Crush

It does allow it, it is licensed CC-BY-NC.Other arbitrary edges of the solar system: - When the sun is no longer the brightest star (optionally: in your favorite wavelength) - When the sun is no longer the dominant gravity source

Again? According to NASA press releases, voyager 1 has "Left the solar system" about a dozen times now. * When it got past Pluto orbit (outmost known planet at that time) * When it passed the Heliosphere * When it passed the Termination Shock * When it passed the Heliosheat * When it passed the Heliopause * passed orbit of Eris (outmost recognized dwarf planet) * ...and several other arbitrary "ends of the solar system" And we will again hear news that Voyager "really left the solar system now" when it * passed the bow shock * passed orbit of Sedna (outmost trans-neptunian object) * Left the Kuiper belt * passed the orbits of long-period comets * Left the Oort cloud (which will happen in about 30.000 years) Some of these marks haven't actually been measured yet, so we will likely get multiple news reports about voyager entering and leaving them.

When you want a really elegant mun mission, learn docking and do an apollo-style mission with a detachable lander. That way you can keep the fuel for the return trip in mun orbit, so you don't need to land it and bring it back up. ...or just add more stages below your existing rocket. There is no problem which can not be solved by adding more parts (except for having too many parts, of course). When you want better advise, you could post a screenshot and the .craft file of your rocket. That way we could suggest improvements.

Learn a programming language in one and a half hour? That's one step up from those awful "Learn [programming language] in 21 days" books I already learned about twenty programming languages in my life, and I did large-scale projects in about six of them (Basic, C++, PHP, ABAP, Java, Javascript). I usually prefer written tutorials for self-study. It makes it easier to process information at your own pace. Having the text allows you to copy and paste code. It also makes it easier to mark, right-click and google phrases or keywords when you want another reference. By the way: Here is an image tutorial how to teach yourself programming in 21 days: Source: http://abstrusegoose.com/249

I tried to reproduce the experiment in another forum and got less conclusive results, but there was also a slight preference for the area 6-8. http://forums.themanaworld.org/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=17543

All those people who vote for Choose this are retarded. The only right answer is clearly Choose this. I could understand people who vote for Choose this or Choose this, but picking Choose this when there is Choose this and even Choose this as alternatives is simply unforgivable. I guess some people are just incapable of objective thought and understanding rational arguments.

Fun fact: Statistically it is three times as likely to get a virus from a religion-oriented website than from a porn website. (The reason is that the porn industry got a lot more professional and customer-oriented in the past decade, while religion-oriented websites rarely have competent sysadmins and technically-inclined users, making them easy targets for hackers who plant malware on other peoples websites)

Was that before or after they saw an estimate how much of their tax money it would actually cost to send people to Mars? Doubling NASA's budget wouldn't be nearly enough. Estimates vary wildly. The more optimistic ones put a single mission into some tenth of billions of dollar. But those usually don't account for any R&D or test flights and only for the cost of the final mission itself. For a complete mars program, we are talking about several hundreds of billions of dollar. When the US would do a mission to mars, it would likely cost every taxpayer over $1000. When you would ask someone "Would you pay $1000 to see Americans on Mars?" I think the approval wouldn't be that high.

Lol, fairies. Fairies are extinct. The government killed them all because the fairies wanted to tell us about the aliens. A fairy ghost told me after I ate some mushrooms I picked in the forest next to the nuclear power plant.

Satellite flares appear like dots to the naked eye. They only look like lines on photos because you need a long exposure time to photograph them. Or it was a cloaking device malfunction on one of the alien battlecruisers which currently plan to invade earth.

Satellite flares?

And they are right about that.

Money is what I meant with motivation - motivation to fund it. I currently believe that the Chinese will be the first on Mars. The whole west lost all serious interest in space exploration, because they don't feel like they still need to prove something to each other anymore. The Americans were on the moon, the Russians had their Mir, the Europeans have their commercially successful Ariane rockets and they all together have their ISS and believe that's enough right now. But the Chinese - they have the resources, the technology (mostly stolen, but still) and they are eager to show the rest of the world that they are no developing country anymore.

