Lisias

9/10 : Proteus? It's you? I'm out of ideas. Why is so hard to be a Human?

From the link you gave: "The FAA gave airlines 120 days to replace devices that could be giving false airspeed indications. [snip] US Airways, one of only two American carriers who fly planes affected by the order, said Thursday they had already replaced the part." Airbus is still in business, by the way. It doesn't matter what I think. What's matter is what effectively happens in the Real Life. Airbus is still in business, the A330 fleet is still flying, and the insurances were paid. It's how things work. Just like that. Did you gave a look on Boeing stock prices when a lot of 747 had hull losses in the 70's? It was bad. The Teneriffe disaster was particularly bad. But Boeing is still in business. And doing pretty good, as it appears. It's all about risk management. And dying people are handled as one risk to be managed. It's this way on every vehicle industry on the planet, from GM to Airbus, from Mitsubishi to Virgin Galactic. It will happen - sooner or later, someone will die due a vehicle manufactured by them, so they save money to be used on insurances, compensations and P/R . It's part of the operating costs. It will not be ignored. It happens that it will be eventually forgotten, as every single disaster in history - from Hindenburg to Titanic, including the Concorde. The Hindenburg didn't caused the end of the Blimps, it was the huge cost. As hydrogen revealed too dangerous, the cost to use helium was just unsurpassable. That accident were just the last drop, the airplanes were already taking the place. The Titanic didn't caused the end of the massive transatlantics - they are still around (and some of them are still sinking and killing people). The end of the Concorde was caused by 9/11. The entire fleet were revamped after that terrible accident (the only one in the history of the plane), but then 9/11 happened, trashing the more rentable international trips that Concorde needed to be viable. Boeing, Airbus, et all… How many people do you think their aircrafts had killed? So… In the mean time, do some research and see how many Billion USD worth companies had closed due fatal accidents. The blow can be big, but they usually survive it. Granted, not every single one of them had survived the hit (de Havilland and their Comet came to my mind) - but most of them, yes. Statistically, the odds benefits Virgin Galactic and Space-X.

Addendum to my rules: 6. Scare the sheet out of the tourists. 7. Do not abandon/waste hardware. 1. I'm spending the last 10 days trying to recover a drone that loose contact with the KSC. Boy, this is harder than I though... I'm using Blimps too now. :-D

Nops. The reason private companies are being in charge is exactly that: they can kill people and still be on business. See the airplanes companies: how many years Airbus was "grounded" when the Air France 447 crashed in the Atlantic? How many A330 were forbidden to take off? Yeah. Sorry, but private companies answers to no one but their investors. NASA must answer to the Public Opinion or they loose the money - NASA is funded by the Congress, that answer to their electors. People die in cars, airplanes, ships and crossing the streets. They will die in space too. Nothing new.

Nah. All he need to say is "You're rocketing it wrong" and he will be fine. Really, we are living in strange times. Not yet. The patent must be accepted first. Also, patents protect implementations, not ideas. Musk must copy the very same hardware in order to be loose a dispute. Not impossible (patent trolling exists because now and then they succeed), but unlikely IMHO. And Musk has his own patents too, I don't think he is a guy to be patent trolled unchecked,

"Oba! Peleja" - someone has some molten cheese? [snip] That ball is not mine (that phrase sounds weird ). We have evidences that we are running out of Fresh Water, exhausting our ocean's capacity of producing oxygen, some scientists are screaming about an imminent global warming (the last time we had so much carbon on our atmosphere, the South Pole was a Tropical Forest), and some others are telling that a new Ice Age is near, as the present Warm Window is simply the longest one that they observed on the historical registers from the pole's ice drillings. There's a reason why all the known human history have about 10.000 years: it's the time since the last Ice Age. Ice Age erases everything, the ices smash and triturates everything as it advances and recedes. We have perhaps one or two evidences of civilization before that, one of them Yonaguni - being them underwater can be an explanation for the survival. I'll spare you from the myriad of links about those matters - we are not scientists anyway, how we could understood such data in order to have a proper informed opinion? It's better that each one do his own research. So, yeah. In the next 50 years our civilization will be struggling to adapt - and the resources needed for Space Exploration will be withhold by populist governments in order to try to maintain peace. — EDIT — but granted… Perhaps I should had type "near extinction". — END OF EDIT — This information does not apply. No one (but Facebook) is dumb enough to launch satellites without insurance. It's expected that one will be lost now and then - Russia blew it recently, China did it, and the list goes on. And Musk probably vowed to never again allow a launch without insurance: I think Bezos is taking greater risks in killing people. He is the one willing to kick Tourists into space - and Virgin Galactic already killed one of their own. I think both will be fine. People will die in the Space Exploration.

There are mods installed? The unit log would be helpfull.

Uh… Kerbal-X accepts Markdown on the `.craft` file? I need to pay more attention on some details. Damn, I was editing the description on the site after uploading.

