Amram

new parts, always a mood booster

well, there are outliers in most datasets.........

really, they\'re making another one? ~shudder~ i wonder if this one will also manage to bag the title of most downloaded game ever. i know Spore has long since lost its hold on that, but for a time after it launched, it was undisputed as the most downloaded game ever. Mostly because of its DRM scheme. Anyways, do not let me stop you, to each their own. Spore must have done alright if they are doing another.

seems odd, given that im out of order in quoting this, but whatever. you seem to forget one little quibble. We do not know that. We think it true. The theory has held up very well indeed, and proven useful in so many applications, but short of completing the scientific process, there is no fact here, only conjecture. Is it an accurate conjecture, may well be, but do we know that? Not yet we don\'t. If you want to seem above this by leaving one little forgotten item, please do be sure it is indeed forgotten, and in fact, relevant to your point. We have no experimental evidence supporting your claim. We know time slows when you go faster, GPS offers plenty of evidence there. Do enlighten me however, share an experiment involving speeds faster than c in which time was measured to move backwards? I\'ll accept material at any technical level you happen to find on that. Until then, the scientific method is incomplete, the theory isn\'t vetted in that respect, and as such, it isn\'t fact, merely theory. Probability does matter, but not as much as knowing the difference between fact and conjecture, Law and Theory. I submit, that changes nothing. We have not forgotten any facts, or rules as it were. Merely left alone one piece of a theory, a detail which offers no specific issue with FTL itself, merely a rather unique, and possibly disastrous consequence of succeeding. This brings us back to whether or not it would be practical, not whether its impossible.

if the 550Ti serves you well enough, thats all that really matters anyways. won\'t be more from me on that front. i feel kinda dumb too, had no idea tigerdirect was as big as they are. its been a long time since i looked at them though, aside form browsing their catalogue i mean. shortly after I posted that i looked, and sure enough, spoke too soon... Ah well. the i5 is a good solid chip, most of the systems i\'ve built for friends recently have used i5\'s. Your call in the end, but i\'d suggest it over the AMD offers personally, there\'s a pretty big performance gap there.

in fairness, any step in the right direction, is still a step in the right direction. likewise, not everyone knows enough of the world of PC performance parts to make such judgment calls. I\'d love to hear you opinion on which antibiotic is the best for the distribution cost for combating meningitis? Odds are, you lack the knowledge to make that judgment, and probably also lack the knowledge to find appropriate texts on the matter and maybe reach an ok judgment. Stating someone made a terrible choice, without knowing the terms of that decision, or their level of knowledge is elitist in the extreme. Would I have bought a TI 550? no. Would I have bought a radeon 4850? no. I am not however, bound by a budget in this regard, it leaves me free to reach higher levels of performance, something not everyone can justify. i also know damned well that my monitors native resolution, with 8x or higher AA and AF will make the 4850 cry while the 4870 soldiers on at noticeably higher frame rates. You think a 4850 and 4870 would perform the same if you OC\'d the 4850?. at what resolution, 1024x768 with AA and AF disabled? At no time will a card with 1/4 the vmem compete favorably at large resolutions, with such demanding features enabled unless it has significant advantages in frequency. now keep it fair and overclock the 4870, and it will hold its lead, easily. If you were right, there\'d be hardly any enthusiast builds out there sporting the xx70 series cards when the xx50 series were available and superior. it isn\'t smart for a company to release a cheaper and superior product while simultaneously releasing a more expensive product to compete with it. It\'s self sabotage. The only time 4850\'s make sense vs the 4870, speaking strictly of performance, is in xfire. Support for xfire is incomplete, has to be built into the games, can be buggy and troublesome, doubles the radiated gfx card noise of your tower, demands more power, doubled risk of hardware failures(two cards that might fail, instead of only one), and so on. Your better buy is still to buy a faster single card, until such time as you seek performance beyond the single card solutions available. of course, 4870\'s in xfire will outperform the 4850\'s, with ease..... Compared to the 4870 512mb, fine, i\'ll grant you that. but no 4850 reached 2gb of vmem, and at high res with maxxed out AA and AF, you need that ram. Running anything less and you\'ve no right to take the elitist stance in the first place, you need to join the club first of all. Cooly568 Since you mentioned earlier that you use Tigerdirect, im assuming then your Canadian, www.Shopbot.ca is very useful in finding out what supplier has the lowest prices, but they only index those that exist in, or ship to canada. And now that you\'ve brought it up, I will point out, the intel iX series are very well priced. intel in the past has always been the more expensive, but these days its very competitively priced, and considering the performance gains to be had with iX vs AMD cpu\'s, the slight if any increase in cost is probably worth it if your thinking of going that route. note that an i5 2400 will soundly outperform an AMD x4, X6, or FX, at all frequencies. Its kinda sad how far back AMD is in performance given how good the initial Athlons were.

