Lisias

I watched Interstelar on the movies at least once a week until they took them out. Dude, watching it on a big screen and multi dimensional audio is awesome. About Europe Report, I suggest you watch it again . Something on that movie got stuck in your head, part of Sky Night made me remember some scenes from it, as well of the main plot of the MOHOLE. ;-)

I already foresee this when I started doing some things similar. So I planned the short histories (Asimov Style) in order to hame some 'clean', publishable here, some some others 'tainted', and theses will be published only on my site. The 'tainted' ones are wrote in order to explains why things happens, while the 'clean' ones only mentions them "en passant' - kind of "Jeb is doing this due what happened that time, and a short history with "that time" would be only published on my site. I agree. Some things were so normal to me as a teenager that I have a hard time adapting to these Brave New World. I still have a lot of my old magazines, from Heavy Metal to Conan the Barbarian, and Groo - and virtually none of that histories are "safe" to publish here anymore. No even some drawings from Aragonez from his times at MAD (still have some!). (and yeah! this is a complain!)

I think you missed the sarcasm tone.

This guy disagrees. since i'm here already... I'm here because I can't sleep, and I can't sleep because I'm on a root channel treatment and the damned tooth is hurting as hell. And I'm already took the safe dosage of painkillers. There're (legal) painkillers that doesn't overload the liver and kidneys?

Good. Looks like you really liked Interstellar, the cinematography and the self-sacrificing theme made me remind of it. I also watched Sky Night, and interesting enough, I found it even better. The last scene was incredibly touching. You also watched Europe Report, didn't? Congrats. On the other hand, I think you should spare your Kerbals a bit. It's like a friend of mine told me about Star Trek: the first time they destroyed the Enterprise, it was really something. As the follow ups keept destroying it, it lost significance and turned it into a "OMG they killed Kenny" thing: just something that happens now and then. on the other hand... Perhaps my criticism could be premature, who knows?

No evident bug. You know, bugs are insidious social beings - they like to hide on the mob. I find this warning… interesting. [WRN 18:17:44.468] [Part]: PartModule KJRDecouplerReinforcementModule at CDT2503, index 26: index exceeds module count as defined in cfg. Looking for KJRDecouplerReinforcementModule in other indices... [WRN 18:17:44.469] ...no KJRDecouplerReinforcementModule module found on part definition. Skipping... Do you have TweakScale installed? If yes, can you publish your KSP.log on some snippet server? Under certain circumstances, TweakScale is withdrawing itself from some parts to prevent disasters, and it does it by deleting itself from a data structure that can be the same used on this warning, and I want to cross check the CDT2503 part to see if I'm not involved on it somehow. Oh, your ModuleManager's cache too, please. Just to double checking.

I'm betting Thursday. I'm scheduled for a deploy on Thursday , and the last two releases matched some serious milestone on my work. I don't expect it will be different this time.

This suggests something bad that can happens when the physics engine kicks again. I would monitor the FixedUpdate in the hope do find a division by zero, or some float going to INF or NAN. It's something like this that was inducing TweakScale to kill the gravity to the game's death. This also happens when the vessel come back from rails?

And fasten your seat-belts.

I though on a metaphor during the day, let's see if it's a good one. Do you know something about Color Systems? That RGB as an additive color system (as you start with black, and add colors until you get what you want), while the CMYK is a subtractive color system (as you start with white, and subtract colors until you get what you want)? Think the Common Law as a "subtractive legal system". You start with all the possible rights imaginable, and then some laws/jurisprudences subtract some behaviours until you get the Society you think you want. And think Civil Law as an "additive legal system", where you starts without any right, and then adds rights until eventually, you get the Society you think you want. It only happens that you can also subtract some rights after adding broader ones in a recursive entanglement of laws. What can be really messy sometimes...

