Edmund Husserl s phenomenology. Logical positivists especially opposed Martin Heidegger s obscure metaphysics, the epitome of what logical positivism rejected. In the early 1930s, Carnap debated Heidegger over "metaphysical pseudosentences".[13] Despite its revolutionary aims, logical positivism was but one view among many vying within Europe, and logical positivists initially spoke their language.[13] Export[edit] As the movement s first emissary to the New World, Moritz Schlick visited Stanford University in 1929, yet otherwise remained in Vienna and was murdered at the University, reportedly by a deranged student, in 1936.[13] That year, a British attendee at some Vienna Circle meetings since 1933, A J Ayer saw his Language, Truth and Logic, written in English, import logical positivism to the Anglosphere. By then, Nazi political party s 1933 rise to power in Germany had triggered flight of intellectuals.[13] In exile in England, Otto Neurath died in 1945.[13] Rudolf Carnap, Hans Reichenbach, and Carl Hempel—Carnap s protégé who had studied in Berlin with Reichenbach—settled permanently in America.[13] Upon Germany s annexation of Austria in 1939, remaining logical positivists, many of whom were also Jewish, were targeted and continued flight. Logical positivism thus became dominant in the Anglosphere. Principles[edit] Analytic/synthetic gap[edit] Concerning reality, the necessary is a state true in all possible worlds—mere logical validity—whereas the contingent hinges on the way the particular world is. Concerning knowledge, the a priori is knowable before or without, whereas the a posteriori is knowable only after or through, relevant experience. Concerning statements, the analytic is true via terms arrangement and meanings, thus a tautology—true by logical necessity but uninformative about the world—whereas the synthetic adds reference to a state of facts, a contingency. In 1739, Hume cast a fork aggressively dividing "relations of ideas" from "matters of fact and real existence", such that all truths are of one type or the other.[14][15] By Hume s fork, truths by relations among ideas (abstract) all align on one side (analytic, necessary, a priori), whereas truths by states of actualities (concrete) always align on the other side (synthetic, contingent, a posteriori).[14] At any treatises containing neither, Hume orders, "Commit it then to the flames, for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion".[14] Thus awakened from "dogmatic slumber", Kant quested to answer Hume s challenge—but by explaining how metaphysics is possible. Eventually, in his 1781 work, Kant crossed the tines of Hume s fork to identify another range of truths by necessity—synthetic a priori, statements claiming states of facts but known true before experience—by arriving at transcendental idealism, attributing the mind a constructive role in phenomena by arranging sense data into the very experience space, time, and substance. Thus, Kant saved Newton s law of universal gravitation from Hume s problem of induction by finding uniformity of nature to be a priori knowledge. Logical positivists rejected Kant s synthethic a priori, and staked Hume s fork, whereby a statement is either analytic and a priori (thus necessary and verifiable logically) or synthetic and a posteriori (thus contingent and verifiable empirically).[14] Observation/theory gap[edit] Early, most logical positivists proposed that all knowledge is based on logical inference from simple "protocol sentences" grounded in observable facts. In the 1936 and 1937 papers "Testability and meaning", individual terms replace sentences as the units of meaning.[12] Further, theoretical terms no longer need to acquire meaning by explicit definition from observational terms the connection may be indirect, through a system of implicit definitions.[12] (Carnap also provides an important, pioneering discussion of disposition predicates.)[12] Cognitive meaningfulness[edit] Verification[edit] The logical positivists initial stance was that a statement is "cognitively meaningful" only if some finite procedure conclusively determines its truth.[16] By this verifiability principle, only statements verifiable either by their analyticity or by empiricism were cognitively meaningful. Metaphysics, ontology, as well as much of ethics failed this criterion, and so were found cognitively meaningless. Moritz Schlick, however, did not view ethical or aesthetic statements as cognitively meaningless.[17] Cognitive meaningfulness was variously defined having a truth value; corresponding to a possible state of affairs; naming a proposition; intelligible or understandable as are scientific statements.[18] Ethics and aesthetics were subjective preferences, while theology and other metaphysics contained "pseudostatements", neither true nor false. This meaningfulness was cognitive, although other types of meaningfulness—for instance, emotive, expressive, or figurative—occurred in metaphysical discourse, dismissed from further review. Thus, logical positivism indirectly asserted Hume s law, the principle that is statements cannot justify ought statements, but are separated by an unbridgeable gap. A J Ayer s 1936 book asserted an extreme variant—the boo/hooray doctrine—whereby all evaluative judgments are but emotional reactions. Confirmation[edit] In an important pair of papers in 1936 and 1937, "Testability and meaning", Carnap replaced verification with confirmation, on the view that although universal laws cannot be verified they can be confirmed.[12] Later, Carnap employed abundant logical and mathematical methods in researching inductive logic while seeking to provide and account of probability as "degree of confirmation", but was never able to formulate a model.[19] In Carnap s inductive logic, every universal law s degree of confirmation is always zero.[19] In any event, the precise formulation of what came to be called the "criterion of cognitive significance" took three decades (Hempel 1950, Carnap 1956, Carnap 1961).[12] Carl Hempel became a major critic within the logical positivism movement.