Jump to content

razark

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    3,337

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by razark

  1. razark
    This forum, and not a mention of the recent anniversaries of the loss of Apollo 1, Challenger, Columbia and their crews? I shall raise a glass to them tonight.
  2. razark
    I'd suggest going to this thread: Then go to the last page, read over the replies, see if anyone has reported the issue, and if there were any solutions mentioned.
  3. razark
    I use rovers to drive payloads to orbit. So far, the program is not proceeding well.
  4. razark
    So, if I don't want to wait for the next season of a show, I can jump in the time pod, set it for six minutes, and it's a year later and I can watch the show now? Or I can get in, take an 8 hour nap, and wake up in 80 years? I think getting to Mars quickly may be the less interesting effect of this invention.
  5. razark
    The capacity of Earth seems to be around one billion. We can get above that for brief periods of time but it requires using up resources that we don't have sufficient reserves of. Once those run out, you end up with a mass die-off. Of course, if you're shipping any significant mass of beings off-world, the resources for doing so are going to run out even faster, and will make survival, much less continued off-worlding, a pipe dream for those left behind. "Pave the oceans" doesn't seem to have a long-term benefit to the oceans and the species that live in them. Sounds great. So, what happens to the cropland that exists in the perpetual shadow of the floating cities?
  6. razark
    No assembly required?
  7. razark
    I don't understand your logic. Why would anyone have a problem that a game is delayed?
  8. razark
    In addition, KSP 2.0 would be completely different from KSP 2 1.0
  9. razark
    April/May 2012? 0.15 was the current version.
  10. razark
    It costs nothing to keep them, but the statement was "I don't really want them around any longer". So the question becomes "Is it better to scrap them and start over, or spend more to recover some value?" It's easy to get caught up in the "it's already there, so I must use it" line of thinking.
  11. razark
    From reading the forums, and seeing the official 1.0 release video where "crew plummeting to their inevitable deaths" is fine, because, haha, dude dropped his sandwich. Mistreating animals is bad, but the forum has plenty of posts where mistreating Kerbals is accepted. Where's the people who are upset with "aggressively accosting other people with your sapient being abuse fantasies"? My position is that neither the Kerbal or the animal is a real thing, so why is one worse than the other? If we're ok seeing a rocket full of Kerbals crash and kill them all, why do we have a problem with the possibility that someone might have the ability to kill a dog? There's obviously a line people are unwilling to cross.
  12. razark
    No, I don't. That's why I have absolutely no problem with what happens to animals in KSP. Launch them into space with no parachute. Subject them to thousands of g's of acceleration and turn them into a paste. Send them off for hundreds of years with no life support. Roast 'em in the sun. Boil 'em, mash 'em, stick 'em in a stew. I'm trying to figure out why people have a problem with digital animals being mistreated, but are perfectly fine with digital Kerbals being nothing more than cannon fodder for our torturous amusement. Is it? Mistreating digital sapient creatures is perfectly fine, but if I mistreat another digital sentient being, I'm a horrible psychopath, why?
  13. razark
    Nowhere near long enough.
  14. razark
    https://www.google.com/search?q=sunk+cost+fallacy
  15. razark
    I am now going to start a new career, where the Kerbals are selected from the penal system and sentenced to conduct test flights. INTO THE CAPSULE, OR ELSE, CONVICT JEB! Heh, heh. Rocket make big *boom* when crash! Heh heh. But we could just pretend the animals volunteered for the missions. I mean, you're pretending your Kerbals did, so why not pretend that other collection of variables/values/electrons did, too? Yeah... loveing hilarious, ain't it? But if one of the "creatures" was labeled as a "dog", if a godsdamn tragedy?
  16. razark
    Government paperwork.
  17. razark
    The machine that goes "Ping"?
  18. razark
    I am aware of that. But it was such a good line.
  19. razark
  20. razark
    If you dump the RCS fuel, you get nothing from it, aside from reduced mass. If you burn the RCS fuel, then you get reduced mass, but also the dV from burning it. In either case, you're out X units of RCS fuel, but one of them results in more dV. Burn it and find out. If your choices are "burn the fuel" or "jettison the fuel", burning it is going to give you more dV options for the same amount of fuel. If you start burning it, and see no desired effect, then you stop burning it and use it for your other options. If you dump some fuel and see no desired effect, would you continue dumping fuel in the hopes that something will change?
  21. razark
    https://www.hplovecraft.com/writings/texts/ https://www.gutenberg.org/ So, maybe you should pay attention to your classes, instead of mucking about on the internet?
  22. razark
    Have you tried reading a book?
  23. razark
    No more real than any animals in the game would be. Or the endless strings of cows and pigs and whanots I've seen killed off in that extremely violent murder-simulator that is Minecraft.
  24. razark
    As opposed to the people who post how many various and brutal ways they have found to kill off kerbals and the "lolsplosion" aesthetic that have been displayed by so many players? How is "killing" a collection of variables that represents a non-real Kerbal any less sad or cruel or different in any way from "killing" a collection of values that represent a non-real animal?
  25. razark
    I think we've seen plenty of evidence that you, in fact, can.
×
×
  • Create New...