Arugela

To OP: I'm pretty sure stopping climate change is the definition of destroying the earth. Please, explain this motive.... Besides we have a bunch of planets in our solar system already with reduced or increased climate change. And who says we have any ability to even affect climate change. If you deal with plants enough you learn most of things some people describe as damaging are natural process required for the life of things in the ecosystem. If you did what you wanted you would destroy us all!!!! 8\ Maybe if we made people grow their food for a few years before they got into arguments on the internet about climate control... If only parents cared enough to do it.... We once did it. And, sorry, but the arguments on global warming are not established. None of the people arguing about it even have any knowledge on it. Including the scientists. None of them have done more than potted a plant if they have even done that much. And I'm with edframs earlier statement. You guys need to learn this stuff yourselves from experience. I bet none of you have even grown in a garden let alone understand the complexities of the rest of what you are talking about. Without that knowledge you cannot get into these arguments. How many here can give me exact calculated details on how much it takes to produce power from one means to a next. That is no different than if you cut own wood for fires. You have no idea without going it in exact detail which one takes more. For all you know it's saving trees by power mass electricity over something else. Or Solar panels produce more waste in the production or any other argument. Without knowledge arguments cannot go anywhere.

She's technically really goofy and overly bright. I don't think they were avoiding it. They technically made here the bright young girl which is by definition sexualizing her! 8) By the proper definition, not sexualizing here would make her(and all kerbals) asexual. And void the point. It's actually not possible to not sexualize here and have female kerban. Even cross dressing or some other stereotype or logical alternative would need enough differentiation that it would count as sexualizing. Or you couldn't tell it was originally female. Again, voiding the point of a female kerbal. This goes to some of the silly nature of modern arguments. They often, if not mostly, misuse the real definition to a quite funny, and often opposite, result.

http://www.nasa.gov/offices/oce/pmchallenge/faq/DressCode_prt.htm 8\ <- so helpful... I wonder what the full story is... 8) There must have been odd stories. No engineering environment goes without those... No matter how much they try to dress it up. Not to mention there must be variation for different position to differentiate people...

I didn't mean Velentina. I think I saw the stuff for the other generic females and they all had lipstick and 50's house hair... I thought it was kind of odd and funny considering certain things. lol But still, what did women let alone other people wear at NASA during the periods this game might be hinting at. I know some of the higher ups and guys on camera wear suits. but I wonder about the rest. There have to be a lot of crew. I can imagine the 60's. I'll have to find a pic. Or is this a mod. I saw other pics that had lots of females and they looked similar. I thought some of them were official for some reason. Maybe I was mistaken. I think there was a better pic than this. It was much more 50's. I think this one is a mod. I thought one of the pics I saw was from an official posting though. Could be mistaken.

Why would they bring it to console with the potential limitations. They should bring it to mac/linux first. They should start with the things they traditionally had part in then work out and have some respect for their past fans(the PC realm) before moving onto new territories. It shows an insane amount of lack of consideration and disrespect and show how little they potentially think of their game... Boy, it would be nice to try out the game. But I guess I'm not in the realm of those who they would put the work into allowing to play. At least, not anymore. I guess they are too good for some people now. 8\ Maybe I'm not missing much...

One, you still have no idea what I'm referring too. And you won't. What you are saying I'm referring to is not even remotely close. You need to gain a broader education. Have the dignity to at least consider there could he things beyond what you think and be done with it(especially when someone tells you you are mistaken about the meaning of their own words.). Your views on everything you run into are quite simple also. You are the one making other peoples ideas into something simpler than they are. Then complaining about it and accusing others of doing what you are actually fabricating. So, sorry, but there is a broader world out there and it is much more complex. Two, what you are proposing is the original thing that feminism was fighting. Your proposal is to make them a secretary and the very thing you propose to escape. You have things quite backwords.... What I was proposing would have no specific roles(neutral) and was about the most complex potential character interaction. Especially funny ones. But keep simplifying what I think and telling me I'm wrong. Works great. Shows the ignorance. You shouldn't try to force and tell someone what they mean by something. It's very stupid. And don't worry. You will simplify and add in whatever drivel comes to mind in place of my words and think you are still arguing with me. So have fun. BTW, maybe it would help you to think of ying and yang instead of good and evil. It's about forces that interact if you need a (very simplified) descriptor. Not what you are proposing. Edit: It's funny. Twenty years ago I could get into an argument on this or anything similar and nobody would have a problem understanding what I meant.... Boy things have changed. But, yea I guess if it is specific to period. Though I think I'm going to jump on the bandwagon of it was better to generalize the game. 8) Oh, well. I'm assuming that the differentiating between male and female is going to be rather odd though(not that that is a bad thing). And that the females had lipstick and housewife hairstyles... I'm surprised with half of the complaints that it's not going to bring about the feminism problem since the period could have encompassed this. What did females at NASA dress in for work back then? I wouldn't assume the range since it was an engineering environment. So It might be interesting to see what that was or how that changed.

http://www.deviantart.com/art/KSP-Interstellar-lander-1-506355813 Holy crap! This is basically my engine design with my general space craft aesthetic design. But custom done. Interesting... I wonder how it performs differently.

