razark

If you do nothing, you are causing four deaths as much as not pulling the lever causes four deaths. If you help them, then you are making the same trade as the lever, killing one to save four. You say you wouldn't be the one killing the four, but in the other case you aren't killing them, the train is. In my situation, because the is another active agent you are able to shift the blame to that agent, even if the end result is the same.

And yet people will still use it to rationalize their decisions. Also check out the "bystander effect". As for changing the situation: A group from <terrorist group> approaches you, and says "We need you to kill <political leader>. If you don't, we will kill these four random civilians." As in the train experiment, If you act, one person dies. If you don't act, four people die. Does the situation change how you view the morality of action vs. inaction? Or: There's four workers on one track, and four workers on the other. If you allow the train to continue, four people will die. If you pull the lever, four people will die. Is pulling the lever as "correct" as not pulling the lever? In either case, four arbitrary people will die.

Correct, but I would not be the active agent in those deaths. A person can rationalize their inaction that way. "If I do something, I'm at fault. If I do nothing, I'm just an innocent bystander." I'm not responsible for it, because: They knew the risk and should have been paying attention. Whoever sent the train down the track is to blame. Safety procedures were not followed, causing it. It's not my job. I don't know if I could have reached the lever in time. And so on. And that's one of the reason such thought experiments don't always apply to reality. We all know what the "correct" answer is, but that doesn't explain why people will stand by and allow things they could have prevented.

If I pull the lever, I am taking an action that kills someone. By not pulling the lever, I am not actively killing anyone. In the calm of reading something on the internet, everyone answers "pull the lever". In the actual event, how many people would freeze up and not pull the lever for whatever reason?

That's news to myself and my two coworkers that play.

What's with the over-analyzing dialogue from Star Wars? Expecting orbital mechanics to work in Star Wars is like trying to learn the history of Scotland by watching Braveheart.

Damn. Glad you're alright. I've lived through a couple of direct hits and a handful of near misses from hurricanes. We're perfectly fine kayaking down the street, but no one around here knows how to handle frozen roads. If there's a bit of ice out there, this town shuts down completely.

The only thing wrong is that you're not building anything in it.

I've used method 3, mostly. The upper stage of my launch vehicle contains a probe core and maneuvering capabilities. Once the module is docked, the stage decouples and deorbits.

I bought KSP 0.16. Everything I've gotten since then is DLC. If Squad does decide to release DLC, it would really depend on what they are offering for what they're asking. "Pay $5, get (current version number)+0.1 with a couple of bug fixes." Hell no. That's not DLC. "Pay $1, get a blue spacesuit!" type DLC. No thanks. That's just silly. "Pay $5, and space stations now generate science points over time, with exclusive new science experiments!" This is closer to something worthwhile. It enhances the base game. "Pay $15, and get new functions to old parts, procedurally generated solar systems, and a planet editor so you can create your own custom systems!" Now we're talking about a full expansion pack that extends the base game in a completely new direction. I remember paying for this sort of stuff back in the days when software came in a box.

It's simple really. Look at the footage of the moon "landings". They're all low quality pictures. It's easy to fake something when people are expecting it not to look very good in the first place. After the Skylab missions, people got used to seeing much higher quality. Faking a moon or Mars landing in the quality expected now would be prohibitively expensive, and the quality would never be good enough to fool people who have grown up with high quality special effects and CGI. No, I've never met anyone that believes the landings were faked. (I think my area might be a little bit biased against a large hoaxer population, though.) But my coworkers no longer let me get near the trams when the tourists are passing by since I started telling them it was all done on a sound stage.

Thank you.

Respect is like trust. Hard to earn, easy to lose, harder to regain. Puzzle? Why should informing people about your product be a puzzle? The delta-v thing was posted on SA three days before anyone quoted it here on the forum. This was prior to the twitter announcement.

Well said!

I just want to point out that the title of the thread is "Most foolish think you heard..."

This is pretty dumb:

Actually, you can fire them. I fire the useless two and hire a couple more pilots.

I still want "KSP 1.0: Go Fever!" Although, the way some people treat it, how about "Kerbal Space Pogrom: An Amusing Solution to the Kerbal Question"

Well, it's nice to get an official response. Shame that it's "So what? STFU!"

Speaking of addicts, it has been shown that many drug addicts, alcoholics, and criminals frequently consume the substance. In addition, many athletes have been known to use it on the belief that it helps their performance.

Aside from Squad not posting news on their own site, this also popped up not too long ago: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/108715 Squad asking for help in redoing the tutorials. For some reason, it was posted to reddit, and not on their own forums. So, yeah. Why bother hosting your own forums if you're going to act as though you don't give a damn about them? Edit:

That's six movies worth of some really bad dialogue.

We'll just aim for Australia again.

I still hope that someday, Squad will be able to host their own, official site, where they can post all sorts of information and communicate with their community.

You are completely correct. If the experiment were repeatable, or if it was continuous (giving a few science points per day, or something), I could warp through the time, unlock the entire science tree, and then I have all the parts to play with, with no effort on my part. So, you're arguing against having sandbox mode? If a player wants to have the tech tree filled out without doing anything, the player can simply play sandbox mode and skip the part where they have to put something in orbit first. Any player that is willing to do that is not one that would be playing career in the first place.