Gargamel

It is. But mine is showing 1.4.2 as the max version available, so if you are only showing mods that are listed as compatible with 1.4.3 or 1.4.4, then it won't show up.

If anybody is doing it right, it's probably NASA. They might be a government organization, but when it comes things that leave the ground, I put my money on them everytime.

Wrong. Wrong too!

Most forums have a couple extra sub forums that are invisible to regular members. Only accounts with the correct permissions (ie moderators) can see them. This is all customizable by the people who setup the forum.

Bad link to the pic. Usually, if textures aren't loading, they aren't installed properly. Have you been reinstalling from the same download? If so, clear out everything, and re-download again, you may just have gotten a wonky download (doubtful.. but....). But a clean install means that there should be nothing left of the previous version before you install it again, as if it was never on your machine. If that doesn't work, post up the KSP.log so we can see whats going on.

If the file structure is Fubar.... well.... Then then file structure is the problem... I can't open the log, as the server isn't found for me. But I'd start by just deleting everything. Everything. Download a fresh copy of KSP, install it, and run it stock. Don't do anything till that runs. Then don't do mods the way you were doing mods. Use CKAN, or install them manually. Place each folder from a mod in the correct location.

Shapeways used to do 3d prints of rockets you built, so yes there is a mechanism to do this, but No, I don't know the details.

Dang it.. Yeah... I first heard it as Kolniya, and that stuck. Explains why I was having trouble googling that for the spell check....

Basically, A polar Kolniya orbit. With a few satellites, and a high enough Ap, it would almost appear to a ground station to be a stationary relay sat.

I can get behind this one, and a few other items that could be added to action groups.

The Mk2 expansion pack has a number of VTOL engines in the mk2 form factor. As to it being stock, well.... There are other tings that need added/fixed first. I've made stock VTOLs using a mk2 cargo bay and an engine mounted facing down.

It will usually reset if you switch vessels to one out of physics range, or to the KSC. It really becomes a problem if the shifted part is now in the way of a decoupling/undocking action.

There's a much simpler way to go about it. @Cunjo Carl Where I think you fell into the trap, and I say I think, because I don't really follow your explanation, is that if you do the the math without considering the cylinder and bullet positions, you still get 1/3 for the first player, but if you eliminate one empty chamber, then the math becomes 2/5.

Well, yes that is the scenario, technically, but I wanted to avoid that here on the forums.

Living on a submarine should work out pretty well, as long as we dispose of the dead quickly enough.

Very cool, overly complicated way to do it, but very cool. Aside from, I believe, you have the win condition backwards. First person to fire the gun loses. I think you fell into the trap of the question. Not sure though.

That's been popping up on my suggested feed, I'll have to watch that....

Why not?

With the other thread in mind: I'll post up this question. Starting a new thread to keep the discussions separate, as they are different. Again some of you will get this quickly, some won't, so spoiler tags please if you don't mind. Since we're on a PG rated forum, I'm going to go less Deer Hunter here, and more Toy Story. I believe I first read about this as one of those stupid interview questions the big tech companies used to ask. You and a competitor are given a (one) revolver that has 6 chambers in the cylinder. The Game master has loaded 2 bullets, in consecutive chambers into and spun the cylinder so that the chamber that rests under the firing hammer is random (purely random). The gun is mounted so that when the trigger is pulled, it will always hit the target. The object of the game is to be the last person to hit the target. You have no way of knowing the location of the bullets in the cylinder. You win the coin toss, and are allowed to choose if you want to shoot first or second. What do you choose and why?

OK, wow, I get sick for a couple days, and this thread explodes. Excellent! As long as we kept it civil. I only glanced at it. I have a hard time arguing against the 50/50 answer, as it makes total sense. But it depends on your point of view. There are two children, hence there are 4 possible combinations of children. (please excuse this horribly formatted chart) Child2 Boy Girl Child 1 Boy Boy/Boy Boy/Girl Girl Girl/Boy Girl/Girl Since we know that one of the children is a Boy, that excludes the Girl/Girl option. Boy/Boy Boy/Girl Girl/Boy Girl/Girl Therefore, the answer is 1/3. BUT! An argument can therefore be made that since the first child is a boy, that also excludes the Girl/Boy option. Boy/Boy Boy/Girl Girl/Boy Girl/Girl Bringing us back to the 50/50 answer. BUT!!! A counterargument to the counterargument can then be made that order doesn't matter, as we're not sure which one is the first child, they could be running around in circles! And now I have typed/read the words Boy and Girl so much, they look weird and no longer have meaning. Annnd.... continue...

See, this is why I like browsing the tech support forums. Not only do I get to help out on the rare occasion, but I also frequently learn stuff. Kudos Cheese.

Well, since you seem to have tried all the boiler plate things, we're gonna need your log files: And now that your pic has finally loaded for me, we're really gonna need those logs files. Something's really wonky if you're getting that on your load screen.

It is...

Yes, I guess it would, but that is not relevant to the question.

This is incorrect, as the wording in the puzzle is key. It's not "what are the odds the other child is a boy", but "is also a boy". Veritasium is a great channel. Love his videos. Have not watched this one (lately), but if he refutes my answer, I can direct you to a few phd statisticians who agree with it (which is where I got the puzzle from). Interesting data, but we're looking for a simpler answer than that. But yours would be more accurate then a pure 50/50 answer. @5thHorseman Actually, no, a lot simpler, but alas, an argument will always happen, as the answer, when described makes complete sense, but is still somewhat counter intuitive.