Pingonaut
-
Posts
454 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Bug Reports
Posts posted by Pingonaut
-
-
Sputnik was a test payload for a military project. America reacted the way it did because the Russians showed that they could hit anywhere on the planet. Far from a "pet project." I don't know where you heard that. Not so innocent.
-
God yes. I hate out system.
-
I installed it (and the Astronomer’s Visual Pack) via CKAN and it works flawlessly.
I tried and it crashed. Not because of memory, though. Some of the textures were causing issues. Refused to load. I just went with KSPRC and added the Astronomer's parts that worked (everything but EVE textures).
-
I love stock-a-line mods! Great work!
If you're looking for suggestions, it'd be neat to see some built-in landing legs and even balcony/porch things that fold out on some modules (or modules specifically for that).
-
Wip-Eve, scatterer, kopernicus, texture replacer, doe and planet shine as main plugins. I'm considerig include engine light.
Started using engine lighting recently, and it's so nice!
-
It crashes my game every time I try to land on the night side of Kerbin. I've removed it. While beautiful, it's like Chatterer, a must have, and I hate to play without it, but really kind of useless.
It's possible that there's a different mod causing this. I've never seen that issue with normal EVE.
-
2015 is going to go down as a really great year.
-
Not compatible with "Kerbin Side" icons on map appear to be a black square
Then post it on Kerbin Side's mod page. This isn't TextureReplacer's bug to fix.
-
This pack is, as you know, a lovely mix of EVE, Planetshine, Texture Replacer etc. If you want only (as an example) the planetshine effects, the suits and a new skybox, then get Planetshine and TR instead. It is probably easier to customize the individual mods than this pack.
It's more about not wanting the kerbal texture and suit changes, but wanting the planet and navball texture changes. As I said, it isn't hard for me to do it. But for someone new to mods it may be a bit confusing if they don't want those changes. I'm perfectly fine going through the files and choosing what to keep and what not to.
-
"Easier installs" won, by much... sorry.
That's alright. It isn't an issue for me to go through and pick and choose which pieces I want and which I don't (for example I keep the navball textures, but not the suit textures, etc.). It just takes a bit of time. I actually thought step-by-step instructions would be easier, but I can see how someone new to modding would find a drag and drop pack easier.
If you want just some features, since this is a "compilation"... maybe is better for you to use the base mods, instead this whole pack?I'm not sure what you mean by this.
-
Alright, thanks for the explanation. I'll just use the BB code mode.
-
For some reason, when switching to bold, italics, etc. hitting the backspace key will bring me back to the end of whatever was formatted.
So for example if I bold this make a mistake, and hit backspace, it will take me back to the 's' in this or the space after it, and delete it.
-
Without substantiation I refuse to accept for a fact that there is plenty of evidence and that everyone is willingly ignoring it. Even if you take into account that novel ideas generate resistance that is just too convenient.
But still, what kind of substantiation?
Anyhow, I just wanted to come back before checking out of the discussion. Thanks for the enjoyment. Will check up every now and then and finish up if need be.
-
This all sounds a little bit too much like something a disappointed conspiracist would say. We can prove it! Well, actually we can't, but if we would, you would not believe us! Why won't you believe us!
Call me optimistic, but I am certain that a single piece of good, solid evidence would sway a huge amount of scientists. There will naturally be a certain amount of scepticism to overcome, but that is only healthy. As has been stated, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Even though I agree, I have to chime in and say he isn't wrong.
- - - Updated - - -
The Loch Ness monster is known to not exist: full sonar sweeps have been done of the lake, multiple times, there's nothing in there. Regardless of that, there are plenty of blurry photos and eyewitness accounts, with more coming out every year. So here's something to start with; produce evidence more substantive than that for Nessie.It's like saying "there's a giant snake in my backyard but no known snakes like that are believed to have habitat here" before it was discovered that the large snakes originated from pets that were discarded, which started a colony.
-
With every claim, be it aliens, ghost, talking to the dead, etc. etc., there is one major flaw: if it was real it would be mainstream.
The vast majority of people would know of these things to be real and a lot effort would be put into gathering more concrete evidence
and a way to explain describe why, how and what.
As said above, that reasoning doesn't make any sense. The idea of Earth being a round ball of rock orbiting a ball of flame, which is just one of countless similar systems certainly wasn't mainstream for such a long time.