The problem with the Orion program is that there is no clear goal. The Apollo project had one definite goal: Land on the moon. That's why there was motivation to do it. But the Orion program's goal is "We need to have a space program because we need one to do... uh... stuff... like maybe mars or asteroids or moon again or something". There is no clear purpose or direction behind it. That's why it will fail.

First, set the planet as your target by clicking on it. Its orbit should now be colored green. Remember that orbits are three-dimensional. So look for the ascending/descending node and get your inclination to the target planet as low as possible by accelerating north/south when exactly(!) on the node. Then place a maneuver node and plan a burn which makes your orbit touch the orbit of the planet you want to encounter. Two "closest approach" markers should now appear on the orbit. Drag the maneuver node around the orbit and watch how the "closest approach" marker moves. When your orbit is elliptical, you might have to adjust the burn duration of the maneuver node while you do that so it keeps touching the orbit. Get the "closest approach" markers as close as possible. Adding outwards and inwards acceleration to the maneuver node can also change where you encounter the planet. Playing a bit with it can help you to get a close approach even when far away from the ideal launch window. A note about launch windows: Some people seem to have learned somewhere that an ideal launch window is required for a transfer to a specific planet. This is wrong. Yes, a transfer during the ideal launch window requires the least amount of fuel, but when you are willing to invest extra fuel, you can reach your destination at any time. I never wait for a launch window when I do interplanetary travel. I just pack some more fuel. When you feel like you need some practice: Learn how to dock, first. A rendevouz between two crafts in LKO is technically the same as a rendevouz between a craft and a planet in Kerbol orbit. Just with the difference that the scale is much larger and that you can only control one of the participants.

Dear Squad, I want you to add more rocket boosters so that we can smash cars which a kerbal is flying directly into Jool. Also I like to shoot kerbals into the Kraken's maw. You should bring love to Kerbin through donuts shaped like Kerbals. This won't add chaos to the game revenue because donuts are tasty and bacon is evil. This pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis will affect Eeloo in landings because Jeb cannot sleep without rockets falling apart almost every millisecond. So multiplayer can kick Bill's kerbehind out the planet's atmosphere. Besides, Bill gets extreme G-force when jeb flies on SRBs. Donkey's lick explosive liquid Kolas when they invade Kerbin with cake and flavored octopus. I eat SANVICH when I play my game on Macindownux. That's not all that Mr. Postman wants from Moho, he crashed his pogo-stick and backstabbed Princess Bubblegum. Frankly, Waluigi jumps onto

Dear Squad, I want you to add more rocket boosters so that we can smash cars which a kerbal is flying directly into Jool. Also I like to shoot kerbals into the Kraken's maw. You should bring love to Kerbin through donuts shaped like Kerbals. This won't add chaos to the game revenue because donuts are tasty and bacon is evil. This pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis will affect Eeloo in landings because Jeb cannot sleep without rockets falling apart almost every millisecond. So multiplayer can kick Bill's kerbehind out the planet's atmosphere. Besides, Bill gets extreme G-force when jeb flies on SRBs. Donkey's lick explosive liquid Kolas when they invade Kerbin with cake and flavored octopus. I eat SANVICH when I play my game on Macindownux. That's not all that Mr. Postman wants from

Dear Squad, I want you to add more rocket boosters so that we can smash cars which a kerbal is flying directly into Jool. Also I like to shoot kerbals into the Kraken's maw. You should bring love to Kerbin through donuts shaped like Kerbals. This won't add chaos to the game revenue because donuts are tasty and bacon is evil. This pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis will affect Eeloo in landings because Jeb cannot sleep without rockets falling apart almost every millisecond. So multiplayer can kick Bill's kerbehind out the planet's atmosphere. Besides, Bill gets extreme G-force when jeb flies on SRBs. Donkey's lick explosive liquid Kolas when they invade Kerbin with cake and flavored octopus. I eat SANVICH when I play my game on Macindownux. That's not all that

I would like to refer to Maslow's hierarchy of needs: Machines could only care for the lower two layers. The third could maybe be fulfilled by very advanced AI specialized on human interaction. But the fourth layer can - by definition - only be fulfilled by other humans, and fulfillment of the upper layer can only be reached from ones own efforts. When all the physiological needs of humans are met, they would mainly strafe for self-actualization. When wealth becomes irrelevant because everyones basic needs are fulfilled, the new thing to strafe for will be praise and acceptance from other humans. That's something a machine can never replace. Our social lifes will become an even greater priority. We would also seek the feeling of accomplishment by spending most of our time on what would nowadays be called hobbies. We would be creative and create art and other media or train to become better at sports and games. That would then become our goal in life and our self-identity.

