Sirrobert

That is just one of the difficult things we have to keep up with in order to get the rest of the system to work right. Like leap years

Alternatively, in realistic aerodynamics such as FAR, a very sharp turn will cause your rocket to flip out of control. Starting your gravity turn early will also mean you will input most of your speed during the gravity turn, which means you don't have to burn as much in orbit to finalize the orbit. It's much easier than burning 1,3km/s deltaV at apoaps, hoping you don't lose to much altitude before you can reach orbital velocity

THE NETWORK had more than 17 millions. The very next sentence goes "Combined with a massive number for Television (9.2 million) and a total of 26.5 million people in the States watched Mario Gotze give Germany its first Cup in 24 years" I would love to give you numbers for worldwide handegg numbers. Unfortunatly, I have been unable to find any. Perhaps this is where you can provide some numbers of your own, since this is the point you are trying to make. I am however comparing a sport that is practiced around the world, to one that is practiced in a single country. So there is some sense in comparing world wide, vs a single country. Logic states that the majority of the numbers for the sport practiced in a single country are going to come from that country. And I don't care what the NFL claims. Both FIFA and NFL are clearly blowing up the numbers. So I'm looking at different sources for both. However, I did find a statement on Wikipedia potentially explaining the 1 billion number "This figure refers to the number of people able to watch the game, not the number of people actually watching. However the statements have been frequently misinterpreted in various media as referring to the latter figure, leading to a common misperception about the game's actual global audience." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Bowl#Television_coverage_and_ratings) Source with that sentence: http://web.archive.org/web/20090924184703/http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2006-02/2006-02-03-voa5.cfm Quote from this source: "The coverage is expected to reach up to one billion viewers around the world." Emphasis on coverage, implying the ability to watch, not actually people watching. I'd also like to adress your claim about me hating American sports. I understand why you feel this, seeing as I argue against your points. I am however, simply uninterested in American sports. Additionally, I'm not really interested in footbal either. However, I am interested in disputing false claims. Which is what I am doing here, and why I spent a little time digging up these numbers

You're trying to compare a sport that is watched over the ENTIRE WORLD to a sport that is very big in a single country. It's cute. And you need to practice your google skills. Even the numbers you do claim are wrong EDIT: I did some more googling for you, because I am bored 1 billion viewers world wide for the World Cup finale A RECORD BREAKING 111million viewers for the Superbowl in the same year Interestinglly enough, it seems that the Superbowl makes some outrageous claims about viewer numbership. Now FIFA does the same thing, but to a much smaller degree. In 2006, they aparently both claimed 750million+, but the actual numbers were estimated at 260million vs 98million

You're the one claiming those numbers came from the US

Didn't life basicly start as complex organic molecules that were able to copy themselves?

Right, so only in the US, a country that doesn't even care that much for actual Football, football gets 9 times the views as Handegg. How do you think it'll be in countries where football IS the biggest thing ever, and noone even plays Handegg

It's unattachable because the ROOT part is the only part in a subassambly that can be attatched to anything after loading it. That's how the system works. Since the root part is usually surrounded by parts on all sides on a full sized craft, there are no open connection points on the root part. We now have a stock system to change the root part. So move the root part to whatever the part is that you want to connect to the rocket after loading the subassambly. It's perfectly usable, you're just missing a step

I always start a new game when we get a new update, so nothing

Go ahead. Do some google search comparing the World Cup to your Superbowl. There are some very interesting numbers. (in case you're lazy: The 2010 world cup final had some 900million views, and 2014 superbowl 110million

We don't. Everything is we know is is theories and asumptions based on what we currently know. Currently, we have a set of critiria that a thing needs to fulfill in order to be concidered alive. I can't find the exact list at the moment, but the ones I remember are: Interaction with the enviroment, reproduction. Viruses can't reproduce on their own. They need a host to do it for them. That's the reason they are not concidered alive. This definition seems to encapsulate all super strange new life forms we find, and if we find something that common sense would call alive, but doesn't fit in the definition, we might have to change the definition.

Climate is way to complex to be able to sumerize the entire thing in such a small question. We don't even know what the weather will be next week

No, they don't hold with weak magnetics. They pull tougether using weak magnetics, after that they are properly secured. And yes, if you design it properly, they will hold. As with all things. No, there is no difference between a docking port set fresh out of the VAB, and one 'reconnected' You tried the shielded docking port, but not the BIG docking port for your gigantic rockets? Sounds like an oversight

We have docking ports for that

And thus, you can rotate just fine with SAS on. Your statement was false, or simply worded wrongly

What the hell is Hamachi?

Actually life on earth started without any oxygen. The sudden influx of oxygen caused a mass extinction. Oxygen is actually pritty toxic stuf. More generally, methane is an example of an organic molecule, which can only be formed by life (or geological activity), and is (relatively) quickly decomposed in an atmosphere. So the exitance of such organic molecules would be a strong hint towards life

It is still very much real for the people harrassed by it.

The windows 64 bit version is buggy, don't use it

So wait. In normal laptops, when it says 100% battery, it's actuall 80? And it shuts down at 20%?

Perfect idea. This is just the thing their What If's are for

Wait. That friend doesn't happen to be a supervillain right? On the question: Aren't rainforests also responsible for maintaining the rain cycle? I read somewhere that it's the existance of the rainforests that causes the massive rains there in the first place. Burning down all the trees would probably screw with our weather first. No doubt expanding the deserts, making those areas much harder to live in

A you mean fairings. Yes, we need some stackable parachutes that you can put stuf ontop off. In the meantime, RealChute mod does offer those chutes.

If you have mechjeb, you can mark a location and tell it to autoland. If you don't want to, you can use manouver nodes to plan out the exact landing in advance

There is mods, or do it as you're doing it now. PS: an out of game editor is essentially also a mod