The wonders of a closed mind. This door was opened, it was tested, it was proved, it was proved again and again, no further testing needed, door closed. Your example is also rather flawed. Alchemy and Spontaneous Generation would like to chat with you. In the absence of forum members sporting P.H.D.s and professorships, im inclined to accept the well stated and logical reasoning backed by sourced evidence by someone who not only has both, but specialises on this exact topic. You cannot yet call it flatly impossible for the simple fact that the laws of physics are not 100% understood to all extents known and currently unknown. We have yet to discover the last thing we will ever discover, and discoveries love to change the game around on us. So much time was invested in Alchemy and the results were always the same, lead cannot become gold. So solid was the evidence against, and so absent the evidence in support, that it was deemed by the world at large as a scientific fact, a basic law, for hundreds of years. Enter the particle accelerator, and it is in fact very possible to produce gold from lead, albeit one atom at a time. Not exactly practical, but certainly not impossible. A billion measures all with the same result, can become irrelevant once a new measure can produce a different and repeatable result. Science and the evolution of our knowledge base proceeds in stages. Define a question Gather information and resources (observe) Form an explanatory hypothesis Test the hypothesis by performing an experiment and collecting data in a reproducible manner Analyze the data Interpret the data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis Publish results Retest (frequently done by other scientists) we have some issues in testing special relativity against c itself......... Relativity and Special relativity both come apart at the event horizon of a black hole. A place where energies and forces vastly exceed the levels our experiments can reach. There is something more to it that the theories aren\'t covering. I\'ve no inklings of what that might be, but that its incomplete as a theory of everything is obvious even to those with limited understandings who\'ve done a little reading and read what it cannot predict for us. Just the same, many people understand that bricks cannot fly, while not understanding why wings do allow flight. I may not be an expert of relativity, but for some things, you don\'t need to be, like comprehending material thats been published at a reading level within your reach by those that do understand it. A law is a law until it is no longer a law. The Theory of special relativity states we cannot reach or exceed c because our mass will reach infinity as we do, and so because our mass will be increasing while we accelerate while our thrust will not increase accordingly, our acceleration will be decreasing, and we will never get there, although due to time dilation it will measurably appear to us aboard the ship that we have indeed gone many times faster. It is not a law just yet because it cannot yet be proven to be impossible to prove false. It is currently inscrutable. The laws of thermodynamics have made that jump and hence, are Laws. They definitely are not inscrutable, they can be explored fully from one end of the possibilities to the other. The theory of spontaneous generation, second paragraph on for a little ways. Thats a good one. And it applies here. It held its position as verifiable and beyond the possibility to prove false for nearly two millennia. Supported by 1900 years worth of experiments, and it was wrong, the method for all of the experiments flawed. Flawed by a lack of understanding of things not yet known to humanity at the time. Why does this apply here? the Theory of relativity, and special relativity have a life of less than 100 years behind them. There is much we have high confidence in that we cannot detect, such as dark matter, and the Higgs Bosun. What possibilities do they open up once found, if ever, and how will those change the tools we have at our disposal for scientific evidence gathering? What other unknowns will we find that change the game? Will the game change sufficiently that we will prove relativity and/or special relativity to be incorrect? Certainly seems unlikely, but then, they\'d have said the same of Spontaneous Generation sometime after Aristotle and before Francesco Redi, look where we are now. the point? We do not 100% know that there is absolutely no possible means of breaching the speed of light in any way, shape or form, practical or otherwise. We have confidence levels, we have limited experimental evidence, and we have a theory that has predicted things seeming insane and found to be true. For our current and projected capabilities as a civilisation it is for all intents beyond practical possibility, if not also legitimately impossible. The theory has gaps however. If you do 100% know(not believe, know, and provably) these things, then you do not belong here talking to us, you should be meeting the heads of prestigious universities seeking tenure, and the chance to share that proof and cement your place in our history. Until we can explore the possibilities provided by wormholes, and understand both wormholes and black holes, and have fleshed out string theory and proved additional dimensions to either be false or of no use in FTL, and last of all can in some way detect and measure the actual fabric of space and time itself(since for relativity to be true, they must exist), then we aren\'t done here. until then, the jury remains out on whether getting from point A, to point B, in a time period less than that needed by light itself is in fact a possibility. Spatial shortcuts, moving reference points, stretching or shrinking the fabric itself, or just straight up exceeding the limit(by means not yet known, theorised or other) all remain possibilities at this time, although not ones we can be very confident in. I\'ll put it here as well. I cannot prove it, nor can i disprove it. There is plenty of evidence against, and i do not consider it likely that we will achieve it in any form we will recognise, likewise im not overly confident we will accomplish it at all. I am however certain that we haven\'t proven it completely impossible just yet, just proved it definitely well beyond the limits of humanity at this time and for the near to distant future. one doesn\'t need to exceed the speed of light to change the rate time passes either. GPS satellites must be frequently adjusted due to relativistic effects and they definitely are not in excess of c. http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html Special Relativity predicts that the on-board atomic clocks on the satellites should fall behind clocks on the ground by about 7 microseconds per day because of the slower ticking rate due to the time dilation effect of their relative motion. Exceeding C may reverse time, or it may stop entirely, i don\'t have enough understanding of it to say which. i do know that time goes slower the faster you go, such that it appears to you as if you have traveled forward in time, since in one hour, years may have passed outside your little relativistic capsule. Take it far enough, and it will appear that time has stopped, because it moves so much more slowly outside your reference point.

