Omicron314

I have not been to many burrito places in my life, but I find a steak burrito filled with rice and beans to be delicious.

Aside from the Russian ÷ðüþú, which is a cognate of the first Polish word here, I'm also a fan of the word 'üуúð', meaning either 'pain/anguish' or 'flour'. And there is always my old enemy from Latin class volo (I fly) and volo (I want). Omina (signs) and omnia (everything) is also annoying, but it's not strictly a homonym.

(On your last remark): To be fair, though, communism has never been practiced by any nation to my knowledge. If I remember correctly, communism requires the abolishment of social classes, money, and finally the state. The USSR, the PRC, the DPRK, Vietnam, Laos - none of these nations have done that. You hate totalitarians masquerading as communists, whom I hate as well, but I don't think anyone can safely say they've actually met a person from a communist nation. Nevertheless, I look forward to this season. Very exciting-looking.

I'm going to go with the Firstborn from the Space Odyssey saga. Very mysterious and powerful.

I feel really strongly about who and whom. Whom is the accusative of who, which people seem to be incapable of using despite the fact that it is used exactly like 'him' or 'her'. It is just the accusative case, people! It's not that hard! If you're unsure, plug in 'he' or 'she' where you are going to say 'who' or 'whom': if it works, use 'who', if not, use 'whom'. Either that, or learn an inflected language (Latin is nice!).

It is my view that fully automizing laborious jobs would enable communism of a sort. Higher education would be made compulsory, and upon graduation, people would have one of three job choices: an artistic job (e.g. musician, artists, etc.), a researcher (scientist, engineer, etc.) or a member of a workers' council (which both manages and repairs the robots), all relatively autonomous but still under the government's control. Base income would be determined slightly differently for each branch. Artists would be paid based on their popularity, scientists based on the significance of their experiments or discoveries, and workers' councils would be able to divvy up their government-provided income however they voted to (but extra income awarded due to an innovation or similar contribution would be given directly to the person responsible). The 'companies' run by the workers' councils would be owned by the government, so the entire nation's economy could quickly turn itself into a command economy in the event of a crisis, and then transition back into a more market-type economy after the crisis passes. While the government would take a huge amount of the cooperative's income, the income provided to the cooperative by the government would increase if the company is particularly profitable. Non-government run corporations would be allowed, but would hardly have a chance competing with their government-owned counterparts as it would be harder for them to operate without the government's funding and would have a difficult time attracting more people to the cooperative as no base salary is guaranteed. Without competition, prices would be kept down by strict regulations, but would be changeable to values within a certain range. The financial branch of the government would be able to change the range if it so desired. Everyone would be also be guaranteed good healthcare, a home to share with one or two others, and probably some other thing I am forgetting. After saving up enough by working, people would be able to purchase larger houses and furniture of their choosing created by the nationalized cooperatives. These benefits would not be given to those who choose not to work in any of the three job sectors. While this would be ideal, I highly doubt it would ever be instated in the U.S. Maybe one of the more progressive European countries would be willing to give it a go should the opportunity arise?

I didn't say that the inventors of such a drug would not be compensated, however. Essentially, the government would buy the patent, as you said. There's nothing preventing the government from offering monetary compensation for the trouble that the team/company/whatever went through before distributing it, and I think this is preferable to a private entity withholding the cure until they can directly profit from its distribution. This way, the cure is delivered to those who need it most, not only those who can afford it, and those who invented it are compensated.

I think there is a line that needs to be drawn between patent-able inventions and non-patent-able inventions. I see the validity in allowing a (reasonable) amount of time after the invention of an item for it to be sold exclusively by the inventor until it is allowed to be built upon. However, I think there are some inventions, specifically those with the capacity to save lives, that should not ever be patented but instead distributed by the government to humanitarian organizations (such as, say, Red Cross) for their use. Imagine if a company patented a cure for a terrible disease, insisting that their personal gain is more important than the lives of other people. I understand that the market of any country, however regulated it might be, needs a certain degree of leniency in order to operate efficiently, but allowing the above would simply be criminal.

I'm running into a bit of a problem with the whole 'radius' thing. I understand that I need to change both 'Radius' in 'CelestialBody' and 'radius' in 'PQS,' but when I do so, my (test) planet appears like this: I'm not able to zoom in any further, and the planet is surrounded by a strange green border (much more prominent than what is normal with Jool-based planets). When I comment out both 'Radius' and 'radius' though, the planet's radius defaults to 6000 kilometers (radius of Jool) and I'm able to zoom in to it like any other planet. Any idea what can be done to fix this? I don't want to be constrained by the standard planets' radii. Edit: Here's the .cfg if it is of interest: PFBody { name=Jupiter2 templateName=Jool flightGlobalsIndex=700 } CelestialBody { bodyDescription=Description GeeASL=2.528 rotates=True Radius=69911000 rotationPeriod=35730 tidallyLocked=False } Orbit { inclination = 1.305 eccentricity = 0.048775 semiMajorAxis = 778547200000 //Radius=60000000 LAN = 100.492 argumentOfPeriapsis = 275.066 meanAnomalyAtEpoch = 18.818 epoch = 0 referenceBody = Sun } PQS { radius=69911000 }

Granted. Your wish is true. That is all. I wish this wish was false.