They should have set up the game for the potential performance first. Unless they have it that well thought out... which still has some potential drawbacks. It leaves the games potential vulnerable. I really don't know why these game engines don't all have these capabilities(actually I think I do). This type of coding was done in the 50's and back with every computer in existence if I'm not mistaken. Really shows what has happened in the last 20 years or so.(or what hasn't). we need to get those maths skills up again.

Sorry, but the point is much more complicated. It's about the natural interaction between men and women. the rest is the range of those things. And a very interesting thing to do with the concept of introducing a female character. It's also realistic potentially to the circumstances. It's the basic reality between men and women and what can happen. Your grossly oversimplifying it. Seductress does not mean overbearing sexual content. It's also the subtleties. All of them.....! And in fact that rarely properly means anything you would think of as sexual! Nice of you to bash my idea with so little understanding of it. I think the word I'm thinking of is glibly... And how would you tell the difference between them. Do they even have differentiating features? I haven't paid enough attention to the material they have shown.

That does bring up an interesting idea though. Maybe a deep space object one day!! 8D Technically they have, at various points in history! Do you think you would get a job in a certain field of work in some situation if you were a flat earth society believer in science and you really meant it? Do you think you couldn't be denied, even on grounds of work ability, when it is still technically an argument and still science. I'm sure it's happened. And this is outside of the fact that the word discrimination like most words today and arguments are very simple or simplified now. Discrimination can be good and bad. It's part of life and something fundamental. You must do it at different times in different places to different things. Being discriminated against does not mean you were wronged. What if the discriminator was correct about something. The word actually means something more complex. So the use of discrimination is not a complete argument. It is not valid in itself. It requires more argument to do correctly and prove the chosen conclusion. What people don't like today is not being agreed with or someone saying what they are is not good. Well, it's not that simple. Sometimes it is sometimes it isn't. It's very complex. The flat removal of it based on it as a single subject is to act on one sense as the flat earth society is seen. As wanting a simple flat world with nothing to complain about. One where everything goes your way and no complexity or hurdles exist in it.(This is also, in some views, classically the desire of tyrants and like desires) Now obviously the logic used by the real earth society is real logic as observation is really needed(and much more) to know something and is a valid argument. In fact that can create more knowledge in making others look or is a proper statement of the situation. Someones word is not proof though. In the end you cannot get outside of reality and all viewpoints are valid per say. And are using something. You can only simplify something(an argument) from it's most complex(true) state. All arguments are withing that realm and are technically trying to get to the highest state. But where those things collide is where everything in life comes from. but it is not simple to say one thing is always good and always bad. It never works that way. Life is too complex. There is a wonderful verse in the bible(as much as people hate that) that portrays a very good principle. There is a season for all things. It means nothing can be simplified as it is by everyone in just about everything today. 8) Everything is about perspective and context. Nothing itself is ever always good or bad. And the creation of such logic is where all of the harm in life come from as it is when people have gotten to lazy(or as they get too lazy) to thinks things out all the way and demand shortcuts to things in life and take these easier answers. Particularly as society and life permit them to over time. It is stating that as a principle as people forget that pretty much more easily than anything else. It's human behavior(Technically laziness.)

That is why I wanted the female to be Jezebel and focus on more interesting story telling. Then it could contrast that and be even more interesting. (BTW, Jezebel is a subtle manipulative seductress who plays on the simple minded or weak of character(any weakness) presumably. So, it can make endless variations of funny story telling. The entirety of the stereotype of astronauts(especially navy/airforce bread from the period) is full of funny things to throw at that. Let alone a guy name Jebediah! 8D The religious context is wholely appropriate. Both superficially and in the realm of what fits best as far as type of story telling and character development/interaction. BTW, are there black or asian like Kerbals? Or are they all just shades of green!! ><

And define significant... Oo? And what or how exactly does it offend you? There is some level of reason that has to be applied to these things.(I know, this is what he just said. 8p) Remember, you, the person bringing this up, have the first obligation to prove your point. It's your argument. Prove it to everyone!

With the state fair coming up, one of the higher ups wives decided to send a rocket through the atmosphere to cook it as required by her grandmothers special recipe. At some point during flight a hiccup occurred in flight computer and it is now escaping Kerbal orbit. We need you to intercept return the pie before the fair! We know you can do it! Reward: Free slice of out of this world pie! 8p

Not necessarily. In seed barring plants sun tends to speeds up the lifecycle/reproductive cycle. Like with lettuces and alot of root plants you might want to limit sun. So, you can use sun in different ways. If you know you are going to potentially be adrift you may purposely limit sun to stop aging etc. I think terrariums have alot of open space becuase they are inside alot. Inside the sun is limited and you may need it for any growth at all. Plus it's for appearance and you want to see it. So, less sun would be potentially accurate. I beleive you can keep terrariums in the dark or in limited light. I think it makes them last longer potentially. Plus, again, the variance of plants can change any of that drastically. Plants are the most complex mechanical devices we probably know of. There is way more variation than most people realize.