Excellent question. After this wall of alien legalese, you must have some insight how things work on Countries that adopt the Rule of the Civil Law by now. Essentially, we shove the mess on the Constitution and try to live with it, while Common Law lets the Courts handling the mess and try to live with it. Here, on my Country, there's a Law saying explicitly that EULAs are a kind of Contract, called locally "Adhesion Contracts" - ie, you adhere to the Contract by hiring the service. I talked about it here. Being formally recognized as Contracts in my country, the EULA should follows all the pertinent legislation. Of course, assuming TTI has not an office on my country, they can't enforce anything on me except under the New York Convention. And vice versa. Fortunately for me, the Brazil's agreement to the New York Convention pushes the same Consumer and Contracts Laws, so I'm still covered by the same concepts. The bad side is that, being an Contract, I'm bound to it - so accepting it without reading it is exactly the same as signing a formal Contract without reading it. I'll comply by will or by force, that's final. So, yeah. I read every EULA. The good side is that, by being ruled by local legislation about Contracts (as stated on our agreement of the New York Convention), they are subject to the same local Contracts restrictions. One of these restrictions plain declares any clausule about Arbitration null and void when applied to consumers. It's just plain impossible to transfer consumer litigations to Arbitration around here, and that's final - you can write it ad nauseam on every EULA, our local Courts will just act as they weren't there. This means that if you add a clausule "You must comply with every precious clausule of this Contract", the contract is still valid - as the clausule about Arbitration are null and void, and so, doesn't exists. And so, "every previous clausule" is legally referring to all of the other ones that are still valid. Tricky to understand when you live under the Rule of the Common Law, where all of this is… Impossible (or at least, beyond my understanding of legally possible - I'm not a lawyer, loop-holes can exist). Now, going to the Common Law. More explicitly, to USA's Law. There's nothing on your legal system saying they can't try to force you to Arbitration by implicit agreement. The same conditions on your law that says you can do anything as long there's no law saying otherwise, applies to them too! So they are allowed to try. It's up to a Court of Law to say they can't, once a citizen decides to challenge them using the Legal System. Until there (and assuming this wasn't done yet, I don't know), you must be aware that this stunt can stick, and so you would be forced to Arbitration. I don't know specifics about USA's Federation agreement, but AFAIK it's theoretically possible that some States can judge this unenforceable, while others could judge this enforceable. Going back to my country, being the Contract governed by a Federal Law, it's plain impossible that this would happen around here - it's enforceable or not enforceable on the whole country, no exceptions. Uff… Yeah, I wrote yet another wall of text. Sorry. But… I could not manage to express myself, safely, under fewer words. I hope this is enough.

Unfortunately, I'm not managing to make myself clear. It's this way on your country, but not on my. Let me quote again our Article 5º: "the locomotion in the national territory is free in time of peace, and any person, under the terms of the law, may enter, remain or leave with his property;" https://www.senado.leg.br/atividade/const/con1988/con1988_15.12.2016/art_5_.asp This law says exactly the other way around. It's explicitly telling me what I'm allowed to do, and nobody has the right to forbid me - unless explicitly defined in another Law. Not all countries are like U.S.A. Common Law ways are not the only possible way!

There're no implied/inferred. I have the right to be alive, I need to breath to be alive, so… This interpretation is the reason because my Government is now and then sued for forced payment of some very expensive treatments by the SUS (our national health care institute) - even by forcing the SUS to a deficit. It's a hard nut to crack. One possible counter-argument about this is that my right to be alive doesn't implies the duty of someone else to keep me alive. But that understanding would imply that someone could charge me for breathing (using your argument as reference). Well, it happens that i need to pay for water and food, and I need both to stay alive as well. Why, then, I could not be charged for breathing? And what would happen if I fail to pay such charges? Let the games begin, this is a hard nut to crack on Civil Law - besides being bluntly pathetic on Common Law. Agreed. But they try nevertheless. It's usual that some Laws end up negating others exactly due this. And this happens all the time. So we have "levels" os Laws, so if a "inferior" law negates a "superior" one, it's plain void - besides legally declared. Terrible mess, as sometimes, a "inferior" law is only partially negated and then is enforced partially, creating some side effects that were not foresaw by the legislator. Currently, one of the biggest mess on our legal system due something like this is deciding if anyone can be jailed after being condemned on what we call "Justice of Second Instance". Since it's said on the Law that you have the presumption of being innocent (what's different of being considered not guilty - subtle difference, but it bites), no one should be punished until there're no possible way to be declared innocent anymore. So rich criminals that can afford long procedures on every instance of the law (we have six, IIRC) were usually delaying the final verdict until the time that the crime prescribes, and so the whole legal process is finished as is. This is changing lately, but there're still some legal battles about this "understanding". On Common Law, such a mess is virtually impossible. The first Judge that manages to apply the new understanding creates a legal precedence, and then further decisions are bound to it. On Civil Law, every judgment is a fight about the same problem. (and this is another difference between the Doctrines, and the main reason judgments are usually bound to the strict letter of the written law - at least on my Country). Nope. A Law can authorize or can prohibit behaviours - these are not mutually exclusive choices. The nature of the doctrine (Civil or Common) usually reflects on the "statutorily" nature of de laws. Let's take another example: still guaranteed by the 5º Article: or something like: "the locomotion in the national territory is free in time of peace, and any person, under the terms of the law, may enter, remain or leave with his property;" "no one shall be deprived of liberty or property without due process of law;" "no one shall be arrested except in flagrante delicto or by written and substantiated order of competent judicial authority, except in cases of military transgression or properly military crime, as defined by law;" Well.. What all of these legalese means? A lot, between them, that the following are plain impossible (legally) on my Country! For curiosity, we have another law about currency (this is a Decree-Law, it's not on the Constitution, so can be changed easier by the Government): Article 43 from "LEI DAS CONTRAVENÇÕES PENAIS" : " Art. 43. Recusar-se a receber, pelo seu valor, moeda de curso legal no país:" ("Refusing to receive, for its value, legal tender currency in the country:"). http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/decreto-lei/Del3688.htm And things goes on. Lots of "fun" about it available on the Internet, if you know the right words to search. Yes. From the very same Article 5: "II - no one shall be compelled to do or to cease doing anything other than by virtue of law;" https://www.senado.leg.br/atividade/const/con1988/con1988_15.12.2016/art_5_.asp This paragraph explicitly says that I'm allowed to do whatever I want and I'm allowed to DO NOT do whatever I don't want, a long there's no law saying I can't or there's a law saying I have to do it. It's hard for Americans to understand it, as you are allowed to do whatever you want due the absence of a law saying you can't. But yet, it's exactly how things works around here. And this is exactly what saved my sorry SAS on this OPT OUT stunt. There's a law saying that I can't be forced to a unilateral contract (EULAs are contracts here) change without my explicit agreement. Moreover, there's yet another law plain forbidding forced arbitration to a consumer: "Article 51. The contractual clauses related to the supply of products and services that are: VII - determine the compulsory use of arbitration;" http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/LEIS/L8078.htm So I can't be forced to it, and that's it.