[20] Hempel elucidated the paradox of confirmation. Weak verification[edit] The second edition of A J Ayer s book arrived in 1946, and discerned strong versus weak forms of verification. Ayer concluded, "A proposition is said to be verifiable, in the strong sense of the term, if, and only if, its truth could be conclusively established by experience", but is verifiable in the weak sense "if it is possible for experience to render it probable".[21] And yet, "no proposition, other than a tautology, can possibly be anything more than a probable hypothesis".[21] Thus, all are open to weak verification. Philosophy of science[edit] Upon the global defeat of Nazism, and removed from philosophy rivials for radical reform—Marburg neo-Kantianism, Husserlian phenomenology, Heidegger s "existential hermeneutics"—while hosted in the climate of American pragmatism and commonsense empiricism, the neopositivists shed much of their earlier, revolutionary zeal.[1] No longer crusading to revise traditional philosophy into a new scientific philosophy, they became respectable members of a new philosophy subdiscipline, philosophy of science.[1] Receiving support from Ernest Nagel, logical empiricists were especially influential in the social sciences.[22] Explanation[edit] Comtean positivism had viewed science as description, whereas the logical positivists posed science as explanation, perhaps to better realize the envisioned unity of science by covering not only fundamental science—that is, fundamental physics—but the special sciences, too, for instance biology, anthropology, psychology, sociology, and economics.[23] The most widely accepted concept of scientific explanation, held even by neopositivist critic Karl Popper, was the deductive-nomological model (DN model).[24] Yet DN model received its greatest explication by Carl Hempel, first in his 1942 article "The function of general laws in history", and more explicitly with Paul Oppenheim in their 1948 article "Studies in the logic of explanation".[24] In DN model, the stated phenomenon to be explained is the explanandum—which can be an event, law, or theory—whereas premises stated to explain it are the explanans.[25] Explanans must be true or highly confirmed, contain at least one law, and entail the explanandum.[25] Thus, given initial conditions C1, C2 . . . Cn plus general laws L1, L2 . . . Ln, event E is a deductive consequence and scientifically explained.[25] In DN model, a law is an unrestricted generalization by conditional proposition—If A, then B—and has empirical content testable.[26] (Differing from a merely true regularity—for instance, George always carries only $1 bills in his wallet—a law suggests what must be true,[27] and is consequent of a scientific theory s axiomatic structure.[28]) By the Humean empiricist view that humans observe sequence of events, not cause and effect—as causality and causal mechanisms are unobservable—DN model neglects causality beyond mere constant conjunction, first event A and then always event B.[23] Hempel s explication of DN model held natural laws—empirically confirmed regularities—as satisfactory and, if formulated realistically, approximating causal explanation.[25] In later articles, Hempel defended DN model and proposed a probabilistic explanation, inductive-statistical model (IS model).[25] DN model and IS model together form covering law model,[25] as named by a critic, William Dray.[29] (Derivation of statistical laws from other statistical laws goes to deductive-statistical model (DS model).)[30] Georg Hendrik von Wright, another critic, named it subsumption theory,[31] fitting the ambition of theory reduction. Unity of science[edit] Logical positivists were generally committed to "Unified Science", and sought a common language or, in Neurath s phrase, a "universal slang" whereby which all scientific propositions could be expressed.[32] The adequacy of proposals or fragments of proposals for such a language was often asserted on the basis of various "reductions" or "explications" of the terms of one special science to the terms of another, putatively more fundamental. Sometimes these reductions consisted of set-theoretic manipulations of a few logically primitive concepts (as in Carnap s Logical Structure of the World (1928)). Sometimes, these reductions consisted of allegedly analytic or a priori deductive relationships (as in Carnap s "Testability and meaning"). A number of publications over a period of thirty years would attempt to elucidate this concept. Theory reduction[edit] As in Comptean positivism s envisioned unity of science, neopositivists aimed to network all special sciences through the covering law model of scientific explanation. And ultimately, by supplying boundary conditions and supplying bridge laws within the covering law model, all the special sciences laws would reduce to fundamental physics, the fundamental science. Critics[edit] After the Second World War s close in 1945, key tenets of logical positivism, including its atomistic philosophy of science, the verifiability principle, and the fact/value gap, drew escalated criticism. It was clear that empirical claims cannot be verified to be universally true.[12] Thus, as initially stated, the verifiability criterion made universal statements meaningless, and even made statements beyond empiricism for technological but not conceptual reasons meaningless, which would pose significant problems for science.[20][33][34] These problems were recognized within the movement, which hosted attempted solutions—Carnap s move to confirmation, Ayer s acceptance of weak verification—but the program drew sustained criticism from a number of directions by the 1950s. Even philosophers disagreeing among themselves on which direction general epistemology ought to take, as well as on philosophy of science, agreed that the logical empiricist program was untenable, and it became viewed as selfcontradictory.[35] The verifiability criterion of meaning was itself unverified.