Diche Bach

Right, but the ranking is sort of irrelevant, given that two elements (H and He) comprise 99% of the universe and not much less relatively speaking for the solar system. From this standpoint, everything is rare except H and He

Stayputnik or Engineer or Scientist = No, I will not do it. Pilot or one of the probe cores that have some reaction wheel = no problemo.

Well, that is one school of thought one of several. When I say 'desire not to roam' around, what I mean is: the motivations to settle down probably didn't initially have to do with "and this would be a great way to have more / better food, cause we are so hungry all the time." My guess is, it had more to do with "Well what are options these days? We cannot keep roaming around like Grandma and Grandpa did because _insert problem (with population pressures/territoriality/intergroup violence being seemingly prime candidates), so what do we do?" Cargon, oxygen, nitrogen (along with sulfur and phosphorus) "not rare?" I was under the impression that the organic elements were among THE MOST rare in the universe/galaxy/solar system with Earth alone having any relative abundances of these which gets into the ~1% ballpark . . . all from memory so don't quite me on that exact number, but . . . "not rare" is not what I understood carbon and the others to be in the cosmos. EXCEEDINGLY rare is what I understood them to be. Please do correct me if I'm in error, not an area of specialization for me by any means, just something I've taken a passing interest in over the years . . . Worth noting: we humans have been "masters" of domestication for a LOT longer than we have been "farmers" http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1078803/Mans-oldest-friend-Scientists-discover-grandad-modern-dogs--31-700-years-ago.html

Actually, foragers seem to have known fully well how to domesticate plants. Many of them who have been intensively studied in historic times engaged in "passive" domestication. For example, a lady picking berries observes that, in this clump of six bushes, this one is the "best," so she does a bit of digging/weeding/pruning/replanting to help it in favor of the other five. When she and her band come back around to this part of their seasonal round in a year or whatever, the good one will have increased in size numbers relative to the other lower-yielding ones. She almost certainly undersood that: if she and her children took the time to replant 10 or 20% of the "high yield" berries they were collecting, she could turn that little patch into more of a "garden" and less of a "natural clump of berry bushes." But in a world of plenty broken up by nothing more than seasonality and geographic dispersion, why bother? Her and her ancestors had been passing by that clump of berry bushes for as anyone could remember, and knew the times of year to head round that part to exploit it (even to the point of knowing how any particular years variations on weather would impact any particular resource in their territory and thus how to adjust their seasonal round to take advantage of opportunties). If anything, settling down and becoming dependent on a handful of crops may well have led to LESS expertise about botany, climate, physiography, and ecology more generally. The "development" of agriculture probably had more to do with a desire NOT to roam around more than it had to do with a desire to make a living off of intensified domestication. They still are not sure, but population pressure and warfare around the epicenters of the Neolithic seem likely explanations. Also worth keeping in mind: for many thousands of years large fractions of humanity remained foragers else nomadic pastoralists, and these "Bar bar bar . . ." folks tended to be a good reason to build walls around your cities. Also, much of the innovations and cultural "discoveries" that made agriculture work had more to do with social organization, who gives orders and who takes orders, as well as food storage, preparation and division of labor, not necessarily so much with "discovering" how to get grasses to yield more. Indeed, turning the earliest domesticates into what they became later: much more energetically dense if not nutrition-dense foods, often took many generations (a process that has continued in fits and starts throughout the entire history of civilization and with the latest innovations being labeled "Genetic Modfiied Organisms" . . . LOL, we humans have been "genetically modifying organisms for thousands of years, just doing it the old fashioned way! Facilitating some individuals breeding with others!). But the earliest agricultural societies probably suffered a good bit deal of various malnutritional disorders and related pathologies as a result of becoming dependent on a more narrow variety of foods.

Another choo, choo song for the Hype Train . . . I'm quite sure Jeb listen's to Reverend Horton Heat.

So . . . little bit of a side-step but actually still on topic for the thread . . . was reading up about Osiris Rex a bit the other day. Was really surprised that they have _already_ detected evidence of amino acids in either comets or asteroids!? Wish I could find the page I was reading. If that is true, I am stunned because that to me would have been one of the most momentous discoveries of human history, and I just missed it. Have you guys encountered anything about this in your flights of fancy? I know they are confident Bunny (or whatever the name of the target asteroid for Osiris Rex is) has CARBON in it/ on it, but that is a helluva lot different from amino acids as far as I know.