If we don't plant out feet on Mars in the next 20 years (top), we are not going to do it at all. We are already in a verge of an extinction event. The present civilization will not withhold for more than 50 years IMHO, and after that, we will have to start all over again.

Well… I made a Blimp for a MEDEVAC mission. And it happens that the thing was good, so I tried it into Research missions. But I forgot to add long range antennas, and so I could not transmit the Science (I'm using Remote Tech). Bleh. Ok, let's launch another customized blimp with long range antennas, so it can relay the data, all I have to do is to be near enough the research blimp so that puny antennas can work. Obviously, I choose to made this Relay Blimp a drone - I don't have Kerbals to spare on such things. However… I forgot to setup the long range antennas - so the Drone Blimp became stranded in the middle of the Ocean. #facepalm At least I could splash her in order to exchange vessels and figure out what to do. Sounds like a exploit to me, but hell - the game allowed. Sending yet another blimp to rescue the rescue ship was considered, but at ~150K each blimp, I would have almost half million committed on a single mission, and besides KSP don't simulating interests on the Funds, I handle it as it does. The less worst approach would be to recall the research team rescuing the Drone in the way home - it is the cheaper option, as I would also rework the Research Blimp and forget that Blimp Relay stunt. The Science will still be there. But the Research Blimp already had spent most of her fuel, and the electrical engines are dependent of Sun light to work, so in order to minimize the loss due the opportunity costs of having expensive hardware stranded and in role deviation, I need to travel by night using the remaining fuel until dawn, when then electrical engines could assume the thrust. I calculated that by traveling at 40m/s constantly I would have enough fuel to travel the whole night and still have intact that 10% emergency reserve I stipulated for my vessels. It would be a no brainer except… That Atmospheric Autopilot and MechJeb don't handle blimps correctly. AA handles throttle beautifully, but just don't cope with attitude - it simply don't roll, pitch or yaw the blimp. MechJeb handles the attitude beautifully, but can't manage the throttle. And you can't have both active at the same time, as they stomps on each other's feet. DAMN. The Relay Blimp had kOS processors, but she was stranded. The Research Blimp don't have such things (why would? She's kerballed…). So kRPC came to the rescue: I spend a good amount of time coding an AutoThrottle in Python and it worked. Well, sort of. It's a heck of an AutoThrottle, but it manages to keep the vessel near the target speed. It's good enough for the job. I'm near the stranded blimp now. I suspect that Bob will curse a lot when he realizes that HE is going to EVA from one blimp to another in order to setup the Relay antennas.

Unlikely. It's all about PR. He doesn't do it because he's arrogant (perhaps he is, perhaps not ), he does it because it works. Interesting times we are living...

Steve Jobs effect. He knows that some blunders are unavoidable, but he thrusts that people like your friend will outvocal any criticism. It works. :-/

1/10 : You are not a human. You are a collective pretending to be a human.

It's winter where I live. Damn, it's cold. Worst, it was hot in the dusk - yeah, Tropical climate. So I went to sleep at 20, 22° C. And waked up at 10. — EDIT -- It's hot again now.

It would depends on the experience you are willing to get. Manually rotating the crew would be needed in order to experiment with different traits working together, in a "what if" fashion. More or less what we do on the VAB/SPH - we tweak something, give it a crash try, come back and tweak it again. Repeat until success or mom calls for dinner. But I agree on the point that doing that every single time would be painful. Once one manage to get the configuration he wants, the rotating must be automated. There're people that enjoys making crafts to the point they barely touch the Career (I bough KSP in December, and only in the past 2 weeks I finally started a career!). Some others enjoy downloading made crafts to be used on their career - they enjoy the execution of the mission, not the planning/construction. Same thing here. Don't like it, don't install it. But if by any chance there're more masochists like me around , this would be interesting.

Not with automation. The exact same problem happens with SAS - you just can't keep your vessel on Normal while warping - so that would be the solution? Getting rid of SAS? Automation. In the very same way that vessel rotation is killed by timewarp but can be "resurrected" by PersistentRotation, when you timewarp or the ship is on rails, the rotation would be just implied. There're mods that fix the EC issues on time warping - the same mechanics applies. Yes, Exactly my point. The challenge of making Kerbals with different traits working together. Add to that the Kerbalism and the Health mods, and you end up planning a real world mission (obviously, given the limitations of the KSP simulation and the abstractions of the mentioned mods). Some people use KSP to play Naval Battles instead of flying space ships. Why "Kerbal Resources Management" would not be allowed? It's ok not to like it. But it's ok to like it too.

7/10: You did a typo. A typo would be caught by the Q/A team, so you must be a human. Or a Microsoft program... — ME -- ISSUE #112626254 : KerbolExplorer.exe stopped working. HOW TO REPRODUCE : problem is intermittent. A deterministic modus operandi is currently unavailable. STATUS: Closed/Works for me.