[35] Notable critics were Nelson Goodman, Willard Van Orman Quine, Norwood Hanson, Karl Popper, Thomas Kuhn, J L Austin, Peter Strawson, Hilary Putnam, Ludwig von Mises, and Richard Rorty. Quine[edit] Although quite empiricist, American logician Willard Van Orman Quine published the 1951 paper "Two dogmas of empiricism",[36] which challenged conventional empiricist presumptions. Quine attacked the analytic/synthetic division, which the verificationist program had been hinged upon in order to entail, by consequence of Hume s fork, both necessity and apriocity. Quine s ontological relativity explained that every term in any statement has its meaning contingent on a vast network of knowledge and belief, the speaker s conception of the entire world. Quine later proposed naturalized epistemology. Hanson[edit] In 1958, Norwood Hanson s Patterns of Discovery undermined the division of observation versus theory,[37] as one can predict, collect, prioritize, and assess data only via some horizon of expectation set by a theory. Thus, any dataset—the direct observations, the scientific facts—is laden with theory. Popper[edit] An early, tenacious critic was Karl Popper whose 1934 book Logik der Forschung, arriving in English in 1959 as The Logic of Scientific Discovery, directly answered verificationism. Popper heeded the problem of induction as rendering empirical verification logically impossible.[38] And the deductive fallacy of affirming the consequent reveals any phenomenon s capacity to host over one logically possible explanation. Accepting scientific method as hypotheticodeduction, whose inference form is denying the consequent, Popper finds scientific method unable to proceed without falsifiable predictions. Popper thus identifies falsifiability to demarcate not meaningful from meaningless but simply scientific from unscientific—a label not in itself unfavorable. Popper finds virtue in metaphysics, required to develop new scientific theories. And an unfalsifiable—thus unscientific, perhaps metaphysical—concept in one era can later, through evolving knowledge or technology, become falsifiable, thus scientific. Popper also found science s quest for truth to rest on values. Popper disparages the pseudoscientific, which occurs when an unscientific theory is proclaimed true and coupled with seemingly scientific method by "testing" the unfalsifiable theory—whose predictions are confirmed by necessity—or when a scientific theory s falsifiable predictions are strongly falsified but the theory is persistently protected by "immunizing stratagems", such as the appendage of ad hoc clauses saving the theory or the recourse to increasingly speculative hypotheses shielding the theory. Popper s scientific epistemology is falsificationism, which finds that no number, degree, and variety of empirical successes can either verify or confirm scientific theory. Falsificationism finds science s aim as corroboration of scientific theory, which strives for scientific realism but accepts the maximal status of strongly corroborated verisimilitude ("truthlikeness"). Explicitly denying the positivist view that all knowledge is scientific, Popper developed the general epistemology critical rationalism, which finds human knowledge to evolve by conjectures and refutations. Popper thus acknowledged the value of the positivist movement, driving evolution of human understanding, but claimed that he had "killed positivism". Kuhn[edit] With his landmark, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Thomas Kuhn critically destabilized the verificationist program, which was presumed to call for foundationalism. (Actually, even in the 1930s, Otto Neurath had argued for nonfoundationalism via coherentism by likening science to a boat that scientists must rebuild at sea[citation needed].) Although Kuhn s thesis itself was attacked even by opponents of neopositivism, in the 1970 postscript to Structure, Kuhn asserted, at least, that there was no algorithm to science—and, on that, even most of Kuhn s critics agreed. Powerful and persuasive, Kuhn s book, unlike the vocabulary and symbols of logic s formal language, was written in natural language open to the laypersons.[39] Ironically, Kuhn s book was first published in a volume of Encyclopedia of Unified Science—a project begun by logical positivists—and some sense unified science, indeed, but by bringing it into the realm of historical and social assessment, rather than fitting it to the model of physics.[39] Kuhn s ideas were rapidly adopted by scholars in disciplines well outside natural sciences,[39] and, as logical empiricists were extremely influential in the social sciences,[22] ushered academia into postpositivism or postempiricism.[39] Putnam[edit] The "received view" operates on the correspondence rule that states, "The observational terms are taken as referring to specified phenomena or phenomenal properties, and the only interpretation given to the theoretical terms is their explicit definition provided by the correspondence rules".[11] According to Hilary Putnam, a former student of Reichenbach and of Carnap, the dichotomy of observational terms versus theoretical terms introduced a problem within scientific discussion that was nonexistent until this dichotomy was stated by logical positivists.[40] Putnam s four objections Something is referred to as "observational" if it is observable directly with our senses. Then an observation term cannot be applied to something unobservable. If this is the case, there are no observation terms. With Carnap s classification, some unobservable terms are not even theoretical and belong to neither observation terms nor theoretical terms. Some theoretical terms refer primarily to observation terms. Reports of observation terms frequently contain theoretical terms. A scientific theory may not contain any theoretical terms (an example of this is Darwin s original theory of evolution). Putman also alleged that positivism was actually a form of metaphysical idealism by its rejecting scientific theory s ability to garner knowledge about nature s unobservable aspects. With his "no miracles" argument, posed in 1974, Putnam asserted scientific realism, the stance that science achieves true—or approximately true—knowledge of the world as it exists independently of humans sensory experience. In this, Putnam opposed not only the positivism but other instrumentalism—whereby scientific theory as but a human tool to predict human observations—filling the void left by positivism s decline. Retrospect[edit] By the late 1960s, the neopositivist movement had clearly run its course.[41] Interviewed in the late 1970s, A J Ayer supposed that "the most important" defect "was that nearly all of it was false".