I'm having these issues WITH SAS running. Maybe my error is to NOT turn off SAS while I'm trying to trim??

@suicidejunkie brilliant! I'll have to play with that since I've mastered the simple synchronized 4 sat orbital comms network with RemoteTech!

Let me clarify your message: 1. I have an aircraft (just a normal one nothing special, isolation of the three axes to traditional aileron, elevator, rudder surfaces and using all defeault keybindings, i.e., "Mod" = L-Alt on my Win7_x64 rig . . .) 2. I just got it up to 5000 m after a takeoff at KSC. I've got like 0.9 TWR. I've got my control authorities on my surfaces adjusted so they behave relatively normally (ailerons ~1; rudder ~1; elevators ~45 or so). Now I would like to trim the damn thing so I don't have to sit there holding the S key to keep it from nosing over into a dive while I time warp to the waypoint . . . 3. While still in 1x speed, I take my finger off "S" momentarily (plane starts to pitch anti-radial). 4. I immediately (500ms?) press "L-Alt" and moments later "S." 5. I see the little pitch slider bar on the left crank all the way up to top likewise the nose on my aircraft pitches up. 6. I hold down this key combo until the plane is pitching up too much. Now, what I had assumed was: for each time increment during which this key combo is held down, the app will add a bit more trim (0.5-degrees or whatever) in the specified direction. So, I sit there and hold this key combo for a few seconds as my nose climbs progressively toward rull radial orientation, finally before my plane tips over on its back, I let go. My plane gradually pitches back down to the "below horizon" orientation it had before, but perhaps a bit more up-angled than it was previously. So, in order to use this method to "trim" a vehicle, in my experience one has to do the equivalent of break-dancing through the air for a few minutes to get the plane to "stick" to a sufficiently > 0 but not too large pitch that you can maintain level flight = not just stupid looking while you do it, but annoying too. What you seem to be telling me is: when I get to step 6, what I should be doing is "repeatedly tapping" S, not holding it down?

DAMN! Always running out of like allowance within hours of logging on to this board!

Loaded like a freight train Flyin like an airplane Feelin like a space brain One more time tonight Nigh . . . erm I mean HYPE train!

Yeah the trim keys are also defined in the KSPedia. But in my experience with aero craft, it doesn't work worth a damn. Perhaps I was using it wrong though . . . you seem to be saying that the key stroke is: Press Alt + (specific WASD) -> release, and repeat for each "increment" of trim you want to add. I foolishly assumed this was configured to work by pressing and holding, you know, the way that would make sense given you are trying to trim an aircraft going 200m/s and maybe cannot really afford to be letting go of your "nose up" key repeatedly . . .

@627 Are those hand grenades attached to that thing!?

THAT is one of the most clear explanations of the whole kit-and-kaboodle I've read. Thank you! So basically, this modding community . . . or rather, the Patron-Client relationship between Squad and its Modding community, are probably only about as mature as the analagous relationship between say Bethesda and its modders, around the time Morrowind had become popular. Up till now, the relationship between Squad and its modders has evolved in an "ad hoc" manner, (just as I would speculate it did for TES games initially, and most games which have active and prolific modding communities [with the possible exception of Minecraft, which seems to have been a geekfest right from the start]) and has yet to progress into a more "managed and directed" mode. It is an interesting phenomenon from a Business/marketing/consumer psychology perspective, and it is not surprising if even the most innovative of game design studios don't quite get it because even those who DO get it only seemed to have figured it out by trial and error over the years.

Well . . . of course I do not have access to their source code (plus I have zero proficiency with C# so far!) so I'm in no position to say with certainty . . . however, the performance characteristics I have casually observed in association with heavily modded builds sound rather similar to "memory leaks" and "software aging" both of which are fairly widely regarded as hallmarks of what we might term in the biological sciences "pathological" infrastructure load. Pathos in this instance meaning "a state which evokes pity or sadness" because it is "not the way it should/could be." Yes, all life comes to end eventually, but there is a difference between living to a "ripe old age" and dying of "natural causes" in your sleep, versus making a stupid decision at age 25 to do a U-turn on a busy highway and getting obliterated by a tractor trailer going 120km/h. The latter would be considered "unneccesary" or "avoidable" mortality. I think the same kind of logic can apply in IT: some changes to performance are inevitable given the specific operating context, i.e., it is virtually impossible to get the thing to work any "better." Other changes to performance are NOT inevitable and reflect that parts of the whole are not functioning as they "should" to get it to run "optimally." This is fundamentally what I'm asking: is this as good as it gets? i.e., I load up 75 of the most popular and cool sounding mods and even with a 3.5GHz CPU PLUS a 3GHz GPU (both of which are only a couple years old) and 8 GB of RAM the game progressively slips into a coma? This does not happen with Skyrim, Fallout4, Stellaris, Jagged Alliance 2.1.13, and a half-dozen other games I play which are modded at least that heavily if not two to three times that heavily. Slower boot times? Yes. The occasional visual glitch, hang, or crash that is pretty clearly associated with modded aspects of the build? Yes. Inevitable progressive software aging and eventual coma on every session? No.

