phoenix_ca

Basically, yes. I'd recommend removing one mod at a time until you are back to vanilla (or the reverse, starting with vanilla and adding mods one at a time; doesn't really matter which). Are you using Exception Detector? If you're getting CTDs it might not help but it's worth a shot. Did you follow the entire guide? ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Now, to the original reason I'm posting. The metadata for JPLRepo's Endurance mod hasn't been updated correctly. Is this something that requires the Netkan bot to get its ass kicked in gear, or should I create a new metadata file (in the same folder I linked to, obviously) for it in the CKAN-meta repository?

Call me crazy, but wouldn't this have more-or-less the exact same problems coal power plants did before we slapped limestone filters on them? Acid rain for everyone...

The only engine for use in space that actually propulses on something else is the Q-thruster, rather like a propeller on a ship or aircraft that applies force to the fluid it's immersed in, but it instead uses the virtual particles present everywhere and pushes off that.

I especially loved how they screwed-up St. Peter's Square. The Romans could've done better. You know, by actually making a circle. Seriously though, that damn place has gold trim floors for goodness' sake. I wouldn't be surprised if the toilets had gold plating. Also...Dan Brown? I wouldn't say burn the book, as nothing good comes from destroying ideas, but seriously, this guy's ideas are often...very wrong.

Where are you getting this information?

Pretty sure Nuke answered that.

If you have need of interstellar communication, why in the world (or galaxy) would you bother to communicate with light? It's probably safe to assume you'd have FTL travel, so...just stick your message on a ship and send it. It'll get there faster.

Again, I don't buy it. People have claimed the very same thing of magnets (yes, magnets), homeopathy, reflexology, chiropractic, faith healing, and a myriad of other fake crap. So-called traditional Chinese medicine is no exception; in fact there have been cases, and still are cases, where the herbs that they'll prescribe to people are demonstrably harmful or even lethal depending on dose. It's far more likely that the doctor you mention misdiagnosed you, which is especially likely if they didn't actually do a biopsy. Moreover, there is no adequate proof that it works at all.

Are you saying your post was sarcastic? Because that's the only way I see it not being utterly ridiculous.

Both of those are ridiculous and don't even come close to the well-understood mechanisms for allergic reactions. It's an over-response of the immune system to foreign matter. Simple as that. You can't cure Celiac disease. Anyone claiming that there's some sort of "alternative medicine" cure is almost certainly lying. There is no known cure, period. And on top of that, the tests required to confirm it are somewhat invasive. It requires a biopsy of the patient's intestinal tissue to confirm it. And it's rare, far rarer than the prevalence of all these new gluten-free foods on the market would suggest.

As rdfox noted, all that means is inflammation. I can be caused by a myriad of possible things, most often a viral or bacterial infection. Pretty much all a GP needs to do is check to see which, and then determine course of action. If it's viral you're screwed; we don't have any medication to target common viral infections directly, beyond vaccination. If it's bacterial, antibiotics are an option but generally considered one to be avoided if possible, but that determination depends on the severity of the infection, the risk to the patient (and their general health), how long the infection has lasted, etc. In short, it's best to leave it to a doctor to make that determination. We've pretty much learned in medicine that it's usually a better idea to leave people's organs in their bodies unless there's a very compelling reason to remove them (i.e. life-threatening or extremely detrimental effects on a patient's health). . Well, except for foreskin. Some doctors are still happy-go-lucky about lopping it off.

That's cultural relativism, and has all the same problems of moral relativism. By your logic, if a society deems through its laws that a person should be stoned to death because they were raped (as some fundamentalist Islamic states do hold, and any fundamentalist Christian state if it existed would likely hold), that is absolutely acceptable. Even morally right. The same would go for if the majority of society deemed global warming to be a myth, and suggested that any legislation designed to reduce the ecological impact of that society were unethical because, oh, say that such legislation would hinder that society's growth. Moral relativism of any sort is pretty much the same as saying there is no morality at all, that there are no right answers. If a society says that its a good idea to kill every eighty-year-old to reduce the burden of care they cause (in fact it might even be an effective measure to kill retirees to eliminate their carbon emissions, reduce energy demand, and thus our impact on the environment via carbon emissions), then that's okay because that's what that society accepts as normal. These sorts of ideas have been practically eradicated in honest practice of modern philosophy and law, because majority rule is often wrong. Just because the majority thinks it's okay to segregate blacks and whites, or men and women, doesn't actually mean it's right or just. Just because the majority thinks something is true or just doesn't make it true or just. What you are arguing is that even if the minority hold a position that is absolutely justifiable and correct, and provably so, they should not be able to affect the laws of their society if that society holds the opposite view. If that were true, we wouldn't have had the civil rights movements we did in the 20th century. Martin Luther King wouldn't have been a person; we would've just said he was wrong because the majority is right, and besides that, he was black. Cultural relativism started with the anthropologist Ruth Benedict. It doesn't take much work to actually pull apart her arguments, and even less to demonstrate how they open the door to every atrocity imaginable. Don't take this the wrong way but, I'd suggest you go find a nearby university and enroll in an introductory ethics class. You're bound to learn a lot, and in much more detail and depth than I can lay-out here, among them just how broken ethical relativism of any kind is.