[42][43] Although logical positivism tends to be recalled as a pillar of scientism,[44] Carl Hempel was key in establishing the philosophy subdiscipline philosophy of science[13] where Thomas Kuhn and Karl Popper brought in the era postpositivism.[39] John Passmore found logical positivism to be "dead, or as dead as a philosophical movement ever becomes".[42] Logical positivism s fall reopened debate over the metaphysical merit of scientific theory, whether it can offer knowledge of the world beyond human experience (scientific realism) versus whether it is but a human tool to predict human experience (instrumentalism).[45][46] Meanwhile, it became popular among philosophers to rehash the faults and failures of logical positivism without investigation of it.[47] Thereby, logical positivism has been generally misrepresented, sometimes severely.[48] Arguing for their own views, often framed versus logical positivism, many philosophers have reduced logical positivism to simplisms and stereotypes, especially the notion of logical positivism as a type of foundationalism.[48] In any event, the movement helped anchor analytic philosophy in the Anglosphere, and returned Britain to empiricism. Minus logical positivists, tremendously influential outside philosophy, especially in psychology and social sciences, intellectual life of the 20th century would be unrecognizable.[13] Footnotes[edit] ^ Jump up to a b c Michael Friedman, Reconsidering Logical Positivism (New York Cambridge University Press, 1999), p xiv. Jump up ^ See "Vienna Circle" in Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Jump up ^ Smith, L.D. (1986). Behaviorism and Logical Positivism A Reassessment of the Alliance. Stanford University Press. p. 314. ISBN 9780804713016. LCCN 85030366. The secondary and historical literature on logical positivism affords substantial grounds for concluding that logical positivism failed to solve many of the central problems it generated for itself. Prominent among the unsolved problems was the failure to find an acceptable statement of the verifiability (later confirmability) criterion of meaningfulness. Until a competing tradition emerged (about the late 1950 s), the problems of logical positivism continued to be attacked from within that tradition. But as the new tradition in the philosophy of science began to demonstrate its effectiveness—by dissolving and rephrasing old problems as well as by generating new ones—philosophers began to shift allegiances to the new tradition, even though that tradition has yet to receive a canonical formulation. Jump up ^ Bunge, M.A. (1996). Finding Philosophy in Social Science. Yale University Press. p. 317. ISBN 9780300066067. LCCN lc96004399. To conclude, logical positivism was progressive compared with the classical positivism of Ptolemy, Hume, d Alembert, Compte, John Stuart Mill, and Ernst Mach. It was even more so by comparison with its contemporary rivals—neo-Thomisism, neo-Kantianism, intuitionism, dialectical materialism, phenomenology, and existentialism. However, neo-positivism failed dismally to give a faithful account of science, whether natural or social. It failed because it remained anchored to sense-data and to a phenomenalist metaphysics, overrated the power of induction and underrated that of hypothesis, and denounced realism and materialism as metaphysical nonsense. Although it has never been practiced consistently in the advanced natural sciences and has been criticized by many philosophers, notably Popper (1959 [1935], 1963), logical positivism remains the tacit philosophy of many scientists. Regrettably, the anti-positivism fashionable in the metatheory of social science is often nothing but an excuse for sloppiness and wild speculation. Jump up ^ "Popper, Falsifiability, and the Failure of Positivism". 7 August 2000. Retrieved 30 June 2012. The upshot is that the positivists seem caught between insisting on the V.C. [Verifiability Criterion]—but for no defensible reason—or admitting that the V.C. requires a background language, etc., which opens the door to relativism, etc. In light of this dilemma, many folk—especially following Popper s "last-ditch" effort to "save" empiricism/positivism/realism with the falsifiability criterion—have agreed that positivism is a dead-end. Jump up ^ For example, compare "Proposition 4.024" of Tractatus, asserting that we understand a proposition when we know the outcome if it is true, with Schlick s asserting, "To state the circumstances under which a proposition is true is the same as stating its meaning". Jump up ^ "Positivismus und realismus", Erkenntnis 3 1–31, English trans in Sarkar, Sahotra, ed, Logical Empiricism at its Peak Schlick, Carnap, and Neurath (New York Garland Publishing, 1996), p 38. Jump up ^ For summary of the effect of Tractatus on logical positivists, see the Entwicklung der Thesen des "Wiener Kreises". ^ Jump up to a b c d e Jaako Hintikka, "Logicism", in Andrew D Irvine, ed, Philosophy of Mathematics (Burlington MA North Holland, 2009), pp 283–84. Jump up ^ See Rudolf Carnap, "The elimination Of metaphysics through logical analysis of language", Erkenntnis, 1932;2, reprinted in Logical Positivism, Alfred Jules Ayer, ed, (New York Free Press, 1959), pp 60–81. ^ Jump up to a b Frederick Suppe, "The positivist model of scientific theories", in Scientific Inquiry, Robert Klee, ed, (New York Oxford University Press, 1999), pp 16-24. ^ Jump up to a b c d e f g h i j Sarkar, S; Pfeifer, J (2005). The Philosophy of Science An Encyclopedia 1. Taylor Francis. p. 83. ISBN 9780415939270. ^ Jump up to a b c d e f g h Friedman, Reconsidering Logical Positivism (Cambridge U P, 1999), p xii. ^ Jump up to a b c d Antony G Flew, A Dictionary of Philosophy, rev 2nd edn (New York St Martin s Press, 1984), "Hume s fork", p 156. Jump up ^ Helen B Mitchell, Roots of Wisdom A Tapestry of Philosophical Traditions A Tapestry of Philosophical Traditions, 6th edn (Boston Wadsworth, 2011), "Hume s fork and logical positivism", pp 249-50. Jump up ^ For a classic survey of other versions of verificationism, see Carl G Hempel, "Problems and changes in the empiricist criterion of meaning", Revue Internationale de Philosophie, 1950;41 41-63. Jump up ^ See Moritz Schlick, "The future Of philosophy", in The Linguistic Turn, Richard Rorty, ed, (Chicago University of Chicago Press, 1992), pp 43-53. Jump up ^ Examples