Cool. However, can you DO that in vanilla!? I was under the impression building additional planetside bases was strictly from mods, no?

Ah, I see you fellas have been debating some stuff up my alley: natural--unnatural selection and that sort of thing. There are actually some camps of professional evolutionary theorists and evolutionary anthropologists who engage in a lively debate on topics related to this. Anthropogenic effects are clearly enormous in the recent evolution of Earth's ecosystems, perhaps even so far as to inducing or 'tipping the scale' on climate change processes (I remain skeptical of that, but not "disbelieving" so to speak). There are countless examples of humans radically changing local ecosystems: various fauna hunted to extinction in the New World by clovis technology peoples, many other species drive to extinction by one form of human action or another, vast tracts of forest cleared for farms, then left fallow, causing new forests to form (a very common pattern in much of the northeastern U.S. since the first European colonists arrived). The freaking EARTHWORM, which your average American or Canadian will identify as "as common as dirt" [url=http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2428511/How-lowly-earthworm-changed-face-America-forever-brought-early-European-colonists-chickens-malaria-common-cold.html]did not exist in the New World prior to it hitching rides over from Europe . . .[/url] It is unquestionable that humans change the environments which shape selective forces for myriad species, hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of species if all the little microbes are accounted for. But then, the earthworm does that too The Miracle of the Earthworm. If the rhetoric of that article is to be accepted, then even creatures as seemingly 'inconsequential' and 'lowly' as the Earthworm can have massive effects on selective environements, with rippling changes for hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of species, and the efficacy of a species in this way is not always _dependent_ on anthropogenic forces. The Earth, its life forms, and its ecosystems and geological systems are all quite dynamic all by themselves, and past dramatic changes in climate all by itself has acted as a far, FAR more potent force in shaping evolution on Earth than humans might ever dream of being. The most recent phase of intense glaciation stretching from roughly 150 million years ago up until about 10,000 years ago (and which are are still on the "closing chapters of" arguably) all by itself produced thousands of distinct megafauna varieties of mammals which are well documented, and while it is not an area I know much about (and which seemingly is not a major area of study) very likely the same degree of "adaptive radiation" in other classes and kingdoms (plants, fungi, other vertebrates, insects, etc.). The Earth 50,000 years ago was so dramatically different, it might as well have been an alien world, a world with very different climatic processes and not merely "colder." Ice Ages increase the polar regions, but they also sequester gigantic quantities of what is presently sea water and terrestrial water in massive ice sheets so large that they literally cover major fractions of whole continents and reach 3000 meters in thickness at their deepest. Hudson Bay is just a depression in the surface crust that is a remnant of the last ice age, and each year Hudson Bay gets a tad bit more shallow because it is isostatically rebounding up now that the weight of a mile thick sheet of ice has melted away. I can recall one or two nice articles/chapters that attempted to develop a nice synthetic theoretical model for accounting for humans role in evolution in terms of 'natural / unnatural' dichotomy, though the specifics are a bit fuzzy having not read it for 8 years or so. I'll have to see if I can find those PDFs and link you to them.

