Darnok
-
Posts
1,266 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Posts posted by Darnok
-
-
There are many suits with different features https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Man's_armor
-
10 hours ago, RuBisCO said:
What would you do to save humanity?
I would save myself and my family building bunker or large ship and bought lots of guns.
-
1 hour ago, KerbMav said:
Alternatively everyone should close their eyes until humanity can agree to work together and speak with one voice? Say, in another couple million years?
Why would we ever need to speak with one voice?
Progress comes from different opinions, different views and different approaches not from the only one correct way of thinking. If we ever be "the one mind" humanity will die.
-
On 10.01.2016 at 3:55 PM, Spaceception said:
So NASA recently set up "The Planetary Defense Office", and I was wondering what you guys were thinking about it.
Here's a link: http://www.popularmechanics.com/space/news/a18896/nasa-creates-a-first-line-of-asteroid-defense-for-earth/
Does this give humanity a higher chance of surviving a large Asteroid impact?
Who allowed NASA to act as leader of entire humanity?
-
1 hour ago, r4pt0r said:
LMAO you are one of those "vaccines cause autism" idiots too?
This is the "Science and Spaceflight" part of the forum. You must be looking for "Forum games", because I cannot take you seriously. Surely you have some monsanto protest you could be off doing?Where I said "vaccines cause autism"? I said that most people think this way: if vaccines doesn't cause autism they are 100% safe.
Those are two very different things.
Also calling people idiots just because they disagree with you remind me this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qPMyccAPrgA
You just scored 18/10 points
-
16 minutes ago, steve_v said:
Science can't "prove" that something doesn't exist, otherwise god would have disappeared in a puff of logic long ago. The scientific method can only test a theory against the available evidence. No evidence has, so far, been found that links GMOs to any known disease.
Cancer is known disease http://www.collective-evolution.com/2014/07/15/new-study-links-gmos-to-cancer-liverkidney-damage-severe-hormonal-disruption/
QuoteThis doesn't mean they are 100% safe, it simply means they are not known to be unsafe - just like pretty much everything else you eat. To say otherwise requires demonstration of a causal link... If you're going to use words like "Crime against humanity" it'd better be a good solid link indeed.
True, but before full-release on market it should be checked very carefully and for very long time (not just for 9 months), meanwhile you demand more scientific data from someone who is against it, than from people who released it on market. That is very wrong approach it should be opposite.
Look at wiki and history of Monsanto law suits, soon there should be this I am talking about.
QuoteSmells like a conspiracy theory to me, got anything to show they did?
That something has happened before is not evidence that it's happening now. And yes, I too have seen "Cosmos" , it's a TV documentary, not a scientific journal. Though that bit is true, again it's not evidence that that's what's happening in this case.That is only example, if something has happened before its is not evidence it is happening now, but it may be same case.
That is why standing behind official statements and claiming something is conspiracy is pretty naive.
QuoteDo I care? If I were to get all my information from "public opinion" (or YouTube) I might end up believing all manner of bizarre things.
You didn't understood what I said... if company would won false-flag-accusation then one of your arguments in our discussion would be "but they won law suit, so there is no proof it is bad" - this is how winning law suit is changing public opinions and way of thinking.
Going back to human cloning...
Same thing is with human cloning... if it would be US or European idea people would go against, so they are (large greedy companies) doing this in proxy-China-company http://www.boyalifegroup.com/english/introduction.aspx because Chinese can clone humans and good democratic govs can't forbid them to do so
Meanwhile this is US and UK project to continue studies on cloning humans in outposts located in China, but in media they are quoting Chinese scientist.
-
8 minutes ago, steve_v said:
No, no, I really can't resist.
Got any real science to back up your opinions there? Please do post your statistically significant evidence that GMOs and vaccines are unsafe, and that the risks of such outweigh the benefits.
You should demand science to back up from people saying that GMO is safe in first place
Are there any statistical studies on people eating GMO?
What data do you have? Does anyone checked people eating GMO on multiple disease or just one or two like cancer?
Any studies on 2nd and 3rd generation of people eating GMO or using vaccines?