of these different views can be found in Scheffler s Anatomy of Inquiry, Ayer s Language, Truth, and Logic, Schlick s "Positivism and realism" (reprinted in Sarkar 1996 and Ayer 1959), and Carnap s Philosophy and Logical Syntax. ^ Jump up to a b Mauro Murzi "Rudolf Carnap (1891—1970)", Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 12 Apr 2001. ^ Jump up to a b Fetzer, James (2012). Edward N. Zalta, ed. "Carl Hempel". The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2012 ed.). It would fall to Hempel to become perhaps the most astute critic of that movement and to contribute to its refinement as logical empiricism... Hempel himself attained a certain degree of prominence as a critic of this movement... The analytic/synthetic distinction and the observational/theoretical distinction were tied together by the verifiability criterion of meaningfulness... By this standard, sentences that are non-analytic but also non-verifiable, including various theological or metaphysical assertions concerning God or The Absolute, qualify as cognitively meaningless. This was viewed as a desirable result. But, as Hempel would demonstrate, its scope was far too sweeping, since it also rendered meaningless the distinctively scientific assertions made by laws and theories... The analytic/synthetic distinction took a decided hit when the noted logician, Willard van Orman Quine, published "Two dogmas of empiricism" (1953), challenging its adequacy... While the analytic/synthetic distinction appears to be justifiable in modeling important properties of languages, the observational/theoretical distinction does not fare equally well. Within logical positivism, observation language was assumed to consist of names and predicates whose applicability or not can be ascertained, under suitable conditions, by means of direct observation... Karl Popper (1965, 1968), however, would carry the argument in a different direction by looking at the ontic nature of properties... Hempel (1950, 1951), meanwhile, demonstrated that the verifiability criterion could not be sustained. Since it restricts empirical knowledge to observation sentences and their deductive consequences, scientific theories are reduced to logical constructions from observables. In a series of studies about cognitive significance and empirical testability, he demonstrated that the verifiability criterion implies that existential generalizations are meaningful, but that universal generalizations are not, even though they include general laws, the principal objects of scientific discovery. Hypotheses about relative frequencies in finite sequences are meaningful, but hypotheses concerning limits in infinite sequences are not. The verifiability criterion thus imposed a standard that was too strong to accommodate the characteristic claims of science and was not justifiable... Both theoretical and dispositional predicates, which refer to non-observables, posed serious problems for the positivist position, since the verifiability criterion implies they must be reducible to observables or are empirically meaningless... The need to dismantle the verifiability criterion of meaningfulness together with the demise of the observational/theoretical distinction meant that logical positivism no longer represented a rationally defensible position. At least two of its defining tenets had been shown to be without merit. Since most philosophers believed that Quine had shown the analytic/synthetic distinction was also untenable, moreover, many concluded that the enterprise had been a total failure. Among the important benefits of Hempel s critique, however, was the production of more general and flexible criteria of cognitive significance... Hempel suggested multiple criteria for assessing the cognitive significance of different theoretical systems, where significance is not categorical but rather a matter of degree... The elegance of Hempel s study laid to rest any lingering aspirations for simple criteria of cognitive significance and signaled the demise of logical positivism as a philosophical movement. Precisely what remained, however, was in doubt. Presumably, anyone who rejected one or more of the three principles defining positivism—the analytic/synthetic distinction, the observational/theoretical distinction, and the verifiability criterion of significance—was not a logical positivist. The precise outlines of its philosophical successor, which would be known as "logical empiricism", were not entirely evident. Perhaps this study came the closest to defining its intellectual core. Those who accepted Hempel s four criteria and viewed cognitive significance as a matter of degree were members, at least in spirit. But some new problems were beginning to surface with respect to Hempel s covering-law explication of explanation and old problems remained from his studies of induction, the most remarkable of which was known as "the paradox of confirmation". ^ Jump up to a b Ayer, Language, Truth and Logic, 1946, p 50–51. ^ Jump up to a b Novick, That Noble Dream (Cambridge U P, 1988), p 546. ^ Jump up to a b James Woodward, "Scientific explanation"—sec 1 "Background and introduction", in Zalta EN, ed,The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Winter 2011 edn ^ Jump up to a b James Woodward, "Scientific explanation"—Article overview, Zalta EN, ed, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Winter 2011 edn ^ Jump up to a b c d e f Suppe, Structure of Scientific Theories (U Illinois P, 1977), pp 619–21. Jump up ^ Eleonora Montuschi, Objects in Social Science (London New York Continuum, 2003), pp 61–62. Jump up ^ Bechtel, Philosophy of Science (Lawrence Erlbaum, 1988), p 25. Jump up ^ Bechtel, Philosophy of Science (Lawrence Erlbaum, 1988), pp 27–28. Jump up ^ Georg Hendrik von Wright, Explanation and Understanding (Ithaca NY Cornell University Press, 1971), p 11. Jump up ^ Stuart Glennan, p 276, in Sarkar S Pfeifer J, eds, The Philosophy of Science An Encyclopedia, Volume 1 A–M (New York Routledge, 2006). Jump up ^ Manfred Riedel, pp 3–4, in Manninen J Tuomela R, eds, Essays on Explanation and Understanding Studies in the Foundation of Humanities and Social Sciences (Dordrecht D Reidel Publishing, 1976). Jump up ^ For a review of "unity of science" to, see Gregory Frost-Arnold, "The