Still the biggest aircraft in the world. Even the A380 comes-up a little short compared to it. I saw it as a kid once while transferring at a US airport. I rather like how it's flying the Ukrainian national colours now.

Mriya is a rare beast. There is only one.

That wouldn't result in people just doing anything because it can be done. You still need the energy to get it done, and there will be certain endevours that are so ridiculous (like cold fusion) that they have no hope of advancing society forward. Without taking that into consideration, you would quickly have a society that once all of anyone's needs and desires are reasonably met, will stagnate and eventually collapse. No. In fact that idea is downright terrifying considering where it leads. Not what I was thinking, but an interesting take on it. Have an internet muffin. Although what you said flies in the face of moral subjectivism. I suspect you either don't know what moral subjectivism actually is, or don't actually hold that position.

That's pretty much the problem right there. They might not go high and will eventually fall, but you don't need to get very high to be in the middle of a flight path. A flimsy lantern can't really damage an aircraft, but it could give a pilot enough pause wondering what the hell that light is doing over the runway to abort a landing, and the financial cost of that is enormous.

Defining what life is is as much a philosophical question as it is a purely scientific one. Every time I contemplate it I eventually just get thrown back to Descartes' "Cogito ergo sum" (I think, therefore I am). At least for sentient life. Other forms of life gets fuzzy and confusing as all hell and really depends more on where you draw the line, and wherever you draw it, it's going to be pretty arbitrary.

You need to establish first that the person is in a right mind when they choose to jump. Jumping off a bridge expecting the wood strapped to your arms is something very insane to do. Even if they were trying to impede your attempt to stop them, you can reasonably assume that they are suffering from something like schizophrenia or a manic episode, and there would be not ethical concern in impeding them from killing themselves. And then, even if they were in their right mind, if there were risk to others, you can stop someone from endangering others' lives without it being all that complicated either. These problems have been debated for millennia, and the position of simply not taking part at all and letting people just do whatever they want tends to come-out as the morally objectionable choice every time. It's pretty much just moral subjectivism with a different coat of paint. And yes, this is relevant to the topic. Muffins for whomever figures out how.

Man. That's...odd. I'd be way too paranoid about putting those in the air in or near a city with an airport. You could muck-up some plane's flight path if they need to move to avoid it. Better to stick to large events where lots of people do it at once so pilots can be warned via some sort of regional advisory to all planes with flight plans going through the area, or at least relayed to them via radio when they enter the area. The airspace above your head is probably a lot busier than it looks...

At that point, you'd be an immoral and unethical human if you didn't try to stop them. >.<

There's the far more interesting question of whether or not life could exist in entirely different ways. Solaris pondered what it might be like to try and communicate with a truly alien life (one made of plasma O.o ).

Tesla Motors has the right idea: http://www.teslamotors.com/blog/all-our-patent-are-belong-you

Yes, because he has a 40+ part series called "Why people laugh at creationists".

Radiation suit? What radiation suit? To block gamma radiation effectively you'd need to be wearing a bunch of lead (or tungsten, or some other similarly effective material). Maybe we'll see things in the future that use exoskeleton robotics to allow a human to actually carry all that weight around, but for now...yeah no. Protection from radiation is based on preventing contamination of the squishy human (so filtering air, water, and food for radioactive contaminants, as well as keeping any radioactive elements from actually reaching the squishy meatbag's skin), to prevent the really bad situation of actually having highly radioactive radioisotopes in one's body, and then just limiting the total dose received to acceptable levels. Edit: Actually there's some word that Japan might be doing this already. Not much surprise there. The nation with one of the most high-tech robotics industries on the planet, and a nuclear disaster in their back yard, making a robotic suit to help protect the people working in that area from radiation. http://www.engadget.com/2011/11/07/cyberdyne-turns-its-hal-exoskeleton-into-an-anti-radiation-suit/ http://www.gizmag.com/japanese-first-responders-robotic-exoskeleton/24555/