the screenshot also shows 4257, like he said, it stopped totaling, and that much is obvious even from the screenshot. 1125 gravity loss, 900 drag loss, 185 steering loss, and 2047m/s gain. total those. he\'s quite right, the individual factors do add up to 4257.

love this thing, especially now that i don\'t need to maintain an external CSV for part costs. Can I ask a few additions to the future plans? inflationary value for the base funding. after playing for X amount of time, all things equal, your income should be greater. Essentially just one more small percentage multiplier, which is applied every payday, regardless of other factors. mimics increases in the Kerbal national budget, which leaves you with the same percentage, but a larger and larger value over time. A two tier public interest system. Achieving milestones nets you a one time payout, yes, but it would also boost public interest alot more. 'Yawn, another rocket launch' vs 'they went to the MUN!?!?'. Payouts are essentially government subsidy or private benefactors supporting your successes, but public interest is like voters influencing politicians to devote more of the budget to you. Simply accomplishing something decent, like putting satellites in orbit for the first however many satellites it counts for should net a P.I. increase, but nothing like the first time you do something. A continuous depletion of P.I. Essentially you lose x amount every payday, and this needs to be offset by accomplishing something the previous pay day. It should be small enough that any successful mission that provides at least the lower P.I. increase can offset this for a couple of paydays, in this manner, doing nothing for long periods will begin to hurt your overall income, and take you a few good missions to recover. Since you mention planning to include production and prototyping: an R&D duration, coupled with a development chain. Just a list will do, this leads to that which leads to that and that, which....etc the first part of the chain is specified as unlocked or not, trigger an R&D somehow(VAB menu?), wait out the R&D, then you can prototype it(use it an higher cost) later items might take longer. anyways, you\'re already planning pretty much everything i\'d be looking for in such a plugin. just thought i\'d put these out there and see if maybe you\'d add them into your plans or not. Im not trying to rush you or anything, just having it total the cost is a bonus to me any my little sideline campaigns i play out.

or color blind. monitor settings mean nothing when it is the eye itself that is at fault.