It's all about semantics. GitHub is a tool for modifying code. So, 'use' implies on it. Forking is a tool to allow modifying code, so "use" implies on it. The very definition of 'fork' on GitHub says: And since the TOS, as a Contract, doesn't specifically define what should be understood as Forking, we should stand to the Tool's definition of forking - mainly, because on the very same TOS is written "as permitted through GitHub's functionality (for example, through forking)". So, I agree with the guy of one of the links I posted: I'm not advocating "my" understanding of the TOS. I would be satisfied if the GitHub had blocked any commits of mine on the forks I did - it is an acceptable solution to the dilema, as it would satisfy the TOS requirement of "permitted through GitHub's functionality". However, since I do not plan to be bothered with a tribunal court, I think the best approach would be just to not use GitHub at all when possible. Branches (including master) can be rebased and "forced pull", so a License that was once there can "vanish" and then I would be high and dry - original works can be relicensed. And what would happen to my fork done on the times the license allowed it? Technically, it's a 'legal uncertainty'. As I said, a Contract is Law between the parts, and so it should clearly define what's allowed and what's not under the premisse "everything is allowed except what's explicitly forbidden". BitBucket made this plain simple: I must explicitly authorize the right to fork a project if it is not public, and if it's public, everyone can fork it and that's it. They simply don't try to give their users any rights on it, they just state what will happen if you make your project public - and it's up to you to prevent unauthorized use of your data. What's stated on the Copyright Act, anyway.

Mostra um print da tela com o problema. — EDIT — Rapaz, tá com cara de instalação corrompida. Apaga tudo do GameData que não for Squad e SquadExtensions. Se ainda assim persistir, reinstala do zero.

The trigger of the problem is, explicitly (emphasis is mine): Well.. Committing and making Releases are GitHub's functionalities, and they are enabled on my forks. So this paragraph technically allows me to commit and make releases on these forks. This is a serious loophole on the GitHub TOS. — edit — I'm not alone on this understanding.

Well… It ended up that you are right. This is the answer I got from GitHub: So. Yeah, I'm wrong on what they meant, but - really - not in what they wrote. I mentioned this to the GitHub support suggesting that the TOS must be changed to make this explicit. In the USA at least, a TOS is a Contract, and Contracts are Law between the parts. They must be explicit about what I can and can't do on a Contract.

I used to do that using bump maps, but I have no idea (yet) if Unity support this.

There's a MOD that adds Health to the game, so a good part of what you want already exists. My suggestion is to add "Restness" as a Kerbal attribute, and make this attribute cause influence on the Kerbal actions - and on Health. I'm one that wants rest places and hospitals on my vessels, so yah - I with you on it. See my previous post to more ideas. This made me remember of a old game that also implement something like this, Apple 2's Project Space Station. This is an interesting feature, but boy I advance you that it would make the game a lot harder. On the game I mentioned, simetiems the crew simply refuses to work with each other if I don't assemble the crews correctly. You have no choice but to replace crew mates or the job just won't advance. As the crew rotating, this is not for everyone so probably another mod only implementation. But yes, it would add a new degree of challenge to KSP. This is easy to add, Kerbal Konstructs to the rescue. The krater would be just another construction on the ground. Can be a burden to the FPS however, as it adds meshes and meshes to the scene. My KSC would have a munar look and feel. This one I don't get. I don't see how it would add value to the game. This looks something that would be more fun with kOS and/or kRPC. What do you think? You would need to program the thing to make it useful. Otherwise, it would be just KSP without Life Support, what it's essentially… the stock game.

I see your point, and sort if agree with it. I disagree on the point in which is always a immersion killer. I like the idea of crew rotation to allow me to plan strategically: there're mods that make parts fail as they are used, so we need to add redundancy on our vessels, and this would do the same for the crew. Of course I can do it without the mod, but so my planning errors would not be detected and punished - it would be like playing KSP with the all cheats on: you can do it, but what would be challenge on it? Of course, doing it manually would be a pain in the SAS (pun), as much as would be piloting the vessel without SAS (not pun). So, the auto-crew-rotating should be automatically with an option to being disabled. This kind of logistics would add a new level of immersion on bigger ships, a niche that I'm exploring right now and where such feature would be made this very challenging and entertaining. But this is where I agree with you: should be enabled only for the vessels the user wants (if any at all) and should have some automation. I don't think this is something that should be in stock, so probably must be something to be added by some LS mod.

Interesting. I don't have it installed, and I don't remember having it installed then. But now that you have nailed at least a Modus Operandi, I can confirm it for sure. I still have that 1.4.1 installment, as it is being used for a Role Playing. — EDIT -- I have the B9AnimationModules on that installment… Good catch, @Gordon Dry!! It really worths a broader investigation!