Fel

You have a photo of an Aurora Borealis? Aww, you northerners get all the fun

That's a 134 page essay that you did not read. 19 chapters and what you're talking about is only in the vaguest of references to chapter 2 which is only 6 pages of which you also did not read. Malthus explains that in a state of unbridled population checks, sustenance included, the human population will double every 25 years. Arguing the statistic is argumentium ad absurdium, change the figures however you wish the notion of population expansion has been shown multiple times in human history. Malthus also explains that sustenance has finite bounds in regards to land and resources committed to it; the chapter touches upon these bounds only to explain where the simulation is at fault, but does not fully consider the bounds as per technological advancements. In other words, your "debunking" was already debunked by Malthus. Malthus argues that the rate technological advancements in agriculture is unlikely to be done at an exponential rate and explains such a situation would eventually become untenable due to the lack of natural restrictions to population growth. Should we have, at a given time, enough food to satisfy the present population we would need the next day enough food to satisfy the FUTURE population in terms of babies and this would have to continue until the human race destroys itself. So, the "argument" is really that we're always trying to catch up to adequately supply the present population. Eventually there are periods where the population is no longer expanding and these periods are used to change the poverty divide before we again rapidly expand due to the increase of resources. In truth, the argument is likely an analogy for economics and has nothing to do with food but everything to do with supply and demand, explaining that the cycle of poverty has continued throughout history. Having needs fulfilled gives the impression of "plenty" instead of "just enough to survive" thus giving the impression that bringing offspring into the world would have no impact upon the ability to provide for the additional population, since the lack of supply only becomes apparent many generations down the line, a population contraction is not seen until the economic situations have become very poor. Chapter 7 appears to touch on health, epidemics, and other issues likely caused by population growth or perhaps technological inclinations (via the abstract.) Chapter 14 appears to touch on human vices, this would include tendencies for war. Oh, you mean the bankrupting and utter destruction of the soviet nation? That was a great vision. (Chapter 10 touches upon an "ideal society" envisioned by some other philosopher who attributed the vices to the society in question... again, inferred from the abstract) Chapter 6 talks about the drive for colonization. It doesn't look good to dismiss the writings of someone then talk about the same things that person talked about. While I did only read the table of contents and chapter 2, you're touching on enough of a similar topic that it looks really poorly upon you. I'll leave you with an abstract people should think about: Not saying social darwinism is good, just saying that humans tend to create more problems the more they treat the symptoms rather than the cause.

Hey! I think we all... most... okay a select few know it is grounds for a revert. Thus, starting from the last correct number -22 (+)

I don't get comments like this. They dumped a large amount of money in gamebyo and while patching in more low-level enhancements rather than rewriting to use the latest features would be preferable, we are not actually doing anything INTERESTING with graphics these days. It's just "Bigger Textures" and "Moar Pixel Shaders"... sometimes using "flat textures" or "outlining" rather than investing a single man-hour into actually doing cell-shading (even then, the effect is only used for certain scenes). Wake me up when we do something as simple as finally stop merging clothing meshes with npc models and apply physical weights and attributes to the clothing model, thus allowing it to not only move realistically instead of being obviously glued to the torso but also be applied damage to realistically; and if we want to further this we'd have areas upon which there are damage be treated as unarmored... well, instead of hyping the upteenth rebirth of VR.

No, I do not like strange three letter initialisms, they're almost always associated with a Government Agency trying to TAKEOVER THE WORLD! Would you press the button to end all conflict on earth at the cost of individuality?

I calmly explain that there is no "Q", nor are there "Magratheans", they're just byproducts of overactive imaginations and religious references. Therefore, if you are Q, you do not exist. My hill of sound logic and reasoning.

Granted... every human on earth dies leaving no one to fight over anything... no one except you, now you have a reputation as a planet killer I wish people would realize more megapixels = worse camera. It isn't like they ever post those 20Mpx photos, and compressed photos (a la jpeg) don't do justice.

You could... you know... just do what CaptainApollo is doing. Digital Zoom a.k.a. cropping. At 40x crop (using the raw) you'd have 0.315Mpx which is comparable to the current 0.4272Mpx in that photo

Granted. You get to watch me enjoy this sandwich. This perfect sandwich. With perfect crispness and intoxicating aroma. You get to watch me savour every bite of this sandwich as your lips water while wanting to take a bite of this sandwich, and when you ask I will tell you, soundly, no... this is MY sandwich which you wished for me. I wish it was legal to hit pedestrians that are more interested in status updates than the cars driving straight at him/her

I point out your logical error in that vanilla kerbals do not have access to weapons technology, hence waking you from your dream of total domination. My hill of sound logic and reasoning.

