razark

Are you sure you inserted the ignitor all the way in? I remember having a problem like that. Turns out I didn't insert the ignitor far enough to actually reach the propellant. In other news: When messing with the live database, double check your where clause. (8453 row(s) affected) Oops? We have backups, right? And: I was working tech support for a server hosting company. We had recently moved to a new building, and they decided to test the backup power systems. Everything worked perfectly, as designed. Management didn't understand why we were complaining afterwards. The circuit our computers were plugged into stayed on, and we were still on the phones with the customers. Somehow, they just couldn't comprehend why our monitors shutting off would affect our ability to help customers.

Don't listen to their silly excuses. We know it's because someone adjusted the timeline.

Doc specifically says it's "4:29 PM".

Usually, it's somewhere around 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. (Except for a bit around 1814, when they lost it for a while.)

Because it represents the truth. There was no moon landing. Armstrong and Aldrin actually started out on the moon, took some pictures, and then built the Apollo program to send themselves to earth, rescuing Collins from lunar orbit along the way.

Because they claim the landings and the pictures were faked.

I've been trying to gain support for my theory that the pictures were real, but the landing was faked.

Because what people believe affects what they do, and people will tend to make better decisions when they have more accurate information. Do I personally care if people want to believe wrong things? No. If enough people believe wrong things, can the world become a worse place? Yes. An extreme case: Imagine if enough people that believe "rocket engines don't work in a vacuum" manage to get elected to Congress. The space program would be gone. Less extreme case: A large number of people believe vaccines cause autism. They decide to not immunize their children. We end up dealing with outbreaks of preventable diseases.

Ok, I have to ask. Why the insistence that a thread that has received a single post in three months be locked? Out of all the inactive threads, why drag up this one and ask for it to be locked?

Sometimes, decisions are made on something besides which number is bigger than another.

No. It's not real. It can't be real. It has to be a parody. It's like the "Generalissimo Francisco Franco is still dead" reports. Right?

Someone from Squad actually said it was a show reference. When the Gus/Apollo 1 fire connection was pointed out, and some people were rather disturbed, the response was "We didn't notice that. Maybe we should change it." I personally find it rather disrespectful to have it.

Unfortunately, I've also seen people get passed over for positions they deserve just because, even if they obviously have the skills, they don't have the piece of paper.

It's a reference to some TV show.

My aircraft almost always start with the T-1 Birdname, followed by the T-2 Another Birdname and so on. (Yes, "T" does stand for trainer, and no, this does not rule out possible "A-", "B-", "F-", etc. designations. They've just never reached campaign games.) Each individual aircraft gets a serial number, as well. This takes the form of s-y-NNN Where: -s is the Save Number (increments on each new campaign save, currently 9) -y is the current year in the save -NNN is the number of the aircraft of the current year (1st is 001, tenth is 010, three hundred twenty second is 322, etc.) (Of course, I've never gotten beyond a T-3 version in any save. One of these days, I need to work on rebuilding the tech tree for a The Right Stuff campaign, with a series of X-* and X?-* jet and rocket aircraft before vertical rockets ever enter the picture.)

Usually, I'll use Ellington Field (KEFD). It's about five miles from both home and work, and I grew up even closer to it, listening to the F-4s and F-16s, and attending the airshows. It's also where NASA flies their T-38s and WB-57s from, so extra coolness factor.

But big jets on a small airframe makes for a bigger thrill! That easy-to-operate part is kind of what I don't understand. Between takeoff and landing, what do you do? All I can see is set the autopilot, grab a book or movie, and check in every so often. The ATC seems more of a chore than immersion, and I don't think the scenery is interesting enough at airliner altitudes to make looking at it very engaging. At that point, why bother to play? And even without the autopilot, once you get it straight and level, just keep doing it? Wheee? Psssh. I don't need a big airliner to make landings challenging. All I need is an airplane and a flat piece of ground. (Landing has never been my strong point. I keep meaning to work on it, but I never really do.)

I've got FSX. I generally like to muck about in smaller craft, or fly some vintage planes. I've been doing some navigation by plotting out a course with a ruler, protractor, and E6B, and then taking a C-47 around. I also enjoy getting something quick and maneuverable and flying at low level. Taking a P-38 through the Grand Canyon was fun. Lately, I've been trying my hand at not running helicopters into anything, but it doesn't seem to be working out very well. I've also been working on some minor scenery once in a while. I got annoyed that my workplace was not represented at all, so I've been adding it a bit at a time, mostly using building models I found online. I've honestly never seen the attraction people have to flying airliners. It seems pretty boring to me, but from what I've seen, it's one of the most popular uses of non-combat flightsims. Can anyone explain it?

So, it's just a regular eclipse that for some reason managed to get a silly, meaningless name attached to it, and the media has run with it, then?

But the mod author has been absent for three months, at least from here. I don't know if there's some activity on this mod elsewhere.

Is anyone actively working on this, or did it die out?

Seriously? They showed water on Mars ten years ago! http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap050401.html

So, what exactly is a "blood moon" anyway? How is this different from other eclipses?

Reminder to razark:

Seen earlier on CNN's website: Where <X> is a rather well-known figure. The fact that the news media feels the need to report that a person waved to a crowd is facepalm worthy, no matter what that person is known for.