Although this thread hasn't been posted in for over a month, I think it will do well to restart the discussion in light of the most recent news. According to space.com (which many on this forum already read avidly, to my knowledge), Mars One has whittled down the potential astronaut selection pool to 705 and has signed a deal with Darlow Smithson Productions to host their TV show (although I've not been able to find much about them from a quick search; are they reputable? Popular?) So, with that new information, has the discussion changed? Now that they actually have the deal, is it more likely that they will at the very least launch their first mission?

For a first project, why not a simple projectile-physics-based game? The player could progress through a series of challenges in which he/she must complete objectives of increasing difficulty; for example, the first mission might be to simply shoot the cannon's projectile straight up, but later challenges might involve getting the projectile to hit a target somewhere on the screen or intercept another projectile. Kind of like a combination of Angry Birds, Simple Physics, but with more math. As for my dream game, I've always hoped for Felipe Falanghe and Vladimir Romanyuk to team up (perhaps merge their software?) into the ultimate space-exploration game. Or perhaps just SpaceEngine's planned space exploration game begin with the dawn of manned exploration, and have the player develop infrastructure in their own solar system before venturing out into the unknown. Or maybe that combined with something like Spore or (potentially) Thrive, where you must evolve your creature first. Also, a more extensive version of Civilization V (with battles akin to those from the Total War saga) taking the place of civilization stage. How great that would be . . . But its probably setting the bar a little high. Just recognize your limits and create what you feel is in your power to accomplish.

But the note: CNN PRODUCER NOTE - NASA has confirmed via email that this story is false. A spokeswoman for the Jet Propulsion Laboratory says that the largest object detected by NEOWISE measures 3 km in diameter and poses no risk to Earth. The iReport has been removed. . . . NASA had to step in to say that no, there will not be a planet-threatening collision with an asteroid on the 35th of March several decades from now. The media never fails to disappoint.

About 3 solar masses worth of star is created each year, but most of those are red dwarves, so I put the number of stars created each year at 6 (although that's probably a bit high). It seems likely that most, if not all, star systems develop planets, so I put that value at 100%. However, Kepler data suggests that one in five sun-like stars has a terrestrial planet in the habitable zone, so I think the number of habitable planets per star system is about 0.2. Then it gets a little harder. Due to the fact that Earth life arose very shortly after the continuous orbital bombardment of the surface ceased, it seems that most habitable planets develop life. However, "terrestrial and in the habitable zone" is not equivalent to "habitable". The thickness of the atmosphere and the strength of the magnetic field can vary greatly from planet to planet (just look at Venus and Mars). Both Venus and Mars are in the habitable zone, so I'll use 33% for this value as I have nothing better to put. For the intelligence factor, I am going to side with the "life trends towards intelligence" side. Yes, many many species have existed on Earth over the course of it's 4.5 billion year lifetime, but the ancestors of modern humans were in a much better position to develop intelligence than any other species before. Life began simple and worked its way up towards intelligence, so that now we have a whole host of intelligent creatures from humans to apes to octopodes to crows, and most stars in the galaxy are red dwarves, which have lifespans of trillions of years. It seems likely that most planets with life eventually develop intelligence. Thus, I set this value to 85%. If we turn the "percent civilizations that can communicate across space" bit into "percent civilizations that destroy themselves" (I put 50% (although it should probably be less): we came very close to nuclear war with the Soviet Union several times over the course of the Cold War) and take the length part to mean how long a surviving civilization lasts (if they overcome the threat of destroying themselves, probably a very long time), we get a more interesting answer. It tells us that there are about one and a half million civilizations in the galaxy. Most of them probably wouldn't be detectable, though. If we assume that all civilizations get the ability to send radio waves out into the galaxy but this period only lasts about 100 years (as seems to be the case with our civilization), that means there are only about 34 detectable civilizations in our galaxy. That few civilizations means that we probably will never detect another alien civilization, unless the more advanced ones purposefully contact us or we ourselves gain the ability to detect their "radio" chatter. Still, 1.5 million civilizations means that around only one in every 200 (0.5%) stars has ever hosted a civilization, and only in every 9 million or so (0.00001%) have a civilization around our own level of sophistication that we could detect. With these statistics, SETI seems like a pointless endeavor. To scan 9 million stars in 100 years would mean that each star would only be given 350 seconds of listening time, which is simply unrealistic. Of course, building more arrays would enable us to scan that same number of stars in significantly less time, but the nearest civilization would still be so far away that the chances of detecting them would be minimal. But still, one in 200 is a lot. There could very well be an advanced civilization within one hundred lightyears of us, more than capable of determining the existence of life on Earth through spectral analysis. We may have no idea where they are, but don't be too sure about them.

Alright, but whenever I try to export a procedural object (such as a random selena I find in a random star system), it tells me "Object not found." Also, I am having some problems getting this compatible with Real Solar System (which I intend to use in conjunction with the planets that I am making). Any help on that would also be appreciated.

