p1t1o

Each to their own. Planning the wedding is way over the horizon at the moment but we also dont particularly like the idea of spending huge amounts on what is essentially a party either. Because we would also like to save for a house, it may even end up being a handful of people at the registry office. The rings are not "investments", we intend them to be heirlooms, simply because we like the idea of passing things along - her engagement ring was my Mother's, initially because I couldn't afford *any* ring, but it has forged a link that we find quite special and we want to build on it. Now I dont want to spend ridiculous amounts on jewellery (3 months salary!! Who the frack does that? Who CAN do that?) but I/we have plenty of time to save money and I cant bring myself to buy a ring for £50 off amazon and call it an "heirloom".

Not a bad shout actually, could choose an altitude band(s) as well.

Heyho, just a note - you are describing electrolysis, electrophoresis is where you use a potential difference to draw substances through a medium, usually a gel, to separate them by molecular weight, similar to chromatography. (Electrolysis usually occurs during electrophoresis as you are putting a voltage through a carrier solution) You're thread drew my eye because I was once a student LabTech whose main job was running electrophoresis experiments. I earned the nickname "The Gel King" because I could run 4 machines at once The "gunk" you get with electrolysis I think are agglomerations of various insoluble oxides, probably from the electrodes, but also possibly from interactions with various ions in the water depending on how "hard" it is. Obviously never drink anything...hopefully you just typed that to head off paranoid readers!...good practice is not to eat or drink anything anywhere near your experiments, get a white coat,a box of rubber gloves and some goggles. Its not just to look the part, even with innocuous chemicals and reactions, this is the minimum PPE for almost any chemistry. In any case, the gunk is probably not that toxic, maybe irritant at most so you dont want it on your skin or in your eyes (plus none of this discussion is *proof* that it is safe), you may be changing the pH of the solution as well. Basically in chemistry *always* avoid contact with your reagents/reaction. And if for some reason you do decide to scale this up significantly, production of gases like chlorine or hydrogen could become a concern, so if you do, do it outside. You should definitely do it in a ventilated area in any case. To get cleaner electrolytic reactions, you need to use laboratory-grade reagents, ultra-pure water (Kitchen filter will not help much. Try distilled water if you can make or preferably buy any) and electrodes made of something like carbon (graphite) or platinum. Pencil lead could work if you can get workably large pieces or you might be able to get graphite electrodes from a radioshack equivalent.

I didnt really have an idea of what Ti rings cost, but yeah you arent really paying for the raw materials Its not that I *specifically* want to say that about a ring, but I do like that it is special. In fact I doubt I'd bother telling many people about its origin. We aren't rolling in cash (like, at all) but it is one thing we want to make slightly something...something...well, just *something* y'know? Know what I mean? Still undecided though. Heck I wont even need the thing for at least like a year.

The osmium jewelery I saw did not look like plain metallic osmium (described as "crystalline"), in fact the page went a bit odd: http://www.osmium-rings.com/c/mid,30105,Crystalline_osmium_as_an_investment/ Dont really know what that is about or even if it is a good idea to make jewellery out of it. Anyhoo, I dont like the look of it much and its probably way expensive. Front runners are the pattern-welded steel example shown above, and a slim plain titanium band from this website: http://www.mach3ti.com/Pages/default.aspx - Cool or cheesy? I also really like the idea of a high-spec ceramic as a material but cant get over the idea that it would be more fragile and not be able to last the several decades that I need it to, even though these ceramics are supposed to be super-strong. Anyone have any relevant experience?

One thing about these trails is that their appearance is dependent on humidity, something I am sure is not modelled in KSP - having them flick on and off just on speed and angle-of-attack criteria would not be very realistic (and IMO would appear too frequently to be "eye candy").

Its true, every job is different, you're the only one who knows the "lay of the land". Its just a bit tricky for us anonymous folks, nobody wants to give you advice that might get you in hot water - even knowing everyone is "fine" with it, you never know what might change so being on the other side of it is still not that comfortable. Good luck though, every company has these things. We have just had a *massive* company-wide microsoft software update and it has fra-a-a-acked things up.

Yup, if the company goes so far as to lock USB ports, then using proxy servers to get past firewalls is really playing with fire. (no pun intended)

Here in the UK we have a pretty wide selection of accents as well, from Glaswegian to Mancunian to Cockney. People here are always getting them wrong, someone will try and do a "Northern" accent (this refers to a Northern England, think "You know nothing John Snow") and end up sounding Scottish. Or someone will think that everyone who lives north of the M25 (read: London) is a Geordie (Newcastle accent: "Wey-aye lad! Fancy a stottie?"). Noone really gets that mad about it, its just funny usually. Its a matter of honour and light-hearted competition knowing which accents are from where here. You can get high marks, for instance, being able to pick out a Glaswegian from a group of Scots (That difference is hard to type. A Glaswegian will probably say "Big Man" at least twice per sentence). Accents are odd, I understand that peopleontheinternetTM can really get one wound up, but peopleontheinternetTM really dont matter.