large-scale structure of logical empiricism Unity of science and the rejection of metaphysics". Jump up ^ John Vicker (2011). Edward N Zalta, ed. "The problem of induction". The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2011 ed.). This initial formulation of the criterion was soon seen to be too strong; it counted as meaningless not only metaphysical statements but also statements that are clearly empirically meaningful, such as that all copper conducts electricity and, indeed, any universally quantified statement of infinite scope, as well as statements that were at the time beyond the reach of experience for technical, and not conceptual, reasons, such as that there are mountains on the back side of the moon. These difficulties led to modification of the criterion The latter to allow empirical verification if not in fact then at least in principle, the former to soften verification to empirical confirmation. Jump up ^ Uebel, Thomas (2008). Edward N. Zalta, ed. "Vienna Circle". The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2008 ed.). What Carnap later called the "liberalization of empiricism" was underway and different camps became discernible within the Circle... In the first place, this liberalization meant the accommodation of universally quantified statements and the return, as it were, to salient aspects of Carnap s 1928 conception. Everybody had noted that the Wittgensteinian verificationist criterion rendered universally quantified statements meaningless. Schlick (1931) thus followed Wittgenstein s own suggestion to treat them instead as representing rules for the formation of verifiable singular statements. (His abandonment of conclusive verifiability is indicated only in Schlick 1936a.) A second element that began to do so soon was the recognition of the problem of the irreducibility of disposition terms to observation terms... A third element was that disagreement arose as to whether the in-principle verifiability or support turned on what was merely logically possible or on what was nomologically possible, as a matter of physical law etc. A fourth element, finally, was that differences emerged as to whether the criterion of significance was to apply to all languages or whether it was to apply primarily to constructed, formal languages. Schlick retained the focus on logical possibility and natural languages throughout, but Carnap had firmly settled his focus on nomological possibility and constructed languages by the mid-thirties. Concerned with natural language, Schlick (1932, 1936a) deemed all statements meaningful for which it was logically possible to conceive of a procedure of verification; concerned with constructed languages only, Carnap (1936-37) deemed meaningful only statements for whom it was nomologically possible to conceive of a procedure of confirmation of disconfirmation. Many of these issues were openly discussed at the Paris congress in 1935. Already in 1932 Carnap had sought to sharpen his previous criterion by stipulating that those statements were meaningful that were syntactically well-formed and whose non-logical terms were reducible to terms occurring in the basic observational evidence statements of science. While Carnap s focus on the reduction of descriptive terms allows for the conclusive verification of some statements, his criterion also allowed universally quantified statements to be meaningful, provided they were syntactically and terminologically correct (1932a, §2). It was not until one of his Paris addresses, however, that Carnap officially declared the meaning criterion to be mere confirmability. Carnap s new criterion required neither verification nor falsification but only partial testability so as now to include not only universal statements but also the disposition statements of science... Though plausible initially, the device of introducing non-observational terms in this way gave rise to a number of difficulties which impugned the supposedly clear distinctions between logical and empirical matters and analytic and synthetic statements (Hempel 1951). Independently, Carnap himself (1939) soon gave up the hope that all theoretical terms of science could be related to an observational base by such reduction chains. This admission raised a serious problem for the formulation of a meaning criterion how was one to rule out unwanted metaphysical claims while admitting as significant highly abstract scientific claims? ^ Jump up to a b Hilary Putnam (1985). Philosophical Papers Volume 3, Realism and Reason. Philosophical Papers. Cambridge University Press. p. 184. ISBN 9780521313940. LCCN lc82012903. Jump up ^ W V O Quine, "Two dogmas of empiricism", Philosophical Review 1951;60 20-43, collected in Quine, From a Logical Point of View (Cambridge MA Harvard University Press, 1953). Jump up ^ Novick, That Noble Dream (Cambridge U P, 1988), p 527. Jump up ^ Popper then denies that science requires inductive inference or that it actually exists, although most philosophers believe it exists and that science requires it [Samir Okasha, The Philosophy of Science A Very Short Introduction (NY OUP, 2002), p 23]. ^ Jump up to a b c d e Novick, That Noble Dream (Cambridge U P, 1988), pp 526-27. Jump up ^ Hilary Putnam, "Problems with the observational/theoretical distinction", in Scientific Inquiry, Robert Klee, ed (New York, USA Oxford University Press, 1999), pp 25-29. Jump up ^ Nicholas G Fotion (1995). Ted Honderich, ed. The Oxford Companion to Philosophy. Oxford Oxford University Press. p. 508. ISBN 0-19-866132-0. ^ Jump up to a b Hanfling, Oswald (2003). "Logical Positivism". Routledge History of Philosophy. Routledge. pp. 193f. Jump up ^ "Ayer on Logical Positivism Section 4". 6 30. Jump up ^ Stahl et al, Webs of Reality (Rutgers U P, 2002), p 180. Jump up ^ Hilary Putnam, "What is realism?", in Jarrett Leplin, ed, Scientific Realism (Berkeley, Los Angeles, London University of California Press, 1984), p 140. Jump up ^ Ruth Lane, "Positivism, scientific realism and political science Recent developments in the philosophy of science", Journal of Theoretical Politics, 1996 Jul8(3) 361-82, abstract. Jump up ^ Friedman, Reconsidering Logical Positivism (Cambridge, 1999), p 1. ^ Jump up to a b Friedman, Reconsidering Logical Positivism (Cambridge, 1999), p 2.