I think that is one of the potential tricks of terrariums(or so I've heard). If their own plant flesh is dieing and falling back in the terrarium I think it makes them self sufficient. I've seen people go over stuff like this and I think that is what they usually say. Though they may also have multiple plants. I think it depends on what the plant does and what it decays into. So if they are a complex plant and produce the right things, you never know. Technically, if they do something like what we do(poop,pee,fart,exhale) let alone shed skin/hair(assuming that stuff is hair) they could be doing this. Thos byproducts could allow them to act like multiple plants could and make them capable of being self sufficient in space in a small environment. It could be justified they had to be to have become a space fairing species if they are a plant. So, maybe they evolved in this way. That is, also, assuming they evolved.... If nothing else it could give them really long periods of time. Let alone, again, if they went dormant in that state(like the cryochamber vs a suit) they cold last in space and fling themselves between stars or galaxies. Heck they could use interstellar materials if they, say, developed(or were developed...sshhhh!!!) on a low gravity planet that had the characteristics of both life barring and barren worlds. Or whatever floats your boat. Or are you saying that doesn't really work in terraiums. I haven't actually done them yet. Or not that I remember. 8p I think assuming size must be a factor to efficiency is a mistake. The potentials for a weird walking plant would probably be out of this world!! Who knows what the particular parts of a walking plant could do for surviveability. It's just form. You can take long lanky things(like rope) and do just about anything with it.

There are plants, like the Jerusalem artichoke(I think that is the correct plant) and others that can survive nearly endlessly in dormant states. So from a plant perspective there is a lot of potential. And, no, plants can be made to be self sufficient in a small environemnt and never need virtually if not literally anything but sun. It's called a terrarium! 8D So, it is possible! They could have just borrowed space suits(assuming the past earth hypothesis) and terrariums and made them a special way to travel... Or take really long naps without needing to eat!(Could be a cool idea for a kerbal cryostasis pod! >< We could just assume the suit is a smaller version.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrarium <- so they would just have to get past that. And given the potential of plants you could probably minimize/modify it based on the plants characteristics. I wonder if every time a kerbal takes a tiny step he takes a little dirt with him?

Can we make all the seats look like toilet seats then!? 8D Doesn't crew also have a deeper technical meaning that doesn't always apply. Like the type of organization in a more specific sense(although not used as much anymore). I don't know if it's really as general as people think. I remember something about this vaguely. I think the term is, "expendable" and "non expendable." And it applies to manned vs unmanned in that order!! ><

How about we call them gaggles and say it's gaggled or non gaggled.... 8/ Find the species then make up a stupid name(animals, plants? There are more than you could ever imagine). Or go with the fact it's based on space from a certain period of space history. Go with what was historically accurate to get the feel of this golden period(or periods depending on building upgrade or other variables if it makes a difference.) of real world space flight and stick with the games intended design. Go study it and find out what is appropriate and not for it's historical value(s).

I liquid made of boiling/steaping meats or vegetables or other substances in order to fill or catch the liquid with some of it's content. Like a tea. Usually to preserve nutrients or utilize materials in cooking and add flavor potentially. I think the four bulletin points can be summed up within that!!

Octagonal strut has 8 sides. It's an octagon on the top and a cube on the side. I just looked at it in game. http://i1262.photobucket.com/albums/ii613/PicsMe101/Screenshot%20from%202015-03-09%20130621_zpsmjt0zqcy.png' alt='Screenshot%20from%202015-03-09%20130621_zpsmjt0zqcy.png'>

Cubic octagonal is actually correct practically. The top facing side is octagonal. The side is cubic. IE four sides. A 3d shape of this sort is defined by the characteristics of multiple 2d shapes to make it up from the various dimensions it holds. If it were octagonal/octagonal it would be s spherical object with faces made up of nothing but octagonal faces.

Who is we? The fact you say we would imply you are... And the reason for the post(or your postings)... Whether it's "conscious or not."

Isn't there some rule about not bringing up political things. The point of this seems like nothing else. Why not just stop these conversations all together? The people writing them seem to be doing nothing but trying to push some agenda.... It's very annoying!

How would people feel about a new building that was oriented on parts fabrication. It had the most basic 3d modeling abilities(simplifies or restricted to game needs possibly) and the ability to blend multiple various current parts together and save them as .craft or in the subassemblies for use in your planes. do it the simpliest way but make it so it has a mode for any special needs and give it access to all stuff like in the VAB type buildings so you can scale it or add preexisting parts. This could allow completely custom parts and condense current ones to single parts. I would think the only down side is, depending on how it was designed, it may need work limiting any edits to existing parts or forcing weight of things made base on some criteria. Though if they made up some logic for everything in the game I bet it could be doable. Maybe as a future update or something.

If these are stock in game why don't I have these? Was there some patch I missed?