Plz no.

Ah sorry buddy, I dont have KSP installed at the mo.

That says "One cannot be sure of what weapons are dropped where or when." This says "How can one *not* know when and where a nuclear weapon is detonated." So? What gives? Where would you like the discussion to go next?

Ok this is disintegrating into a discussion about what, if *anything* can be relied upon with 100%, philosophical-grade "proof". *Any* discussion can be instantly degraded into this very same quagmire if one wilfully ignores the essential social assumptions that people need to make inorder to stay sane, ie: the physical workld that we can see/hear/touch is "real". Things we experience are "real". Other people are real. Nothing is imaginary except those things which we deliberately and conciously imagine, etc etc... That is what gets us through day-to-day. Pretending that one is skeptical of something/everything because you dont have in front of you extensive physical evidence actually on-hand can be done by anyone and is not even particularly hard, even a 4 year old can do it - you never hear a toddler ask his mum: "Why? Why? Why? Why? Why?". It doesn't generate much interesting discussion IMO.

No, we are back to "if it looks real then its probably real, if it looks fake, then its probably fake." Because it is VERY hard to make something fake look *really* "real" to a human eye. That is not opinion, it is due to the nature of our biological components. Even the very latest state-of-the-art CGI only fools you for a little while, and that is without close scrutiny. I did not say compare it to NASA footage, ok I mentioned the space shuttle and the ISS which both have heavy NASA involvement, but there are other people aboard the ISS at least. What I meant was, *any* type of industrial recording, specifically from the space industry but other footage would count as well. What Im getting at is footage shot in similarly heavy-machinery and human-safety types of environments, regardless of which organisation is involved. But even if we take footage comparison out of the picture entirely - compare it to your own eyes, your own eyes should tell you there are things "off" about the Saturn footage. Even strange things that dont look how you expect dont look fake, "fake" is a specific property and the saturn clip has it. Ah well now you're moving towards philosophy - are *we* real? Is *anything* real? What IS real? Am I an AI? Are you talking to a bot? Is this a pre-recorded reply? To have any kind of meaningful discussion, you have to make some (usually un-said) assumptions.

Welcome to the forums! First, 2 links: http://www.sciencemadness.org/library/books/ignition.pdf (can take a while to load, I just tested the link and it works) http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/ The first is a book detailing some wonderful anecdotes in the history of rocketry development. Its very well written and straight from the horses mouth. Its a very good primer for how modern rocketry came to be and what real rocket science is really like. My favorite part is the part about lemons The second is a great repository of rocketry science. Intended as a resource for people writing science fiction, it has great current information on various types of modern, projected and hypothetical space propulsion - and it also has chapters on other interesting things such as space weaponry, navigation etc. You might find that either of these links answer a lot of your questions. Happy spacing!

Im not sure I understand? Watching those films doesnt tell me anything about the "realness" of this clip. I can say though, that Gravity (being the best remembered one to me at the moment) looks a hell of a lot realler than the Saturn video. When common mass-market fiction looks more real, you are not making a very convincing fake video. You dont need to compare this footage to *space* footage to be able to make a judgement, you need to compare it to *real* footage (of anything) to make the judgement. Dont compare the Saturn clip to movies, compare it to the onboard footage from a space shuttle launch, or footage from an ISS spacewalk or any industrial record-keeping footage.

No, its not about recognising an object from memory, that video is not just a shot of Saturn from on-high. Its about how real the object look in context with one another. A good example is the fake-CGI "shakycam" effect which is both too bumpy and not-bumpy-enough, its hard to put into words why it looks fake, but it does, and is. You want me to say "Yeah this *looks* fake but I've never seen footage from saturn before so how should I know?" but I've never seen footage of a shrek in real life before but Im reasonably certain that he is just a CGI construct.

I generally agree with the OP, regardless of game, reaching the end of a tech/skill tree always triggers a kind of melancholy within me as it always signals the end-stages of a game. Sometimes I have grown bored of a game in between finishing the tech/skill progression and actually reaching the end. Very depressing. Some games combat this by making it not possible to unlock everything (limited skill/research points available), in KSP this is less possible, but some things could be done to extend life - for example, more nodes with fewer techs in each (if you are using mods, you often have some empty nodes and some nodes with huge numbers of unrelated parts), and I think the idea of repeatable tech nodes for cash or other resources is a decent idea.

