phoenix_ca

You can read that!?! Woodstar, there are code tags you can use: [ code] [ /code] (sans spaces)

Well, I'd say TAC-LS exploded on you. Persistence file editing can salvage that. The NASA engines might need a maxTemp value in the part file if it isn't there. DR uses the value to determine when a part should explode due to temperature.

This. Also, you haven't made a clear request. You said "I want it to have this sort of style maybe and represent this vague concept" not "I want a rocket with clear fins surrounded by the text, or the rocket itself used as a punch-out of the text" or whatever, that would be more specific, or even a rough colour scheme.

Tail wheels. If you want to test weights, grab the NRAP.

Poor NASA. If they had just 1-2% of the USA federal budget they could do amazing things. And hell' date=' if the USA had nixed just [b']one Nimitz-class carrier and dumped that money for construction (and subsequent operation) into NASA, we'd almost certainly have sent people to Mars by now. All that lack of funding makes me sad. As for science...it's not really about conservatism, but due caution. Until you have evidence, all you have is a theory, an assertion. It may be a sound theory, based on previous observable data, but until you have supporting evidence that's all it is. Special and General Relativity wasn't really anything more than a theory until we observed its effects. So when so when someone comes along and presents something that would violate Newton's third law, you can bet that it won't be taken too seriously at first. If there is evidence, actual proof of it being true, then you might find that many scientists would be okay with ripping-up the physics textbooks. We did it with the Rutherford-Bohr model of the atom, with our primitive understanding of subatomic particles when quantum physics was verified, and piles and piles of other concepts over the past century. Asking for empirical data to support theory isn't being "closed minded", it's being rational. The rational mind is swayed by evidence, not solely an argument, no matter how convincing. (Evidence can take the form of logical deduction but that's about as far as you get with reasoned argument being evidence in and of itself.) Seems Ralathon covered this pretty well though.

Good lord man, I was kidding! What are you basing your statement on?

Maybe for Venice? They'd get extra power whenever they got flooded! That's how physics works, right?!

Supposition, unless you've got proof. Large parts of society now actually deliberately privilege women, including medical care (men are denied free mammograms when they are medically indicated, because they are men, and breast cancer charities tend to exclusively cover women), child custody law (many nations and states practice deliberate discrimination against the male in any custody battle), and family law (it is very common in the USA, Sweden, and a few others I can't recall, for law enforcement to respond to domestic disturbances by assuming that the male is always the aggressor, leading to situations where women can freely abuse their male spouses; this is the so-called "Duluth" model of family violence, and is incredibly flawed and based on little to no evidence). Further, in some nations there are specific obligations imposed on males as part of their rights as citizens that are not imposed on women, simply because they are women (e.g. the USA's Selective Service). Please, show me in a Western nation (for the purposes of this argument let's say from a selection of the USA, Canada, Japan, South Korea, New Zealand, Australia, and the EU) exactly where men are afforded privileges simply because of their gender, without any reciprocal responsibilities or obligations. But as long as I have to keep my name on the Selective Service list because I'm a man, under penalty of jail-time, denial of federal grants and federal jobs, and a whole host of other punishments for not signing-up for possible compulsory service, I won't accept this assertion that men are "universally more privileged than women". Women are not expected to die for their country during a time of war, men are. This is only just if women are not given the same rights of citizenship. In countries that demand compulsory service from men, and justify that demand as due payment for the rights of citizenship (as the USA does), to give women the same rights without the very same demand is fundamentally unjust (unless you are working from the assumption that women really are unequal, lesser humans who should not be expected to bear the same burdens; even then, why give a lesser human the right to vote?). To afford two people the same rights, but demand reciprocal obligations from one and not the other is fundamentally unjust, all things being equal. Note that in 2013, the Pentagon re-evaluated their position on women serving in a front-line capacity. Now that women are allowed to serve in that capacity, the last tenuous argument for this difference in the application of the Selective Service Act has been undermined. And if you'd like a perspective on other cultures, here's a relatively easy-to-follow and well-spoken individual who can elucidate this a bit:

You're talking about energy levels (for the neutron radiation anyway) that are less than the background radiation on earth we're exposed to every day. It's not enough to be hazardous unless you're standing inside the reactor with no shielding at all. The neutrons don't have enough energy to make any parts of the reactor or its shielding radioactive either like in a fission reactor. And x-rays aren't really hazardous unless you're talking about really massive doses. Again, you'd have to stand in the reactor chamber to be exposed, and again, what radiation there is can easily be absorbed by a relatively small amount of material. Turn the reactor off, and poof, no radiation risk (okay, it takes a few hours but seriously, a few hours is a very short time to quibble over). Convincing the public that it is safe will only be complicated if more people, like you, over-estimate the danger of such low-energy neutrons and some x-rays that can both be stopped by a bit of shielding. The solution here is pretty simple: Turn off the reactor and wait a few hours before you go inside it. Pretty much the same basic precaution one takes in a CT-scanning room. Don't walk into the room when it's on.