I think at this stage, quoting someone who knows FAR more on the subject at hand than any of us are likely to is a rather good idea instead of adding my own two cents straight up just yet. Henry Semat Professor of Theoretical Physics at the Graduate Center of the City University of New York. Co-founder of string field theory. http://mkaku.org/ I\'ll be lifting relevant tidbits from one of his books, for a more complete concept. I\'ll be jumping whole paragraphs and pages and only including what seems specifically relevant here. Everything within these quotes are entirely his words. No paraphrasing, each sentence chosen is as printed, i\'ll not be twisting anything. That ends his preface. There is much more to it, but those are the on topic relevant bits. His point of view on Faster than light travel. Note that i am not including the 18 pages of material in which he outlines both what is currently impossible for us, what loopholes are viewed as possible exceptions to the rule(both useless and otherwise), and how it might actually be possible, given a few conditions....such as what one today might call absurd quantities of energy. His basic point, across the entire 18 pages on this one topic, is the same as most of everything else in this book. There is no known law of physics that explicitly rules this out as definitely not going to happen in any way, shape, or form. Will we find such a law, maybe. Will we ever achieve this if we don\'t find one, maybe. Has another civilisation already achieved this, maybe. His point of view on extra terrestrial visitations, and UFO\'s are that they are a class I impossibility. Should alien life exist within our vicinity, given the rapid advances in SETI, and discoveries both in extrasolar planets and techniques in locating them and determine what they hold, it seems likely that a first contact may occur within the next century. He kills 27 pages on the topic, during which he discussed possible forms a real UFO might take and why, all within the bounds of known laws. He also discusses possible forms of travel which fit the laws of physics, and to an extent sightings. In short, such a race is rather far beyond us. much as we wouldn\'t bother to offer beads and incense to an Ant colony, they care nothing of us. They aren\'t even likely to invade us for any reason. There are simply too many planets with comparable or grater resources for it to be worth the hassle of coping with an indigenous lifeform that might prove a nuisance. The greatest danger an ant hill faces is that we will simply demolish its existence without thought, or even really knowing it was there, since we just don\'t act or care on that scale. If we do interact with another race that is more advanced than us, this is how its likely to occur. They will have some goal of which we are part, and we\'ll neither have been singled out, nor more likely have even been considered, and still we will likely be powerless in the face of their objective. The point of all this? The Jury is still out on the topics of both FTL travel, and Alien visitation. They are neither provable nor disprovable with todays technology, possibly also with tomorrows technology with a window of time easily extending beyond several centuries. While neither is possible for us, they aren\'t 100% impossible just yet. There is much we do not know. I\'d wager that despite all we do know of the intricate workings of our reality and what can be done with such details, what we don\'t is by far the larger mass of knowledge, possible as great an imbalance as what human civilisation as a whole knows in comparison to the knowledge contained by the average 4 year old. We\'ve already covered a good part of why it\'s somewhat closed-minded to outright dismiss such things, and explored a few of the more pertinent aspects. The most important detail of all in my opinion, is that we are a civilisation that is still in its infancy, and our knowledge is comparable. An infant has little ability to define possible from impossible. I believe Arthur C. Clarke said it best. And in closing. In the 1500\'s we assumed we knew what we were talking about. In the 1600\'s we assumed we knew what we were talking about. In the 1700\'s we assumed we knew what we were talking about. In the 1800\'s we assumed we knew what we were talking about. We look back on that now and find many on the right track, but as a whole, we really didn\'t have a clue at all when speaking of what cannot come to be, or how things we cannot yet experiment with actually do function and the laws governing them. How sure can we be that someone from the 2100\'s or 2200\'s would not include the 1900\'s and 2000\'s on that list as well? Sir William Osler\'s quote seems to imply we belong on that list already....

Stable orbits need an exclusion rule to allow them to not become a tedious nightmare to maintain. What about treating all craft below an altitude threshold as only local SOI gravity, no additional influences. Perhaps Geostationary plus a margin when mostly circular orbit, and 1/7 geostationary when eccentric. Say 10% margin. Thats roughly 500,000m for non-circular orbits to come under the Mun\'s influence as well, and 3,800,000m for sufficiently circular orbits. Sufficiently circular being say, apoapsis not more than 125% periapsis? regarding time warp: couldn\'t we just plant everything on rails when warping, thats what is done in KSP already isn\'t it? You\'ll get some odd anomalies when something ignores another body, but it already does exactly that, so we\'d lose nothing compared to what we already have. When not warping, you get higher accuracy in the orbits of minor items. A highly cluttered environment would be a problem, since it piles on the workload. Craft to craft should should never be factored, there might actually be a tiny amount of micro gravity, but not worth fussing over I think. Im not sure it would be too great a problem though given the exclusion rule provided above. Not much in orbit will be in an eccentric orbit for most people at sufficient altitude to exceed the 1/7th of Geo altitude, and not much is likely to be orbiting higher than Geo is circular. Should keep this restricted to craft and objects transitioning between bodies. So, to summarise/recap. single body gravity when in a circular orbit at less than Geo +%margin, say 110%, 3,815,240 for Kerbin? single body gravity for all non circular orbits until exceeding 1/7th Geo altitude, 495,500m for Kerbin? Circular defined as Apoapsis less than 125% of Periapsis no N-body approximating when time warping, everything goes to rails, just like we do now. craft cannot become additional bodies of influence for other craft Improved?