(4i)^2

Smart ASS reads universe data and directly manipulates the ship in ways that you normally would be unable to do. If you want to use MechJeb, use it; but it isn't realistic and it isn't vanilla so don't bring it up. You are applying an absurd amount of force to a stage that has more mass, space or no, that is bad design. That you can use software to issue micro-corrections before the problems get out of hand is besides the point. - - - Updated - - - I don't see it as a problem, why space x clearly used RCS in the atmosphere to stabilize their landing... into the ocean. Most people don't even disable reaction wheels on launch (they're used in the atmosphere all the time with KSP.) Having control surfaces on your third stage would likely help, just that RCS usually "looks better" and always provides forces despite the atmospheric density. Also, the second stage is lighter than the third stage, hence "top heavy". Topheavy is not good design, topheavy means that your engines are applying a force to a "light" object that has to transfer to a "heavy" object (re: inertia). Keeping low TWR keeps this from being too much of a problem.

"Wobble" on launch or "Wobble" on maneuvering? You have a top heavy second stage, but given the size of your first I'd bet you are trying to maneuver solely with thrust vectoring and reaction wheels. Just think about the forces you're talking about applying to those joints from the base... think about the momentum involved. RCS helps quite a bit with those to keep all parts having the same vectorized momentum. (Do note: I am assuming you're using the classic "High TWR" launches once you leave the atmosphere. If it is actually wobbling with a constant 2 TWR or less all the way to space then it's buggy behavior) (And, in the case of large mass differences between parts, momentum gets very screwy... or so I've been told when building super-heavies)

That's not really true. The "wobble" is an effect of using spherical joints instead of tri-joints. That's mechanical engineering 101; if squad can add in struts they can add in tri-joints. Often, using struts to create trijoints WILL fix most of the "wobble". So yes, it is "that easy." (It won't fix joint stress, tri-joints only restrict movement), (Now, yes, there's exasperation and things that make it worse, that's faults with the physics engine and how the rocket is represented in said engine.) But "in reality" attempting to create a bigger rocket requires stronger and weightier infrastructure. "Space Stages" can be little more than tinfoil and be perfectly fine (so long as you keep forces correct). KSP doesn't have a good method of creating this effect, hence "wobble" Make no mistake, rocket wobble is not a bug; the exasperations are (i.e. small mass against large mass stuff), but the wobble itself is by design.

I defeat your robot with the only thing stronger than mecha MOE Surrender to the power of Cuteness. My super cute girl in white

Granted... you die from insomnia I wish the next person's wish will be uncorrupted

Well... yeah... But the powerdrain of IrDA is near zero (it's just an led and a photoresistor, I think). Bluetooth requires a much more active transmission upto 33 feet was it? Though, RFID and NFC are taking that side now-a-days... bringing IR back just seems like a stunt. (And Camacha isn't kidding about the issues of phones having that photo sensor in the wrong place (and sometimes even then), getting the things to transfer is quite the pain)

Seriously? IrDA is OLD technology, long in the "real" smartphones and abandoned because bluetooth was "hip." You can make a transmitter out of a headphone jack for dirt cheap, if they're jacking up the price because they're putting it back in... / Can you even use it for data transfer? Or interfacing with the few dozen infrared devices that still work on ebay? Or is it just "$10 to interface with the TV brand you selected"

-13 (-)

-13 XD Okay, this is getting boring

-13 Go team -13!!

Well, honestly, it's obviously not a high end camera. There is clear chromatic aberrations, grain, hot areas, etc. He obviously used a tripod due to the extreme zoom though, but old tripods are just as good as new ones. Point and Shoots are powerful for what they are and are very cost effective for the individual. *Of course, getting a CHEAP "interchangeable lens" camera and using an adapter for a telescope isn't too bad either. Adapters aren't very expensive and you can get a base ~200 USD on ebay (Don't be put off by low megapixels, the sensors are what matter)

This is what space really looks like

<3 <3 <3 Was wondering why no one mentioned it.