https://w.atwiki.jp/kimikage/pages/119.html
ファイル選択ダイアログを表示します。 using Microsoft.Win32; using System.IO; using System.Linq; using System.Windows; namespace WpfApp { /// summary /// MainWindow.xaml の相互作用ロジック /// /summary public partial class MainWindow Window { /// summary /// コンストラクタ /// /summary public MainWindow() { // コンポーネントの初期化 InitializeComponent(); } /// summary /// Click File Open Button /// /summary /// param name="sender" /param /// param name="e" /param private void BtnOpenFile_Click(object sender, RoutedEventArgs e) { OpenFileDialog openFileDialog = new OpenFileDialog(); // タイトル openFileDialog.Title = "ファイルを開く"; // 拡張子でフィルタリング"ダイアログに表示する文字|フィルタリング条件①;条件②;..." openFileDialog.Filter = "*.bmp,*.jpg|*.bmp;*.jpg"; // ダイアログを表示 openFileDialog.ShowDialog(); // ファイルが選択されていた場合 if (openFileDialog.FileNames.Length 0) { LblFileName.Content = openFileDialog.FileNames[0]; } } /// summary /// Click Multi Files Open Button /// /summary /// param name="sender" /param /// param name="e" /param private void BtnOpenFiles_Click(object sender, RoutedEventArgs e) { OpenFileDialog openFileDialog = new OpenFileDialog(); // タイトル openFileDialog.Title = "複数のファイルを開く"; // 拡張子でフィルタリング"ダイアログに表示する文字|フィルタリング条件①;条件②;..." openFileDialog.Filter = "*.bmp,*.jpg|*.bmp;*.jpg"; // 複数ファイル選択 openFileDialog.Multiselect = true; // ダイアログを表示 openFileDialog.ShowDialog(); // ファイルが選択されていた場合 if (openFileDialog.FileNames.Length 0) { LblFilesName.Content = string.Join(" ", (from fileName in openFileDialog.FileNames select "\"" + new FileInfo(fileName).Name + "\"").ToList()); } } } } サンプルソース
https://w.atwiki.jp/muvluv/pages/14.html
Muv-Luv Alternative Muv-Luv Alternative (マブラヴ オルタネイティブ) is a sequel to the first Muv-Luv game, taking place after the events of Unlimited (to Takeru, at least). The DVD version of the game was released on 24th February 2006, the CD version was released on 3rd March 2006, and the all-age version was released on 22nd September 2006. The all-age version features new opening sequence with a new song by JAM Project, 5.1 surround sound, and the ability to skip to any chapter (even before you start the game, making this convenient for people who already played the original version). There are also new events and event CGs, and more voice acting for Takeru. Adult content is no longer present (toned down to the level of what one might see in a TV drama), and the more gory scenes were toned down. Some of the new events can only be seen if one has saves in which certain decisions were made from Extra/Unlimited (for example, in order to get the boat event, you have to first find the boat in Unlimited). Unlike the first Muv-Luv game, it consists of only one part, Muv-Luv Alternative. According to âge, Muv-Luv Alternative's genre is "a tale of love and courage" ("あいとゆうきのおとぎばなし"). It is even more serious in tone than Unlimited. It also features a lot of cameo appearances from other games by âge. In addition to the new main characters, one other main character from Kimi ga Nozomu Eien shows up, and several characters from other games are mentioned. It is worth noting that Alternative takes up over 4.5 GB of hard drive space, and requires at least 256 MB of RAM as well as a minimum screen resolution of 1024×768. It also takes 14–20 hours (most report it to take around 16) to clear one playthrough (which is very long when compared to other adventure games). Unlike most adventure games, there is only one ending and one route in Alternative. While it is possible to influence small portions of the story (like determining which letter Takeru reads at the end), the ending ultimately remains unchanged, and the characters who die cannot be saved. In Alternative, Takeru wakes up three years after the end of Unlimited to find himself back in his room. Although he first thinks that everything that had happened to him was a dream, he soon feels that something is wrong, and leaves the house to find that he has been sent back in time to the beginning of the events in Unlimited. Unwilling to accept something like Alternative V, he decides to help professor Kouduki to complete Alternative IV and save mankind. While the game starts off loosely following some of the events of Unlimited, Takeru soon makes enough of a difference for all sorts of things that didn't happen in the previous timeline to occur. When talking about Alternative, fans typically use "AL" when referring to the world, and "Oruta" (オルタ) when referring to the game. "Oruta madaa?" (オルタマダー？, "Is Oruta here yet?") was a frequent chant in Muv-Luv threads on BBSes such as 2ch during the three year wait after the first Muv-Luv. This was replaced with "Oruta FD madaa?" (オルタFDマダー？, "is the Oruta fandisc here yet?) after Alternative was released, but isn't seen nearly as often as its predecessor was. While Alternative answers most of the questions and ends Muv-Luv's story (only three members of the Isumi Valkyries are left by the end of the game, excluding Takeru, who has left the world), the conflict with the BETA is far from resolved. While the Original Hive and the Superior (Target A) have been destroyed, the solar system, and indeed, the universe, is still filled with BETA (according the Superior, at least 10^37). The game has been heavily criticized for its inclusion of several "grotesque" (gory) scenes, especially Marimo's death scene, which is undoubtedly the worst of the lot, in which she gets her head bitten off. However, fans argue that said scenes are necessary to let players know why Takeru is affected so heavily by those events (Takeru's reaction to Marimo's death results in a series of major plot twists). Even the fans agree that that scene could have been censored, and shouldn't have been seen again in so many flashbacks, though. Due to this, a censor patch has been made available. The game is largely hit-or-miss. It is likely that this is because it is nothing at all like the lighthearted Extra. There is one last unique alternate world introduced in Alternative at the end of the game, which is referred to by fans as "FEX", for "final Extra". A Muv-Luv Alternative fandisc, Altered Fable (アルタードフェイブル) was announced in February 2007. There is no release date yet.