I just made a picture for the wiki article:

Dear Squad, I want you to add more rocket boosters so that we can smash cars which a kerbal is flying directly into Jool. Also I like to shoot kerbals into the Kraken's maw. You should bring love to Kerbin through donuts shaped like Kerbals. This won't add chaos to the game revenue because donuts are tasty and bacon is evil. This pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis will affect Eeloo in landings because Jeb cannot sleep without rockets falling apart almost every millisecond. So multiplayer can kick Bill's kerbehind out the planet's atmosphere. Besides, Bill gets extreme G-force when jeb flies on SRBs. Donkey's lick explosive liquid Kolas when they invade Kerbin with cake and flavored octopus. I eat SANVICH when I play

You seem to be referring to the short-story The Evitable Conflict. The difference is in how this is handled. It is not portrayed as a dystopia but as an utopia. Dissidents aren't opposed violently but only obstructed in a way which is as humane as possible and feels more like bad luck than oppression. The idea of Asimov is that the three laws of robotics define the priorities of robots as 1. protect humans, 2. follow orders, 3. protect themself. The later zeroth priority - protect humanity as a whole - grows as a corollary of the first three. For that reason Asimovs robots are unable to violently oppress humanity, because their whole philosophy is based on serving humanities interests. This stays in contrast to the usual tyrant AI villain, which acts against the general interests of humanity by taking away freedom, prosperity and safety.

Thanks for the link, I didn't know about that.

Most robots-take-over-the-world science fiction stories forget a crucial aspect: Software hasn't got a motivation. Software does what it is programmed to do. While it is possible to create expert systems which use neural networks (computer logics simulating how the human brain works) and make better and faster decisions than humans in specific areas, they are always limited to this specific area. And no matter how good a program gets at inter-day stock trading, weather simulation or flying airplanes, it will never try to take over the world because it simply isn't programmed to do that. The robots-take-over-the-world scenario is nevertheless prevalent in science fiction for two reasons: 1. People are always afraid of everything that is new and always afraid of losing control, so it's a good device for a horror story 2. Authors are used to create characters from personalities and motivations. Software is an abstract concept, not a character. But you can't have an abstract concept as a villain in a story. So the authors turn the concept into a character and attribute personalities and motivations to things which shouldn't have any. Just look at classic "AI villains". They all only work because the author attribute a motivation and personality flaws to them. Like HAL9000 for example. "He" has a motivation (complete the mission) and a personality flaw (believe to be infallible) which turns him into a villain. Or GLaDOS. Motivation: Wants company of test subjects; personality flaws: sadistic and vengeful. They act less than machines and more like characters. That's why they work as villains. By the way: when you want to read a more plausible science fiction book about how a world after an AI singularity could look, I can recommend the short story collection "I, Robot" by Isaac Asimov (not the movie - the movie has nothing to do with the book). Asimov doesn't treat the AIs as characters, but as machines which follow their core programming, and creates some really interesting stories from it while neither villainifying nor glorifying the machines.

Look at subway trains, for example. Driving a subway train is pretty trivial. Close doors, accelerate, break, open doors, repeat. Computer-controlled signals tell the train driver when to do what. Cutting out the middle-man and fully automatizing trains would be technically possible since decades. Are there fully automatized subways? No, because people wouldn't trust an automatized train. They need a human at the controls to feel safe. Even when drone-planes would be feasible (currently, military drones have a crash rate much higher than manned planes on similar missions, which means that the technology isn't safe enough yet for transporting people), it would take decades until people would accept them.