I for one, love minigames and would welcome their addition to KSP if handled well. It/they would have to be: For something that doe not require you to do it *too* often. Having a minigame for science experiments might just be putting an obstacle in front of something that used to be routine (You've arrived at Duna, now play this minigame 25 times before landing), and would we need multiple types of game for different experiments or the same one? Problems with both approaches. How about 1 game played required per planet, to enable science collection, or something? Or a game to unlock/enhance individual biomes? Game could be related to an researchable part. Optional. You should be able to succeed without ever playing the minigame, or at least without ever winning it. Playing/Winning should enable you to succeed *better*. Sciencey but not too sciencey. Real science work is often tedious and repetitive, lets not stick too closely to that paradigm. Also, maths is not fun no matter who says what.

On a side note, I run W7 and have 2 monitors, W7 does not appear to like this very much as it is random chance (yes I have tried most everything to get it to "stick") whether or not it will recognise both monitors on startup, I sometimes have to turn off-and-on several times before I get both monitors up. When it does, it works fine. Also W7 can no longer be purchased (not even just the serial code) directly from Microsoft and update support will end this year apparently. Personally I will be moving to W10 asap purely for hardware-support reasons - relatively new computer has fairly up-to-date parts and is already showing signs of not playing well with W7 and I have had to retire some hardware for this reason

Not "quality" as in pure resolution or signal-to-noise, but "quality" as in how object appear in reality as opposed to if they are put together unnaturally - subtle effects of light and shade that disagree with the eye, motions of objects with respect to other objects etc.

Sure, if NASA posted a video that also looked as real as a 1989 sitcom, I wouldn't believe that one either.

Thanks to all for the congratulations Current front-runner - "damascus" steel (Well...at least "pattern welded" steel...) Not a definitive choice, but this material ticks boxes, and this is a quite nice understated example: https://stonebrookjewelry.com/collections/damascus-steel/products/damascus-steel-ring-wedding-band-dome-style-genuine-craftsmanship

I dont see it as quite that loose. You can have whatever technology you want without relying on physics, but any special powers have to be specifically stated. Lightsabres can cut through almost anything, but you clearly cant extend one to a length of 1km. Though power requirements or any other physical law that prevents this are not delineated, any ability to do this is never mentioned, and therefore deos not exist in-universe. Same goes for lightsabre-proof materials. Unless specifically stated as resistant, any material is vulnerable, otherwise nothing is. Its a small, petty matter, sure. But it irks me because it makes me think that whoever was designing it was designing a cool-looking trinket and not designing a jedi weapon.