I don't know what gave you that idea, since the reactor I was referencing very, very clearly spells-out on their website and various other literature that the p-B11 reaction they're using is aneutronic. The radiation given-off by the reactor is primarily x-rays, and the rare occasional low-energy neutron, easily shielded by a few inches of material. Once you turn the reactor off, the chamber is pretty much safe to walk right into, and after a few hours handling the reactor can be done with almost no special precautions (though given that they'll need to use beryllium for the electrodes you probably will want to wear latex gloves or something).

Maybe not, but it does influence just how many of the things you need. (Or how many pumps you need, or how much salt, yadda yadda yadda.) And every single version requires a lot of new infrastructure to work. I thought I had pointed that out when I mentioned electrolysis.

That is what's known as the naturalistic fallacy appeal to nature fallacy. Just because that's how nature is, doesn't mean that's how things ought to be. Not really. The one-child law in China has had some incredibly detrimental effects on Chinese society. Male children aren't just preferred, female children are genuinely risky for parents. While male children have a legal obligation to provide for the needs of their parents as they get older, female children have absolutely no such responsibility. From this standpoint, it makes a whole lot more sense to keep a boy than it does to keep a girl. I always find that case rather curious, since that state of affairs tends to be used by feminists in Western nations as an example of "male privilege", when it's in fact a situation created by the extra obligations imposed on men.

Watson isn't able to make conjecture, or to perform the creative and problem-solving tasks that humans can do so as to solve a problem that has no known solution yet. It is instead querying a massive database of information generated by humans. As long as someone has already made the connection between say, Coffee-Mate and "friend", Watson can find that connection and make it itself, but as far as I'm aware, it's unable to theorise. If it could, we'd have the proverbial Star Trek computer.

For solar power (or wind) to be viable as a main source of power, we'd need batteries. Huge, massive piles of the things. Energy density of the best batteries we've managed to create is still crap compared to the energy density of say, hydrogen to be used in a fuel cell. It just doesn't make sense. Maybe if you used all the power to electrolize water to make fuel for massive fuel cells, but then you're talking about a whole hell of a lot of infrastructure just to make it work. Or, you can put a 5MW dense plasma fusion reactor (assuming it works, and the peeps at Focus Fusion can solve the remaining density issue by next year as they think they can; note that it'll still be at least 3-4 years after that for an actual practical reactor) in each city neighbourhood, and not have to deal with the huge losses involved with power transmission over long distances. If it works (and there's every reason to believe it will), such a solution would be far superior to solar power.

Indeed. Lots of wings means lots of lag. I'd suggest doing-away with them and installing PWings instead.

No, not when the very point you're making is that men tend to have more dangerous occupations. If you did normalize everything to the extent you suggest, you wouldn't find much if any variance between sexes, just as there's little to no variance in pay in such a situation. The whole point is that men have a higher chance of occupational death because they take the far more hazardous jobs.

You'd think that irony would be apparent to those who say that with a straight face. @Fuzzy: Let's see some numbers to support those claims. Women can be just as reckless as men when driving. (Though the workplace death gap is indeed huge. Men make up the vast majority of workplace deaths and injuries. One need only consult publically available figures from government to see that one.)

Check your privelage! Men should be happy to live at all, what with being obsolete!

Well...that's a let-down. It might not be realistic, but it would be useful for keeping part-counts down. Guess it's time for me to see what I can do with Photoshop.

I like both of those ideas. Pretty please, sumghai. Lights and RCS integrated into your parts would make them utterly fantastic.

...what? Venus is going the same direction as all the other planets. (Edit: and by that I mean orbit) And when the solar system first formed there were likely lots of objects going in many directions and on various planes around the sun. The current plane and orbital direction of the planets (and asteroids) just happened to be the preferred direction once they all were done (okay, not really) smashing into each other.

Then your guess is wrong. When it was demonstrated on Jeopardy, it queried its own database, which pulled from print sources (and a whole lot of other stuff) too. Though it didn't work very well until they used machine learning to teach it what questions actually meant. No internet connection required, the entire thing was self-contained. This is clearly explained in the video linked in the OP.

I'm amazed that IBM made such a huge mistake in reasoning on the page discussing that. Completely, utterly wrong. (Not because the figure is wrong; it might be right.)

I still think you're all dirty cheaters for using either.

If you're talking about ZodiusInfuser's parts, yes.