Before its said, Im not advocating for application of a complete N-body solution into KSP. I understand why we don\'t have such, KSP is hard enough on CPU\'s as it is, and from what i understand, the really accurate N-body solutions are particularly brutal and VERY time consuming. However, if it can be had for reasonable load.....and I had a thought. To begin, a fairly simple assumption I\'ve made, pretty much everything in this is based off this, so if i\'m wrong here, it doesn\'t bode well for the rest. I assume gravity in KSP is computed for one body, whichever dominates the current SOI, and is a single acceleration towards its center of gravity(generally the actual center point for planetoids), magnitude being dependent on range, and mass of the body in question. Correct? If so, then could N-body be reasonably approximated if one were to find the relevant vectors to more than one body, then sum them up into a single vector? To reduce load, don\'t work the result for permanent bodies, or for those with far too great a disparity in mass, and restrict the maximum bodies permitted to apply their influence(largest take priority). Mun-Landers should not be permitted to influence the Mun for example, both because its a permanent orbiting item and is far too massive in comparison. If dealing with a medium sized asteroid, Mun, Kerbin, Kerbol, and the player\'s craft. If the players craft masses enough, and the asteroid is small enough, possibly permit the players craft to influence the asteroid. Gravitational vector from Players craft to Mun, to Kerbin, to Kerbol, to Asteroid, combine, apply as single gravitational vector influenced by all 4 bodies. Gravitational vector from Asteroid to Mun, to Kerbin, to Kerbol, to Players craft(if not too disparate), combine, apply as single gravitational vector influenced by all 4 bodies. Mun, Kerbin, Kerbol considered immune to gravitation perturbations, and treated as if on rails if they aren\'t already, assuming they are though. One thing I definitely do not know, does KSP work the gravity for each part in your craft, or does it work it out for the craft as a whole? Horribly flawed concept? Or could this maybe be a rough concept for a workable N-body approximation that is enough for KSP? Also, given my rather distinct lack of programming and scripting experience, would this maybe be doable for KSP or still too much math for the gains given how demanding KSP already is. Would this be just as fatally flawed regarding the mathematical scene origin as it is to have physics for de-orbiting debris? I would think the margins for error much more tolerable when dealing with additional bodies in this case, but, well, usual disclaimer: i\'ve been spectacularly wrong before, lol. Thoughts? Apologies if this isn\'t the place for such posts. Its not a feature request per se, since its a shot at fleshing out or shooting down a concept, so this seemed to be the place for it.

fair enough, I suspected that\'d be out of the question, but sometimes work computers hold relatively expendable data, so i figured i\'d go there, lol. You mention it being up pretty much all the time, does it get rebooted now and then, or shutdown for the night? If not, rebooting more often will help quite a bit. Your best bet then is probably just to: Create a restore point stop unecessary services from loading at startup stop unecessary task tray apps from loading at startup stop unecessary tasks from launching by this point, window\'s memory and processing needs will be alot lower, which will free up more resources for other things. define the size of the swap file to help reduce drive fragmentation. trim all temporary files, and remove unused portions of windows http://forums.guru3d.com/showthread.php?t=31494 -how to enable all the hidden stuff in the add/remove control panel, such as messenger, windows games, and accessibility features. The more empty the drive, the smaller the MFT file becomes, and the quicker windows will respond to things. There is a small risk of a registry snafu using cleaning apps(just as there is a small risk in changing anything at all really), the restore point will have you covered there, anything goes awol that definitely shouldn\'t, just restore. That said, this can be a source of significant slowdown in older installs of windows so its worth doing. and you could probably stop there. It may also be worth checking to be sure the CPU isn\'t overheating. With time both the heatsinks get clogged up, and the thermal paste wears out and stops conducting heat effectively. no need to go pulling the heatsink off or anything drastic. SIW.exe, which I posted a link to earlier can report temperatures. if your getting up in excess of 80 on a regular basis, the CPU/mobo might be throttling itself to prevent a critical overtemp. If it is overheating, you can clock the system down, which will reduce temps, and make its overall speed more predictable, instead of it getting too hot and going even slower now and then. If this is happening, it should be easy enough to get the average speed above where it is by clocking downwards a little. Will also help the system last longer, current and temperature are both enemies of system life, the less of each, the longer it lives. Its also fairly painless and low risk to apply new paste, that said, anytime you physically handle the parts, there is risk of them not functioning after.....so, yeah. At the least, its still worth checking for crud and high temps.