True. Probably pretty hefty dV cost just for the inclination change. Course, gravity assists off of Minmus with a slight angle seem pretty awesome for spinning a ships off at cockamammy angle. Not sure why, but . . . if that is predictable (which surely it is if you understand that stuff) then presumably you can get to a fairly inclined angle relative to the plane of the ecliptic for pretty cheap. Now that I think about it, I do believe it would require four to be "fairly tight" in terms of resistance to occlusion. With only two at equidistance, there would be a significant chunk of time when both sats were fairly near the plane of ecliptic and no less vulnerable to occlusion that coplanar sats really. But with four, you'd effectively always have one above and one below the zone where they could be occluded. In order to be really effective, this would need to be between Moho and Kerbol and the ranges on the transceivers enough to extend all the way across the whole system. But with all of those factors considered, this would seem to be a legit purpose for solar orbiting satellites/stations, even in unmodded KSP (well, at least once 1.2 is out). Add mods like Solar Science, KSP-Interstellar, etc., and other good reasons emerge (apart from the aforementioned: to complete contracts or 'because it is cool'). Solar Science gives science missions that require Kerbol orbit. There do not seem to be too many of them but a few anyway. KSP-I I think has more advanced solar power capture and also power transmission. So you could conceivably combine your 4 solar polar comms sats with solar power capture and transmission and have some pretty important pieces to a solar comms and power network. Plus the aforementioned sentinel missions . . . ADDIT: one little comment: isn't "anywhere" within Kerbol's heliosphere not really "Deep Space?" I'm not sure what you'd call it . . . something orbiting the sun and not one of the other celestial bodies, but I don't think it qualifies as Deep Space does it?

Yeah, Linux is so awesome, it is slowly dying.

Freaky people with underarm odor consider it pleasant. Thus the high volume. Sheer strength or tensile strength?

I think that virtually EVERYTHING in the flight planner should be readily configurable by the user. Turn anything off, make it bigger, change the color, change the line style, zoom in or out to anywhere you want (or which you have proper "intell" on anyway) at any time, remove text/objects that you don't want, readd those you do, create templates for various formats of flight planner layout depending on the mission/phase of the mission, create custom icons for things, etc., etc.: ANYTHING and EVERYTHING. Can you imagine Windows without Snap&Shake, window resizing, font adjusting, changing the color scheme, no alternate modes for displaying directories, and scores of other UI features which allow any user to configure their desktop exactly as they wish it to appear, AND the option to turn on/off most of these features? That was fine in 1993, but it would be a trainwreck in 2016. The flight planner should be a beloved place, a place where a new player feels a sense of "Oh cool! This is gonna be so much fun to play with and figure out!" and a place where a vet feels a deep sense of familiarity and masterful pride, a place in the game where we all love to be, because we know it allows us to do virtually anything and everything we might want to do in space flight, and in our own style. This is certainly not my experience with the flight planner. A design which set out to from the beginning to make this degree of UI-configurability would have been: a lot more work than one which simply sought to provide a basic interface, but in the long-term it would be far, FAR more useable and would cater to each individual users style. At present the flight planner is clunky, cluttered, awkward, clumsy, jittery, inaccurate, imprecise and . . . while overall amazing and useable, not as amazing as it should be, given the central role it plays in the game. You could name this game: "Launch Rockets Then Plan Their Orbital Manuevers" and it would be a fair description of what 55% of gameplay amounts to. The other 45% comprising "design craft" (40% of the total) and miscellaneous (another 5%). None of this is meant to be a criticism of anyone who has ever been involved in the game. To my knowledge, there are NO OTHER games which even come close to what the flight planning in KSP pulls off (though I haven't played Orbiter . . .). But again, it IS a central part of the game, and while other aspects of the game have received love and grown and developed, as far as I can recall, we still have pretty much the same flight planner as we had back 3 years ago. Certainly any changes that have come do not even scratch the surface of the sort of UI and functional enhancements I'm suggesting. I guess what I'm saying here is: IMHO, they need to put the heads of their three or half-dozen staff who understand both the maths and the code and the UI side of the flight planner, and basically rewrite that part of the source code FROM SCRATCH and with a vision to bring the Flight Planner UI into the 21st century. I hope I don't sound poodley or something by saying this. I have great respect for everyone who has contributed to this game. I could NOT do it myself. But as a user, that is my experience: the Flight Planner is deficient, and indeed in many circumstances downright maddening. I see some of the tweaks we hear about coming in 1.2 as merely bandaids though, because unless they can just add modules to the existing code that makes it fully configurable, it will not be able to really make the flight planner part of the game what it ideally should be. Sorry about that . . . /rant off . . .

Interesting. I haven't seen the bug happen again though, so all's well that ends well!

As well done as this mod is, and as long as the list of contributors is in the OP, something tells me there is nothing to worry about post 1.2. They will reconfigure RemoteTech so that it continues to augment (not override or exempt) stock game. But, just in case . . . I will definitely keep a 1.1.3 build installed because playing with this mod installed is just too much fun.

Happy Shiba.

Had forgotten how thin Carrie-Ann Moss was/is.