cantab

Yeah, Usenet goes way back. The Tanenbaum-Torvalds debate in 1992 comes to mind for me. Highlights included "Your job is being a professor and researcher: That's one hell of a good excuse for some of the brain-damages of minix." (Torvalds to Tanenbaum) and "Be thankful you are not my student. You would not get a high grade for such a design [of Linux]." (Tanenbaum to Torvalds). But if you want really old, well RFC 1 written before ARPANET, the ancestor of the internet, even existed.

Dang it, I voted "common" but now I want to change my vote! I feel the most plausible explanation for the density of bodies in the Kerbol system, in terms of consistency with known physics and with game information, is that they have substantial dark matter cores. That then is something that while not universal and maybe not even *that* common, is not necessarily unique to the Kerbol system. It's something that might be widespread in a galaxy or region of a galaxy that's rich in the appropriate dark matter.

It might have, I don't remember. In any case this was built after crew transfer was possible. Xenon. Which might be a clue. The winglets were for stability during Kerbin re-entry, see the decoupler and heatshield just aft of the plane cockpit. Lander was already used. As for the twin-fuselage plane, not enough intake air?

You may get better range out of your plane at a slower cruising speed, but then that makes it an even longer flight. Otherwise, send bigger plane is the obvious choice. I think I'd land the plane from orbit into the poles, then you only have one-way atmo flight to do not the round trip.

If I may, then...here's one of mine:

Redator: The rise and fall of Ellen Pao.

There are parasites on the outermost moon of Jool, but forum rules say I can't talk about pol-ticks.

I doubt it has enough rocket thrust to make orbit, and it looks like the lower jets may be prone to tailstrikes, but otherwise I'm not sure what the problems are.

In my view the most important thing is ease of use. That comes primarily from the mount, which needs to move when you want it to and stay still when you don't! Remember 50, 100, 200 times magnification means every little shake is also magnified 50, 100, 200 times. If you buy a Newtonian reflector, where the eyepiece comes out the side of the tube, then I advise an alt-azimuth mount, one where the scope points up and down, left and right. Newtonian reflectors on equatorial mounts tend to point the eyepiece in stupid directions as you move the scope around. If you're considering a computerised "GoTo" scope, you also need to think about how easy it is to get set up and use the computer control, as well as battery life - you're usually best off with a rechargeable battery pack because most of them guzzle batteries otherwise and the scope can't be aimed manually without damaging the mount. Also consider size and weight, it's not much good having a telescope that's just too darn big and heavy to drag outside. The next most important thing is aperture, the width of the main lens or mirror. More aperture means seeing fainter objects and more detail. Useful maximum magnification is 50x per inch of aperture, but know that most observing is done at low and medium magnification anyway. A 3 inch scope will show the basics. 4 or 5 inches is better, but still considered a small scope. 6 or better 8 inches and you're into "large telescope" by amateur astronomer standards. 10 inches and above starts to get heavy, bulky, and expensive.

IMHO it doesn't matter much. The difference between "good" and "bad" thermal paste is less than the difference between coolers, less than the difference between correct and incorrect cooler mounting, probably less than the difference from the "silicon lottery" when overclocking. Just get something that isn't electricaly-conductive, you don't want any shorts if a bit spills or squeezes out.

There are in any case situations where it's impossible for a delta-V calculator to give a correct result unless the player also inputs a complete flight plan. Most obviously, Apollo-style missions.

Oh dear Kraken, that reminds me of the mission where I forgot the antenna - on TEN probe landers! D'oh! Still did all the landings anyway, just because.

Since we seem to be stuck-ish on the topic, I'll expand: I didn't dislike Gravity because of the dubious science. I disliked Gravity because of Sandra Bullock's damsel-in-distress character. Plain old film matters like characterisation and plotline remain as important if not more so than accurate science.

Stock aero could be tuned to make simple, straightforwardly-built aircraft fly more realistically, but it will then continue to produce excess drag in clipping-heavy aircraft. Such clipping is likely when making replicas as well as when optimising craft for FAR, because you need to clip stuff in order to sculpt more complex shapes. If you reduce the drag so those clippy craft behave themselves, then the simple craft will be too slippery.

What do you call a Kerbal doing his finances? Bill. What do you call a Kerbal swimming in the pool? Bob. What do you call a Kerbal studying biology? Gene. What do you call a Kerbal flying a rocket? Dead.

My first docking was with a ship that decoupled and then redocked, so I could get a feel for it. With the rendezvous stage out of the way it was fairly easy flying around. I already had some experience EVAing Kerbals which is a similar skill. My first rendezvous was in the demo, after about a dozen hours of play, and I needed a couple of goes. There was a guide on the KSP Wiki that helped me through it. My first EVA was also in the demo, and I promptly got the Kerbal hopelessly stranded in space.

The Kerbal, on any design where the root part wasn't the command pod.

Select the 10x UT increment option

Interstellar was a good film, and a few iffy bits of science didn't stop it being good. Gravity was a bad film, and a few iffy bits of science didn't make it bad. (Most of the quibbles about Gravity can be handwaved away if you suppose it's in an alternate history where the relevant orbits are all coplanar anyway).

FAR uses a whole-shape approach to determining drag, while stock uses a part-by-part approach. This means that optimising a plane in FAR often involves clipping parts together, especially when you get into area ruling. Those clipped parts produce excess drag in stock, especially if you have open attachment nodes. I doubt we'll get anything significantly better in stock any time soon. After all, if Squad had wanted good aero why did they not approach ferram?

Yeah, the only mod I've found that even required a different version for different OSes was Advanced Fly By Wire, and that's because that mod needs to handle controllers in an OS-dependent way. I've never seen a mod that was Windows-only.

If it does go for $35,000 then that's not too much above average price. However "average price" means it's too expensive for about half the population. Electric cars won't really be mainstream until I can go to my local second-hand car salesman and get one for a few grand.

"370" is the important bit, that's the model number of the GPU itself. It's a decent GPU for 1080p gaming, though far from a high end powerhouse, don't expect to run everything at ultra. Pairing it with an i5-6400 makes a build that to me is a bit CPU-heavy for gaming, though other uses may justify the Core i5.

Actually, the Windows specs on Steam are as follows: Minimum: OS:Windows Vista or 7 Processor:Core 2 Duo Memory:3GB RAM Graphics:SM3 512MB VRAM Hard Drive:4 GB HD space Recommended: OS:Windows 8 or 10 64 bit Processor:Core i5 Memory:4 GB RAM Graphics:SM4 1GB VRAM Hard Drive:6 GB HD space

Squad could get in with Tapatalk, I know a lot of forums use it and it seems to be reasonably popular.