something like this maybe? [table][tr][td] Cost and salvage per tech listed in each column. unlockables have empty Tech 0 columns [table][tr] [td]Part[/td] [td]Mass [/td] [td] Tech 0 [/td] [td] Tech 1 [/td] [td] Tech 2 [/td] [td] Tech 3 [/td] [td] Tech 4 [/td] [td]Salvage 2 [/td] [td]Notes[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td] Core[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td]Life Insurance[/td] [td][/td] [td][/td] [td]$5,000[/td] [td][/td] [td][/td] [td][/td] [td][/td] [td]Cheaper reimbursements[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td]ZO2 Main[/td] [td]1.2[/td] [td]$1,000 / 50% [/td] [td][/td] [td][/td] [td][/td] [td][/td] [td]+15%[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td]Command Module[/td] [td]1[/td] [td]$2,000 / 0%[/td] [td][/td] [td][/td] [td][/td] [td][/td] [td]+15%[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td]Salvage Tech[/td] [td][/td] [td][/td] [td]$1,000[/td] [td]$8,000 / +15%[/td] [td][/td] [td][/td] [td][/td] [td]Unlocks Salvaging[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td] Propulsion[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td]LFE Tech[/td] [td][/td] [td][/td] [td]$7,500[/td] [td]$12,500 / +15% [/td] [td]$15,000[/td] [td]$15,000 / +20%[/td] [td][/td] [td]Cheaper LFE. More Salvage[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td]LFE - Large[/td] [td]2[/td] [td]$15,000 / 5%[/td] [td]$12,000 / 5%[/td] [td]$8,000 / 20%[/td] [td]$7,000 / 20%[/td] [td]$6,000 / 40%[/td] [td]+15%[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td]LFE - Gimballed[/td] [td]2[/td] [td]$20,000 / 5% [/td] [td]$15,000 / 5% [/td] [td]$10,000 / 20% [/td] [td]$8,000 / 20% [/td] [td]$6,000 / 40% [/td] [td]+15%[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td]LFE - Small[/td] [td]0.5[/td] [td]$6,500 / 5%[/td] [td]$5,000 / 5%[/td] [td]$2,500 / 20%[/td] [td]$1,500 / 20%[/td] [td]$,1500 / 40%[/td] [td]+15%[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td]SRB Tech[/td] [td][/td] [td][/td] [td]$4,000 / +40% [/td] [td][/td] [td][/td] [td][/td] [td][/td] [td]Cheaper SRB. More Salvage[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td]SRB[/td] [td]1.8[/td] [td]$1,000 / 10%[/td] [td]$500 / 50%[/td] [td][/td] [td][/td] [td][/td] [td]+15%[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td] Fuel Tanks[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td]Fuel Tech[/td] [td][/td] [td][/td] [td]$7,000[/td] [td][/td] [td][/td] [td][/td] [td][/td] [td]Cheaper Fuel Tanks[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td]Zoxy Tech[/td] [td][/td] [td][/td] [td]$5,000[/td] [td]$10,000[/td] [td][/td] [td][/td] [td][/td] [td]Unlocks ZO2 tanks, and ZO2 Panel[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td]Fuel - Small[/td] [td]1.25[/td] [td]$400 / 10%[/td] [td]$200 / 10%[/td] [td][/td] [td][/td] [td][/td] [td]+15%[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td]Fuel - Large[/td] [td]2.5[/td] [td]$800 / 10%[/td] [td]$400 / 10%[/td] [td][/td] [td][/td] [td][/td] [td]+15%[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td]RCS[/td] [td]0.9[/td] [td]$400 / 10%[/td] [td][/td] [td][/td] [td][/td] [td][/td] [td]+15%[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td]ZO2 - Small(150)[/td] [td]0.35[/td] [td]unlock me[/td] [td]$150 / 10%[/td] [td][/td] [td][/td] [td][/td] [td]+15%[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td]ZO2 - Large(800)[/td] [td]1.5[/td] [td]unlock me[/td] [td]$750 / 10%[/td] [td][/td] [td][/td] [td][/td] [td]+15%[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td] Structural[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td]Decoupler Tech[/td] [td][/td] [td][/td] [td]$3,000[/td] [td][/td] [td][/td] [td][/td] [td][/td] [td]Cheaper Decouplers[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td]Radial Decoupler[/td] [td]0.4[/td] [td]$750 / 0%[/td] [td]$250 / 0%[/td] [td][/td] [td][/td] [td][/td] [td]+15%[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td]Stack Decoupler[/td] [td]0.8[/td] [td]$750 / 0%[/td] [td]$250 / 0%[/td] [td][/td] [td][/td] [td][/td] [td]+15%[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td]Strut[/td] [td]0.05[/td] [td]$50 / 0%[/td] [td][/td] [td][/td] [td][/td] [td][/td] [td]+15%[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td]Tricoupler[/td] [td]0.8[/td] [td]$500 / 10%[/td] [td][/td] [td][/td] [td][/td] [td][/td] [td]+15%[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td] Utility and Control[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td]ParachuteTech[/td] [td][/td] [td][/td] [td]$2,500[/td] [td][/td] [td][/td] [td][/td] [td][/td] [td]Cheaper Parachutes[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td]Parachute[/td] [td]0.3[/td] [td]$750 / 0%[/td] [td]$250 / 0%[/td] [td][/td] [td][/td] [td][/td] [td]+15%[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td]Winglet - AV-T1[/td] [td]0.05[/td] [td]$150 / 0%[/td] [td][/td] [td][/td] [td][/td] [td][/td] [td]+15%[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td]Winglet - AV-R8[/td] [td]0.08[/td] [td]$250 / 0%[/td] [td][/td] [td][/td] [td][/td] [td][/td] [td]+15%[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td]Fuel Line[/td] [td]0.05[/td] [td]$100 / 0%[/td] [td][/td] [td][/td] [td][/td] [td][/td] [td]+15%[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td]RCS Thruster[/td] [td]0.05[/td] [td]$100 / 20%[/td] [td][/td] [td][/td] [td][/td] [td][/td] [td]+15%[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td]Zoxy Tech[/td] [td][/td] [td][/td] [td]$5,000[/td] [td]$10,000[/td] [td][/td] [td][/td] [td][/td] [td]Unlocks ZO2 tanks, and ZO2 Panel[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td]ZO2 - Solar Panel[/td] [td]0.1[/td] [td]unlock me[/td] [td][/td] [td]$3,000 / 35%[/td] [td][/td] [td][/td] [td]+15%[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td] Robotic[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td]Remote Tech[/td] [td][/td] [td][/td] [td]$10,000[/td] [td]$15,000[/td] [td][/td] [td][/td] [td][/td] [td]Unlocks Unmanned pod, and PowerSat[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td]Unmanned Pod[/td] [td]1[/td] [td]unlock me[/td] [td]$4,500 / 35%[/td] [td][/td] [td][/td] [td][/td] [td]+15%[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td]PowerSat[/td] [td]1.2[/td] [td]unlock me[/td] [td][/td] [td]$2,500 / 0%[/td] [td][/td] [td][/td] [td]+15%[/td][/tr][/table] [/td][/tr][/table] It is a bit large, but then, there\'s also alot of info that it needed to have crammed into it and we only have so much table functionality here.

