razark

NASA: We're going to release some information. Media/Public: NASA IS GOING TO ANNOUNCE THEY FOUND ALIENS OR SOMETHING!!! NASA: <Minor scientific detail that only really affects 0.001% of researchers, but does so in a fundamental way.> Small Group of Researchers: YAY! WOW! This changes everything we're working on! Media/Public: So, where's the aliens? Why doesn't NASA ever say anything useful?

So, I can interact with objects that don't exist, then? Simply put, objects that don't exist at the current time can affect the current time. Can you see the paradox in your solution now?

Yes. They would probably take as much as they could without endangering themselves. I can see it now. Armstrong brings the LM close to the CSM. Collins rolls to face the hatch towards the LM. Aldrin and Collins open the hatches and Buzz starts tossing whatever he can get his hands on across the small gap into the CM hatch.

So a universe full of non-interactive objects and things that aren't there.

So a universe full of non-interactive objects? Hrm... You warp to day 100 again. You now launch a space station into a geostationary orbit above KSC. I'm on day 5. I launch a station into a geostationary orbit above KSC. Which station exists? I'm on day 5, do I see a station that will not exist for 95 more days?

You warp to day 100 and dock to a space station. Five minutes later, I warp to day 5, dock to the same station and deorbit it. What is the state of your game at day 100?

Great. Now, there's a bunch of people with the following thoughts: A. It worked. B. Obviously, that guy in IT has no clue what he's talking about. C. We should all ignore him (and by extension, all IT people), since we could figure out a perfectly workable solution to a problem he said was impossible.

No offense, but that article is three years old, and there's been virtually no information released about multi-player since it was announced it would be added. Squad has had a habit of announcing things, and then quietly walking away from them. Is there any more recent confirmation? But what If I'm there on day 3 before they're there on day 2? I think this makes great sense. I can only really see KSP being played by small group, not really anything more than 5 people or so, and multiplayer would have them doing activities together*, so a synchronized time warp works. *If they're not, why bother with multiplayer?

In my experience*, this is about 25% of Tech Support. 2.5% actual "thinking required" problems, 2.5% rote memorization, 10% telling stories to co-workers or screaming in the break room to blow off steam, 59% bs-ing the customer with technical jargon while googling the solution, and 1% beers after work with the co-workers (Or during lunch, because it's Christmas and 24/7 phone support is a thing...) *My experience was with a company that did server hosting. Actual end-user support will probably give a different breakdown. There's nothing quite like the computer-illiterate user that has learned your direct extension.

"Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced." -Some source I'm too lazy to look up right now

Enterprise and Columbia were built with ejection seats for the commander and pilot. Columbia flew with them for STS-1 through STS-4, all of which carried only two crewmembers. On her next two flights, STS-5 and STS-9, the crew size was increased and the seats, while still installed, were disabled. By Columbia's next mission, the orbiter had been overhauled and the seats were removed. Too late.

Huge dry lakebed in the desert would be good.

I haven't really put much thought into it. "From space I saw Earth -- indescribably beautiful and with the scars of national boundaries gone." -Muhammad Faris "National boundaries are as invisible as meridians of longitude, or the Tropics of Cancer and Capricorn. The boundaries are arbitrary. The planet is real." -Carl Sagan "When you're finally up at the moon looking back on earth, all those differences and nationalistic traits are pretty well going to blend, and you're going to get a concept that maybe this really is one world and why the hell can't we learn to live together like decent people." -Frank Borman "I really believe that if the political leaders of the world could see their planet from a distance of 100,000 miles their outlook could be fundamentally changed. That all-important border would be invisible, that noisy argument silenced. The tiny globe would continue to turn, serenely ignoring its subdivisions..." -Michael Collins "The first day or so we all pointed to our countries. The third or fourth day we were pointing to our continents. By the fifth day, we were aware of only one Earth." -Sultan bin Salman Al-Saud

But what about those of us who don't want to put up with such a convoluted work-around and need a less technical way to handle it?

Hence my phrasing it as "subverting", rather than "ignoring". Of course, it's hard for it to happen anyway, since our technology prevents us from having isolated pools where genetic drift can accumulate in the first place.

Dang it. Someone beat me to it. Ignore? We make laws regarding safety. We're not ignoring evolution, we're actively subverting it. (And at the same time, bending it to our desires to create plants and animals for food and decorative purposes.)

No problem. People just seem to not realize our center has an actual name. In the movies and mission transcripts, it is only ever referred to as "Houston".

Sane people: Men have walked on the moon. ADreamerwithinADream: No they haven't. Sane people: What's your evidence? ADreamerwithinADream: No they haven't. Sane people: We have plenty of evidence, backed up by multiple disciplines of science. Here, let us show it to you. ADreamerwithinADream: No they haven't. Sane people: All you're saying is "No they haven't". ADreamerwithinADream: No they haven't. Sane people: You are quite a sturdy brick wall. We should use you to build many strong buildings in earthquake-prone areas. This is why we need to be able to address the nature of fallacious arguments, beyond the arguments themselves. Throwing out as many "points" as possible, hoping one will make it through, while refusing to address the opposing side is not a valid tactic. It is well within the rights of those involved to call an opponent on bad tactics. After all, how can one engage in the arguments when there is no argument offered beyond "I assert X" with no supporting evidence?

Rather than posting videos, what is your response to the video posted earlier that demonstrates faking the landing would be harder than the actual landing, that I have asked you about twice before? Can you please admit that you have no response to it, or at least acknowledge that you are dodging the issue intentionally? You're arguing that the government is incompetent, and your evidence is that the government shouldn't be incompetent? And you have the gall to accuse ME of circular reasoning?!?

I predicted that you would complain that I was "involved in the conspiracy". For the record, "Rocket Scientist" is actually a default KSP forum thing. My actual job is making paperwork. Re: Apollo 13 Apollo 13 suffered a failure on the outbound trip to the moon. If NASA was so fully invested in lying about getting to the moon, why would they create an event that made them look incompetent at it?

Are you familiar with the events of the Apollo 13 mission, as reported by NASA?

No, it was clearly filmed in The Badlands.

Because, over the multiple times you have been asked, you have yet to provide any evidence. Aside from that, I have plenty of evidence that it did happen.

Well, take it as you wish... Anyway... Yes they are. (Evidence equivalent to what you have provided: Cause I said so.) Well yes. However, real rocks have been given to universities, research institutions, museums, foreign dignitaries, and Alan Bean's paintings. Of course, you entire argument has been based on "I say so", without providing anything to back you up beyond one fallacious reference to someone that didn't understand what he was referencing in the first place. Assertion provided without evidence. Assertion rejected without regard. If you wish your argument to be considered, please provide some any evidence. Very good point. But it wasn't an argument in the first place. I was wanting to know how you address the posted video that provides quite extensive evidence that the technological capabilities of faking the moon landing were much lower than the technological capability of conducting an actual moon landing, and then doing it again 5 more times. Ok, please answer a question. If the moon landings were entirely faked, what happened on Apollo 13, and how does that fit your narrative?

@munlander1 I must apologize. I started my postings in this thread under the mistaken impression that your question was rather unwarranted and beyond ridiculous, especially in this particular forum. I now regret that assumption. It sadly appears that there is nowhere upon this globe that can escape the arguments of those who wish that which is was not. razark