Sorry. That view has no basis in reality.
-
I'm back, but not for too long.
Who says that is not done? The fact that no one has been able to produce proof that holds up when investigated means one thing - there is no good proof.What is proof, exactly? Investigations certainly have produced evidence.
- - - Updated - - -
I'm not sure its entirely valid to say that their motives would be that different to ours. Natural selection here on Earth has crafted a pretty specific and simple set of motives which there is very little variation on in the scheme of things. The behavior of every creature and culture on the planet can ultimately be traced back to one simple motive; survival, whether it be as an individual, a colony, a culture or an entire species. I would argue that almost every action taken by any living organism on the planet, conscious or unconscious, is driven by that compulsion to survive. Even if the actions do not have a direct impact on chances on survival in the modern world they are derived from it. Why do we have friends? In the wild a group of friends would likely increase your chances when hunting for food which you need for survival, would also help you in negative situations (increasing chance of survival), provide warmth in the cold (for survival), hold collectively more knowledge than you as an individual could (helping with, you guessed it, survival) Social activities of any kind can all be linked back to this. We do science to gain more knowledge about the world, knowledge that helps us to control the world better to benefit OUR SURVIVAL. Why should aliens be any different? What possible motives could they have that could not be linked directly or indirectly to survival?Then why do we study animals in the wild today, why do we protect endangered species? Curiosity, as well. For a civilization that has achieved beyond the point of only surviving, why is it far fetched to believe that they would be doing things like we are? Nature preserves, studies on species and their development, etc.
-
We don't necessarily need to understand the reason, but we can attempt to apply logic given that we are capable of it. Saying 'we couldn't even understand their motives' is basically the UFOlogist version of 'God works in mysterious ways'
I'm saying though, we would be so behind in understanding of technology and society that our motives would likely be different than theirs. As I said, I like the Zoo Hypothesis and it would make sense. They hide when they need to, don't try to when they don't, etc. because they're doing research, or whatever.
I will again reiterate that eyewitness testimony means A B S O L U T E L Y N O T H I N G, no matter who it is from. The human mind is an amazing machine but, like any machine, it has its flaws. Anyone can be deceived. The mind deceives itself constantly. The memory is a fragile thing. It is easily distorted and it is susceptible to suggestion and bias.Very true. But some eyewitness testimonies come with good physical evidence that can be explored further. If you can corroborate it, then always try to do so.
-snip story-That's good. I'm not saying don't be skeptical.
- - - Updated - - -
By people that actually understand how science and proving things work.What? I'm sorry, but that really doesn't make any sense. Use science to confirm/debunk the claims, is what I'm saying. Make investigating this stuff a proper science and debunk it properly.
- - - Updated - - -
You can pick up TV signals with a ham radio with sufficient frequency range, and we're monitoring the entire spectrum. You've ignored the rest of my statement as well-any physical object will produce some radar signal, why don't we see it? Why are there no unexplained sonic booms?Any physical object will produce a radar signal? Yeah, there are cases where there was a radar signal. But how does stealth technology work? (I don't personally know) If we can make stealth jets that don't show up on radar as greatly, why can't a more advanced technology (almost) completely avoid it?
I've actually got to go. Thanks for the good discussion!
-
I'd like to say: this thread IS in the science labs, not a bashing subforum. Granted many bashing occurs - but most stops after a while, only resurfaces only when someone digs ("necro") it out.
So, shouldn't we DISCUSS THESE INSTEAD :
1. Tell a possible unidentified object sighting.
2. Try figure out what it is.
3. Get some explanations why it have to be that - the mechanism etc.
Your sight do often fools you - that's very correct, hence why we use candela and lumens beside wattage for lamps - but it doesn't remove the fact you've (or someone have) saw something unexplainable to you / them. The thread were supposed to be used for sharing experiences of these, without outright denying them and says the cause must be X. My kite viewing were quite rare to me and most people, but it was real. (i'm aware, no pics and it didn't happen, but i assure mine was real and reproducible, and tbh i said it because i believed the op might be interested and the thread wouldn't be like this.)
Sory for backseat moderating, but I guess that's kind of needed for this subforum.