I'm probably overlooking something really rudimentary here, but how does one take surface_bump and surface_diff textures from Space Engine? Clicking on Info, then going to Export, choosing "This Object Only," and then finishing only yields a .cfg in the game's Export folder containing the name of the body, its location, its parent body, its "Pioneer," and the date of its discovery. I only tried it for Io, but that was all I found. What am I missing?

89.42 seconds.

Rather recently... *Teacher, wanting to teach us about effective Google search terms, reads short paragraph about the Space Race* Teacher: Now, what would be some good search terms if we wanted to do research about the Space Race? Student: Maybe . . . Sputnik (implied question mark) and Apollo- . . . what was it called? Teacher: Soyuz. Student: Right! Apollo-Soyuz! That's not the most depressing one. I often partake in the school's "Science Bowl" competition, which offers a great insight as to what science questions are considered not public knowledge. Biology questions can range anywhere from "Which of the following organisms is included in phylum xyz?" to "Which has the most chromosomes? Option A, B, C, or D?" Space, however? You just have to know the order of the planets, the orbital period of the moon, and maybe the major moons of Jupiter. It doesn't even have it's own category: it is in the "Earth and Space Science" category (and most of the questions in that category pertain to geology, which I have no love for). Anyway, at least here in New York, the elementary school science education segment is (if my memory serves me) divided into what are essentially year-long units. For example, one year is devoted entirely to plants, another to basic life science, another to basic physical processes (like the water cycle). If the Department of Education partitioned a unit devoted to space (which they might have really early on already), it would hopefully serve to foster interest in space in the future American public (or if we do already have it but really early on, postpone it until the children are mature enough to appreciate it). In such a unit, kids would learn the order of the planets, the major moons of those planets (Mars and Jupiter alone if the 13 major moons between Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune is too much), and interesting facts to spark their curiosity ("There is so little gravity on Deimos that you could jump into orbit!" or "We don't know what's under the crust of Jupiter's moon Europa, but some scientists think that alien fish could be hiding there!" or "Saturn's moon Titan seems similar to Earth at first, but its lakes are made of liquid methane!"). Honestly, I have no idea if that would work, but hopefully it would do something(?).

At the very least I think we should standardize pluralization and pronunciation. To give some examples: Fox - Box - Ox: Currently the plurals of each of these are foxes - boxes - oxen, which makes no sense. We should make the plural of ox "oxes" to be standard with the rest of English spelling. Similarly: Louse/Lice - Mouse/Mice - House/Houses - grain of rice/rice: The more logical solution would be to replace the words lice and mice with "louses" and "mouses". We could also call a grain of rice a "rouse" and the plural "rouses". One last pluralization one: Moose/Moose - Goose/Geese: Again, if we are looking to make everything standard, these words should become "moose/mooses" and "goose/gooses". As for pronunciation, there is one that really gets on my nerves: Active/Passive: Currently these are pronounced act-iv and pas-iv, but supposedly a vowel-consonant-e combination makes the first vowel "say its name". According to that rule (which is true in most English words), the above words should be pronounced act-eye-v and pas-eye-v. Alternatively their spellings could be changed to "activ" and "passiv" to reflect their pronunciation. I think that these changes would make English an easier language to learn, facilitating global trade and diplomacy. Alternatively we could all adopt Esperanto, but I have no idea how standard that language is.

Also, why not make the body thicker along with the limbs? And perhaps make the creature a little shorter so that its mouth is closer to the ground?

Sometimes I feel guilty when playing video games. Sometimes I stop and remember that I am 14 and thus legally allowed to work here in the United States. I realize I could have a part-time job during the weekend (when I play the most: schoolwork has been heavy this year) and donate the money I get to a charity or to help children in much poorer countries. At the very least I could work towards improving myself: I want to finish reading through my biology textbook by the end of this year, but we only have 2 months left and I'm only through a tenth of it. The sad thing is that this happens every weekend. I simply cannot stay away from Kerbal Space Program.

So as I was rewatching the 0.23.5 release trailer, I noticed the orbital path on the big screen in the control room. But then I thought that the path looked an awful lot like a graph of the sine or cosine functions. Compare this: To this: So, the question is: what equation defines the graph of the projection of inclined orbits onto a map? I think inclination affects amplitude, but I can't really figure anything else besides that. Shifting shouldn't be a factor because the orbit shifts itself, but what function defines the shift that occurs with each orbit relative to orbital period and inclination? How would one figure this out?

The weather cooperated until midnight here. Then it didn't. I am sad.

I am having a similar problem with this latest version as SlimeCrusher. The planet remains as Kerbin, and the KSC is underground (setting setToSphereSurface doesn't remedy this). The planet is real-sized and in its proper orbit, as are the inner planets, but all the planets beyond Kerbin's orbit (Duna, Jool, Eeloo) are in their normal-sized orbits. No object other than Kerbin has been resized. Any idea about what could be going on?

South Korea has something along these lines, I think. It's called the Super aEgis II: http://www.gizmag.com/korea-dodamm-super-aegis-autonomos-robot-gun-turret/17198/