https://w.atwiki.jp/infinity_jpn/pages/187.html
作業者：粥 状況：チェック待ち 【英文】 This is an E/M deployable weapon, with a Circular Template effect, activated by proximity. When an enemy troop penetrates the radius of the Circular Template, the device emits an E/M pulse of Damage 13. A Short Skill is used to drive an E/Mauler into the ground and activate it. E/Maulers remain active until the end of the battle or until they are destroyed by a shot or a Template Weapon. E/Maulers have ARM 0, BTS 0 and STR 1. Due to their size when completely deployed, E/Maulers cannot be Camouflaged so they do not have Shot Modifiers. They are able to recognize ally figures, and are never activated in their presence, even if they are Unconscious. E/Maulers deactivate any guided projectile penetrating their radius of coverage, emitting their E/M Pulse as they do so. This weapon cannot be used in CC. Each figure equipped with an E/Mauler will carry 3 of the devices. This weapon allows performance of Intuitive Attacks. E/Maulers are a hybrid of a Position Repeater and a Mine. They are equipped with a movement sensor and an IFF (Identification of Friend or Foe) device, both connected to a transmitter of E/M pulses. E/Maulers are designed and patented by the Nomad Nation, who has sold several bundles to Ariadna after the experiences of Commercial Conflicts. ATTENTION This weapon affects Cubes, deactivating them, and is forbidden by the Concilium Convention. Its use will be penalized by international courts. 【和訳】 この武器は配置可能なE/Mウェポンであり、サークルテンプレートを用い、敵の接近により発動する。敵兵がサークルテンプレートの範囲を超えてきたとき、この武器はE/Mダメージ13を与える。ショートスキルによりこの武器を配置することが出来る。この武器はゲーム終了または射撃やテンプレートウェポンで破壊されるまで残り続ける。E/MアウラーのARMは0、BTSは０、STRは1である。 この武器が配置された場合、サイズが大きすぎるためにカモフラージュ状態に出来ず、射撃に対してのMODは与えられない。この武器は味方を認識することが出来るため、味方がいる場合にはたとえそれがアンコンシャス（意識不明）状態であっても発動しない。E/Maulerは範囲内のガイデッドアミュニションの投射物をE/Mパルスにより停止させることが出来る。この武器はCCでは使用できない。E/Mアウラーを装備している兵は、3つのE/Mアウラーを装備しているとみなされる。この武器はイントゥーティブアタックが可能である。 E/Mアウラーはポジションリピーターとマインのハイブリッド装備だ。これらには動態感知センサーとIFF(敵味方識別)装置がE/Mパルス発信機に接続されている。E/Mアウラーはノーマッドが設計し、特許を持っており、彼らはいくつかの商業戦争を経験したあとアリアドナに束で販売している。 注意：この武器はキューブに影響をあたえるので、国際条約によって禁止されている。その使用は国際裁判所により罰せられるだろう。
https://w.atwiki.jp/mustnotsearch/pages/4259.html
登録タグ：ObokMeatGod グロ コメントログ有りの記事 セクシャル フォビック 危険度7 病気・畸形 非常識 検索するとwpd.tvの ｢(Child warming) Womensalliance.xyz｣というタイトルの動画が少し下にヒットする。 その内容は明るい曲調の音楽(Oh,pretty women)と共に大量のグロ動画やグロ画像が表示されるというもの。 Ms.Pacman Videoのようなここに掲載されているグロ動画もあり。 ちなみに作者はkekma.netと同じObokMeatGod氏。 非常に惨たらしく、視覚的にも、精神的にもショックを与えるような動画・画像ばかりなので、絶対に面白半分・興味本心で閲覧してはいけない。 + 表示されるワード 金槌を取り出す動画 サカテカスの女性 旅する老人女性 パラグアイ 美人弁護士 Brazilian Titty Woman Ms.Pacman Video leaves woman s face completely Ma Florence Ayafor Thalia Torres de Souza 1 MILF 1 MACHETE 掲載されているどのワードもこのwikiでは危険度5以上のトラウマ確定級のものばかりである。 このほかにも、｢四肢、首を切断された女性が並べられている画像」や、｢妊婦の焼死体から飛び出た胎児の画像」などが掲載されている。もちろんすべて閲覧注意。 動画のダウンロードリンク anonfiles.com/t4kbbbA1u4/alliance_7z anonfilesの閉鎖によりこのリンクからはダウンロード不可 関連項目：MDPOPE Monkeysugar Real Mad World 分類：グロ、非常識、セクシャル、フォビック、病気、畸形 危険度： 7 コメント 1 マチェーテで斬首 2 顔に斧が刺さっている 3 サカテカスの女性の動画 4 leaves woman's face completelyの動画 5 Thalia Torres de Souzaの動画 6 Ma Florence Ayaforの動画 7 1 MILF 1 MACHETEの動画（前半) 8 Ms.pacman videoの動画 9 Brazilian Titty Womanの動画 10 ぐちゃぐちゃになった死体 内臓等も出ている 11 金槌を取り出す動画 12 死体に対して性的な行為 画像数枚 13 焼死体から摘出された赤ん坊 14 首から上が飛び散っている おそらく作り物 15 バラバラになっている女性 16 パラグアイ 美人弁護士の画像 17 体に火をつけられる 18 斬首される 19 顎がない女性 20 治療中の女性 ガーゼが血まみれ 21 事故で内臓等が出ている 22 解剖 体を切り開いたり顔を金槌で割ったり 23 1 MILF 1 MACHETE(後半) 24 傷口からウジ虫 25 事故で目玉が出ている 26 女性器にウジ虫 27 上半身と下半身が分断されている 28 旅する老人女性の動画 29 下腹部から腸が出る 30 胸が壊死 31 足や腕がない死体 32 胸に穴ができている 33 死体にハエやウジ虫 -- (ただの暇人) 2024-07-05 16 57 19 ↑有能 -- (名無しさん) 2024-07-13 15 10 31 これ見てたらめっちゃスシロー食べたくなってきた -- (名無しさん) 2024-07-21 13 53 58 コメント削除済み ウジ虫がとても嫌いになりました! -- (餅好き中学生) 2024-08-02 17 48 53 動画自体はここから見れますttps //watchpeopledie.tv/h/compilation/post/19613/womensalliancexyz -- (名無しさん) 2024-08-15 13 11 35 デマが無ければ14歳のディーラー少年も入ってそう -- (名無しさん) 2024-08-16 12 35 31 女なぞそれでいい -- (、) 2024-08-16 17 27 58 お前ら何で見れるんだよ -- (名無しさん) 2024-08-19 21 33 04 Goreseeでも見れますねぇ -- (ただの暇人) 2024-08-24 12 02 46 名前 コメント すべてのコメントを見る