It's raining a lot here. And I needed to go to a 24h medstore. And I completely feel this poor guy below.

Art. 5º Todos são iguais perante a lei, sem distinção de qualquer natureza, garantindo-se aos brasileiros e aos estrangeiros residentes no País a inviolabilidade do direito à vida, à liberdade, à igualdade, à segurança e à propriedade, nos termos seguintes: "All are equal before the law, without distinction of any kind, guaranteeing Brazilians and foreigners residing in the country the inviolability of the right to life, liberty, equality, security and property, as follows:" https://www.senado.leg.br/atividade/const/con1988/con1988_15.12.2016/art_5_.asp You need to breath to be alive. You don't have to agree with it. You don't have to even understand it. All the Law demands is your compliance. In time: https://onlinelaw.wustl.edu/blog/common-law-vs-civil-law/

Oh, yes. You can bet your mouse it's what I did. And I suggest everyone to do the same.

That only worked that exact way because that Company you sued had an Office on your Country (or at least on EU). Check your Lawyer again on this subject, instead of dismissing other people arguments due links you think doesn't applies to you. Common Law's principles are shared between some Countries' Laws. You don't tell us in which country you are, so we can't address it exactly as you wish. If you live in UK this can be of use, perhaps? https://www.contractorcalculator.co.uk/contracts_tainted_illegality_unlikely_enforceable.aspx

Nope. But I hired some in my life. I strongly suggest to everybody to hire one and ask questions before assuming something due reasons. There's no such thing as an International Court of Law. All that exists are agreements between different Sovereign Countries.

Things change. You hire an underage kid around here, you are heavily fined and risk prison.

No. You are. The only way to sue someone from another country is by the New York Convention, unless your Country has an additional agreement with the othet country. (the EU is a great and huge "New York style Convention" with steroids - the EU members are still Sovereign States. The huge mess that's BREXIT corroborates my statement. If EULA are dead letters in your country, you have a problem: it's the EULA that says you are allowed to use the software (and how). If the EULA is unenforceable for you, it's unenforceable both ways. A very nasty situation, I say. There's an additional Convention that almost every Country is also signatory, being that the Berne Convention. The EULA is the thing that says you are not in Copyright infringement under the Berne. I said before and I say again: go to the New York Convention site I mentioned above and check for your country laws that implement it on your Country. Otherwise, you are a liability to yourself.

Accepting the Big Bang theory, where all the mass and energy in the Universe is expanding, one can reason that anything beyond the current borders of the Universe is a complete vacuum - as there's nothing there yet - not even light. But one can reason that that is not vacuum, but plain nothingness. Other than that, no. There're not a vacuum as you defined. There're energy spreading everywhere, from light to gravitrons. And these things are something. There are places without matter. And that's it.

Elon? It's you?

Damn! I`m really the only one that likes the old Look & Feel from the Porkjet times?

Never head of them before. But this guys are echoing in my head for hour already. Metal is universal!

That shadow positions are defined as float or a double? The Rounding could be happening anywhere. A piece of code still working on floats on a stack of functions using double is enough. It can be even a third party Add'On. but, of couse, i'm speculating too. If there's no exceptions, the log would be informative but not diagnosing. I think we would need a debug version, where the log would have some diagnosing information. But the log would be easily 10 times greater.