now im just being an ass and nitpicking, but dogs, dolphins, ravens, chimps, and octopuses are all rather intelligent by any standard. Under enough of the right scrutiny, they show signs of remarkable intelligence, reasoning, insight, empathy, tool improvisation, and more. Basically all the things that most people think set us apart from the rest of life here. mostly I think its just our inquisitiveness that sets us apart. many of us literally HAVE to understand something. its from this that i think we got our first leg up, the first early \'tech\'s if you could call them that, such as control of fire. From there it just snowballed. Of course, that same insistence on poking things that should be left alone has a habit of showing dangerous results. If anything, this is the only way i can see us coming to be the only intelligent life. And history\'s lessons tend to repeat themselves if not learned from, so if true, it doesn\'t speak well of our future at all.

we used to think manned flight was impossible, and all the evidence of the time supported it, and all hypotheses against that were purely hypothetical. Used to believe the sound barrier couldn\'t be broken, this after manned flight was already possible. in less than 100 years we went from not flying, to B-2 stealth bombers. in 30 years we went from dropping hand grenades over the side, to dropping nukes. What happens in the next 100 for us? the next 200, 300, 400? What if we could look ahead to 10,000 years? What we believe is impossible may all turn out to be rather, incorrect given time and development. statistically, the odds against us being it are beyond most peoples comprehension. The number of possibles is just.......english fails here. Enormous to the power of extremely gigantic. True the odds of intelligent life coming around aren\'t exactly all that promising. its actually on the other end of the scale from the odds of life at all. Thing is, probability doesn\'t work like straight multiplication. The odds are FAR better than simple possible sources of life times chance of it resulting in intelligent life. While I think it highly optimistic to think we are even close enough in technology to a race that might come visit us(should such event ever occur in our future), i think its highly pessimistic to believe we are alone. There are just too many shots at it to fail realistically speaking. Where this comes apart as far as visitation goes, is in the timing. Maybe they are still pre-civilisation and are little more than chimps currently are. Maybe they\'ve had a few million years on us and look as us as little better than bugs. What we\'ve seen, is a tiny tiny tiny tiny piece of 1% of everything out there. Its WAY too early to believe its all empty.

its pretty easy to have transmissions go unnoticed. We already do this here on earth with LPI radars. Transmissions spread across much of the equipments capable frequency range, all at very low power, combined through some very intense processing. The result no solid hit from a hostile radar, merely a tiny tiny tiny tiny tiny increase in noise across the entire band, which actually is the radar transmission. The idea that we are advanced enough to compete in any way shape or form is rather.....optimistic. If we do meet another race, the odds seem very high that their civilisation will be in a different type than our. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kardashev_scale If that happens to be the case, whether it is we or they that are more advanced, there won\'t be much of a fight if thats what results.