I dunno, I'm enjoying the discussion. I've yet to see anyone putting anyone else down for their views.
- - - Updated - - -
If that were the case it would be called science.By who?
-
Radar returns of vehicles with much altitudes and speeds than we're capable of, large uncatalogued objects appearing in orbit, clearly structured radio signals from elsewhere in the solar system... anything like that. As it stands we genuinely have better evidence for the Yeti than for extraterrestrial visitors.
Why do they have to use signals that we use, like radio? Like people saying "SETI hasn't found anything, so it's unlikely," it's like trying to detect television broadcasts with a ham radio.
-
So we either have an unproven, millions of years more advanced civilisation doing things with physics that are as of yet not proven to be possible on the one hand, and someone simply misunderstanding what he sees on the other. Guess which one has a higher probability of occuring?
Honestly both of them are fairly likely.
The problem is that we have these sightings that never seem to come with good proof. So they either try to hide (but are pretty bad at it), do not have a reason to hide (but still pretty much do) or are not here at all. Again, which one is vastly more likely?The problem is some of them do come with some pretty good proof. You just have to investigate it. There were a few landing sightings where the ground beneath showed extremely high radiation, corroborating the exact shape and size of the objects.
-
Nope, experience still doesn't make an eye witness testimony valuable to science. It really makes no difference to science if it's Bobby the hobo or deGrasse Tyson who say they saw it.
Why? It makes a difference if a trained observer says they see something. Take the story as-is? No. Investigate further based on circumstances? Yeah. That's the issue. It stops at investigating ​thoroughly.
-
The fact that officers are regularly proven to have mistaken things, or simply to lie, makes this argument quite problematic. Those are human beings too, without a physics and engineering degree to understand what they might be seeing.
This is true. I'm not saying you should accept every case as fact just because they're trained observers. I'm simply saying they're more credible. Of course without complete knowledge they are personally fallible, but others can use their testimony and investigate it further, using their circumstances as a base.
- - - Updated - - -
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence; not a few blurry pictures and eyewitness accounts.Again, I really don't know how you're going to get extraordinary evidence.
-
Rice, perhaps? Small bowl of it.
-
They pretty much do if they come here, looking at the distances and energies involved.
No, they don't necessarily. There are plenty of theoretical ways of going around the speed of light that we already know of. Do you think we know all there is to know about interstellar travel physics, more than a civilization that has had maybe millions of years more time than us?
We have not quite seen them landing on our lawn, have we? That means that if they are around, they are not showing themselves.Why do they have to land on our lawns, or be showing themselves? (I'm obviously partial to the zoo hypothesis) A scientist studying the deer population at a local nature preserve will "abduct" deer and do stuff with it. They won't try to hide themselves if it isn't necessary, they will when it is, but they don't go stomping on the deer's home saying "HEY I'M HERE, LOOK!" just because they don't have reason to hide.
We do. We consider the options and say 'this one is vastly more probably and likely' and that does cut it. Of course, if someone brings evidence that could change opinion, that should be evaluated, but nothing convincing has been produced and that is pretty much the whole issue.Well, there are quite a few cases that have done it for me. Testimony from really good witness does that. Not every pilot, police officer, soldier, and even astronaut just happened to be incapacitated visually at the time.
- - - Updated - - -
Just chiming in here. A job title like "police officer", "pilot", "astronaut" or "5 star general" does not affect the credibility of a witness. Eye witness testemony is really worthless regardless of the title of the person saying he or she saw something. If Stephen Hawking said he had seen an alien, his testimony would be worthless, just like any other eye witness testimony. Worthless as evidence, let alone proof. Hard, physical evidence would be valuable.Job title doesn't. Experience does. People who are trained observers are more credible than a blind hillbilly. Physical evidence exists, but it isn't hard proof. I'm not sure how you'd get hard proof.
edit: huh, just realized accidentally double posting just updates your post. Awesome!
Kerbalizer doesn't work on Chrome, or apparently Internet Explorer (Unity 5 issue)
in Kerbal Network
Posted · Edited by Pingonaut
I've attempted the download on both browsers and neither worked. Figured I'd bring it up since I saw that a thread was made about it quite a while ago.
I just noticed that it was moved to Google Play. I've never used it before, is that available on Chrome? And since I've already purchased the old version am I able to transfer it?