The OA is a recent TV series steeped in mystery and in its current status, like many stories, is open to "interpretation" - ie: what we know so far from what we have watched could fit with several, disparate explanations. If you havn't realised yet: SPOILERS ******************************************** Rather than go through all possible explanations, I'll just give mine. I dont have a "grand unified" picture of the story, only some parts do I think I have the "correct" impression. Firstly, the last sequence, specifically the moment when they stand up to perform the movements, had me burst into tears, much to my *own* surprise, but I digress... I think that the metaphysical aspects of the story are real. I do not think that the story has been made up by her in response to trauma. Through some kind of interaction, this group of people have been exposed to a set of techniques for manipulating reality in a heretofore unexpected manner. The techniques are not "artsy-fartsy", they are not healing with "the power of love" or any hippy mumbo-jumbo. The movements are movements of matter through space. Some physical law dictates that certain complex movements of matter through space/time have a specific impact on underlying reality. The "perfect feeling", the different emotions that the performers display in concert with the motions are similarly, movements of matter through space/time, but on a much more subtle level. It is a physical effect, similar to how me making a pencil move in a certain manner through space/time can convert a plain piece of paper into a story, or a work of art - the emotional content of the 5 moves are not equivalent to my emotional makeup if I was, say, using the aforementioned pencil to write an emotional story, they are (just like the grosser physical movements) equivalent to the pencil. I was thinking that sometimes in stories, some characters/superheroes are given powers limited only by their imagination. And how these powers are so often squandered in the most base of ways: Example 1 - In one of the Green Lantern movies, the green lantern, using his essentially unlimited powers, uses giant fists to beat up a bunch of people. Example 2 - In the movie "Lucy", Lucy is granted essentially unlimited power and defeats a hallways of assailants not by brute force or firepower, but merely by removing their threat, and placing them physically out of her way. I always thought that my first instinct if intervening in a violent conflict with unlimited power would be to cease all atomic motion within a volume of space. Then these 5 come along in the last sequence of the OA, ostensibly angels granted a great-if-not-unlimited power, in confronting a violent attacked, deal with him in a wholly unexpected manner - by changing, or attempting to change (the way I see it they were interrupted) the very reality underlying the situation. Whether they meant to "cure" his violent urges by using their movements in a healing manner like the other times, or whether they meant to change reality in another way (say, by forking the timeline by force to a track where the violence was much less - perhaps the cook who tackled the shooter was not an interruption but was exactly this). Perhaps they didnt know what they would do, but they knew to do the movements. Anyway, the nature of their intervention was an extremely inspired piece of cinema, if you ask me. *** Moments before the cafeteria sequence, BBA is exiting the school due to the alert. She turns back and re-enters the school. This may have just been a natural protective instinct to her pupils, but this doesn't quite scan (the environment is one similar to a fire drill, maximum safety is if everyone leaves the buildings ASAP. She even gets in the way of quite a few people trying to exit on her way back in). It seems more like she felt she was needed and she knew where. She was not told to go there by the OA, she received no instruction. Yet all necessary actors were on-scene at the prescribed time. This lends weight to the idea that this is not the OA's fantasy. Similarly, these kids in the cafeteria did not just learn a funny dance and decide to try their luck against a live shooter with it on the off-chance they distract him long enough to end the situation without being shot down immediately. They had conviction in the real power of the movements, more than that, they were able to perform flawlessly (or so we persume...) in the face of extreme danger. This says to me that the "gift" almost has a will of its own, acting through these people, they are influenced in some way to take these actions. Or were at least assured of their validity. The way it happened they all acted almost on instinct. A newly learned sequence of mere movements does not become this sort of instinct very easily and they had only known them for a few days. Something brought them together at the right place and time that wasn't the OA telling them to by making up a story. Random chance seems implausible, unless by the manipulation of random chance. *** On the nature of the "other dimensions" and their NDE travels: The OA states that the "future is dark", not dark-evil, dark-dark. This seems to be relating to the starry, "space-field" environment where the characters go during a NDE and where they meet Khatun. This realm can be returned from if one makes the choice to, apparently represented by the act of consuming a living creature within the realm. References are made to the "many worlds" interpretation - that a "new" universe/dimension/layer is split off any time a choice is made. Reference is made to many of these realities being "layered" together, much in the way we would traditionally imagine parallel universes. They do not require their bodies to visit Khatun, whereas it can be inferred that if travelling to one of the "alternate layers", it would be physically similar to our own universe, thus you would require a body. It is stated that one may lose ones memory if one travels between "dimensions". As far as I am concerned, the "correct" interpretation of this is still pending further information, we can still only make guesses to tie the above together. At the moment all I have are questions. Is the starry realm where Khatun resides a "layer"/"dimension"? Or is it an in-between place? One does not seem to require a body to go there. Is the starry-realm out-of-time? Why are the entities there concerned with human acts of "great evil" (and why this specific act)? Does inter-dimensional travel require someone's death? Does the travel actually resemble dying? Is "normal" death an interdimensional transit? Have they or the OA already traveled and forgotten? Are any of the "present-day" main characters actually persons from Hap's lab in new bodies? New bodies seems out-of-scope for me, mainly because it would either require the hi-jacking of someone elses body/life or the creation of an entirely new life from scratch (so who lives that bodies childhood and when?) I mean, bring time travel/manipulation into the equation and the bets are really off - is the timeline on one layer even matched up at all with any other? Or with the starry realm? *** Khatun makes reference to "averting a great evil", which appears to be the shooter at the end. This seems a fairly trivial matter to be referred to as a "great evil" by an entity that exists out of time and can bring about decades-long plans to bring extremely implausible possibilities to bear. Especially when, say, The OA's own bus-crash (implied as a similarly terroristic/human-violence event) as a little girl is fairly comparable to this "great evil" (the tragic deaths of a busload of young girls vs the tragic deaths of several magazines-worth of schoolkids). Tragic and messed-up as school shootings are, why was *this* event singled out as a "great evil" requiring the (sometimes tragic in its own right) manipulation of many people's lives over many decades and the unleashing of reality-bending powers to avert? This inspires the question - was the shooter in fact the "great evil", or is it still to come? Seems less likely since a 2nd season is not for sure, they have only said that they would love to do one. Would be weird to leave out the "great evil" for season 2 not even knowing if there would be one. *** Yeh, so, an incomplete picture to be sure. Its not just a "its up to your own interpretation" thing, there does not seem to be enough information to resolve many important questions. The creators themselves do say that there is a "correct" interpretation (in that they know how they would continue the story should a 2nd season go ahead) and they have stated that here are many clues within the show, many I am certain to have missed. Loved it though and even if it ends here, a very fine piece of work indeed, IMHO.