I don\'t think its so much that people are getting wackier in their ideas as much as its getting easier for those with the wacky ideas to be heard by more people than ever before. There have been some rather astonishingly absurd ideas tossed around in the past, both distant and near, and will no doubt be equally absurd concepts in out future too. The really screwy part, is having to look at everything with an open mind, because reality has this odd habit of taking what we think makes sense vs what is seriously screwed up, and then showing us that the screwed up concept is actually the correct one. Sometimes takes us a while to find that last little piece that makes it all fit and suddenly make sense, but until then.....

if a format is allowable(probably not, but covering it anyways), its amazing what will result from that. Additionally, before completing the format, splitting the partitions, create a small partition in the first few Gb(or few hundred mb, how ever much you\'d want to give it) to hold the swap file, devote the rest as desired. The idea is to give the swap file a nice clean, fairly high performance part of the disk all to itself, no more fragmented swapfile....ever. Create the main OS parition after that partition is made. If you can devote the space to it indefinitely, define an actual swapfile size instead of allowing it to be system managed. 4Gb should be plenty, depending on what it needs to do i wouldn\'t go under 1gb. If the work related tasks are very low memory usage, it might be possible to operate just fine without a swapfile, so your thought of trying out 500mb should be enough in that case. The system does have a decent amount of Ram. The point of defining its size is to prevent fragmentation caused by the changing size of the swapfile. Windows can get rather....fussy if its current desire for memory exceeds both your ram and swapfile combined. Being a work computer, there are a fair number of processes that run in the background that might not be necessary for you. Shutting them down won\'t do alot, but i suspect in this case it\'ll be a matter of every little bit that can help. Edit:blackViper\'s site, as mentioned by Cap\'n Skunky is the ideal reference point for that. Eliminate every little running application that doesn\'t need to be run. if your good with computers, http://www.silentrunners.org/ provides a script that when run will list every single thing set to run on its own, which isn\'t part of the windows default. Every little tasktray item, hidden process, and even browser addons that tie into explorer will be listed, as well as where you find the reference that controls it. Do export the entire registry before you begin, provides a nice safe backup for those Oh Shi.....! moments. It will also list off malware related tasks, processes, and tool bars. If the boot is a slow and drawn out process, bootvis can work wonders on that for you. http://majorgeeks.com/BootVis_d664.html it reorganises the order in which things are done. in effect, when the system will stop and wait for something, it tries to organise things so that while the system is waiting on whatever it was, it starts the next task to be done. Sometimes you don\'t gain much, sometimes you gain ALOT. http://www.gtopala.com/siw-download.php can tell you just how much memory and swap file is currently in use, as well as the max that has been used recently. That way you can see if it maybe needs more sometimes than you might have set it too. Being an old install, there\'s a fairly good bet it also has alot of space consumed by useless stuff. If you have the freedom to clear out unused data, http://windirstat.info/ is invaluable in seeing just where your space has gone, and what has consumed it. Maybe there are ALOT of old restore points just sitting there swallowing space. Its not much, but this can help you keep the size of the MFT down a bit, and this helps older HD\'s feel a little more responsive. Again, tiny improvements, but pile enough little things together and you\'ve got something. Im sure there are more things im forgetting, but that should be enough to show a noticeable improvement at the least. Edit, ninja\'d by Skunky. Forgot about blackVipers page, theres your number one reference for which services can safely be killed, and which you need to keep around. its surprising just how lightweight Xp can become, if you trim off all the little things you don\'t need.

not the only reasons, to be sure, but definitely two of the most common.

oh wow, so im not alone on that front, lol. Phone being dead for months at a time and all.

Tigers a good site too, I use them when they have the lower price, or something Newegg doesn\'t that im after. Yeah, the X4 is probably your best bet. More in game performance than the X6, and equal to the FX\'s, while cheaper than either of them.

well, Newegg doesn\'t have the 2.8Ghz X6 on site, so I can\'t offer upa same vender price comparison on those, BUT N82E16819106012 X6 @ 2.7Ghz - $150 N82E16819103727 X4 @ 3.4Ghz - $120 the X4 there will outperform the X6 in tasks like KSP, EASILY outperform it. Nothing you have mentioned maybe doing has even hinted that you\'d need the other two cores at all. Cheaper, and faster, why grab an X6? At 2.8Ghz, the one you mentioned is faster than this one, probably a little more expensive(I lack a reference on hand at the moment), and will still be MUCH slower than the 3.4Ghz X4 in gaming. note that there is little to any difference most of the time if its your graphics card that is holding you back....chain being only as strong as its weakest link and all that

yup, they\'ll do that, lol. nothing much says there\'s anything to do about their bite other than to just put up with it until it goes away. Its not dangerous or anything, so there\'s no need for meds or such. Although its usually noted as rather painful......