QuoteArguments like this cut no ice here whatsoever, anyone can sue for just about anything.
Scientific significance == 0. Data please.Exactly, if you sue your self with zero evidence you are going to win for 100%. How this is going to affect public opinion about you and your product?
Abusing law is easy if you earn billion$, makes worth it and it has happened in past. Large companies hired scientists to present false data.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmos:_A_Spacetime_Odyssey
7 "The Clean Room"
QuotePatterson examined the levels of lead in the common environment and in deeper parts of the oceans and Antarctic ice, showing that lead had only been brought to the surface in recent times. He would discover that the higher levels of lead were from the use of tetraethyllead in leaded gasoline, despite long-established claims by Robert A. Kehoe and others that this chemical was safe. Patterson would continue to campaign against the use of lead, ultimately resulting in government-mandated restrictions on the use of lead. Tyson ends by noting that similar work by scientists continues to be used to help alert humankind to other fateful issues that can be identified by the study of nature.
-
7 minutes ago, r4pt0r said:
I know that "Selective breeding != DNA modification"
However Selective breeding is humans using evolution to carry genes we find favorable forward. We want bigger chickens? only breed the ones that grow particularly large. As we both said GM just lets us skip many steps to add genes we want, or add genes that would not be possible in nature.
Using natural mechanics to make "bigger chicken" maybe isn't great idea, but it is better than changing part of DNA manually.
QuoteMy problem is you imply that GMOs are crimes against humanity, when there is nothing wrong with them.
Or maybe you just don't see what is wrong with them? I read that Monsanto was sued for "crimes against humanity"... I only hope it is not one more false flag sue to avoid in future real accusations. And in case Monsanto wins people will talk that GMO is fine, because they won in court.
Just like vaccine-companies made with "autism accusation" (they won) and now everyone thinks that since vaccine doesn't cause autism it is safe
-
34 minutes ago, r4pt0r said:
No. You are wrong. Genetically modified organisms are all around us. Selective breeding has genetically modified tomatoes from bitter tough golfballs, into plump delicious baseballs, all before the advent of genetic manumpulation using genes. Today we have the advantage of skipping years and years of breeding, and we can just drop in the genes we want. Crops with bigger yields, pest resistance, ect.
There is literally nothing wrong with any of that.Selective breeding != DNA modification
Selective breeding it is just manual driven evolution. While GMO is jumping on different evolution branch skipping many evolutionary steps.
And we even see that selective breeding is failing, because most of crops needs lots of chemical protection against disease that would never occur in natural environment, because such disease would simply kill entire evolutionary branch of plant.
-
9 hours ago, Bill Phil said:
Not his rules. It has more to do with your mind.
It is way Asimov interpreted human mind, not some universal rule. It may change if we understand our minds better, we can even drop this as very wrong interpretation of human mind in future.
QuoteIf a robot has no real differences to a human, except no DNA, but is in every other way a human, is it a human? Yes. It is. That's it.
What? Then he would be talking robot, not human or not even intelligent being. What makes us very different from robots is evolution. Robots won't ever evolve because they have to be created as intelligent to start improving their "production line".
QuoteDNA serves as a body plan, instructions.
And it serves evolution
That is why any DNA modifications, cloning and GMO are crimes against humanity.
-
1 hour ago, Bill Phil said:
DNA doesn't mean all that much at all.
What about a robot like in Asimov's books. Would one be a human if they:
A: believed themselves to be one
B: had human experiences
C: did everything else a human does
Yes, it is human. And it has no DNA. It's human because it experienced being a human and nothing else.
DNA is natural, while Asimov rules are artificial human invention.
-
20 hours ago, Bill Phil said:
A person has experiences. The experiences are part of what determines our personality. If the clones have experiences, then they are people.
Identical twins have similar extremely similar DNA, but different experiences.
What makes you human is your DNA, not your age or your experience. You are human being since your DNA code was established in first cell of your body
-
Quote
being able to clone replacement body parts without rejection
The island (2005)
In first place people should think about "what is difference between human being and sack of body parts?"
If you answered: sack of body parts is made in lab, then think about in-vitro
I am against both.
-
42 minutes ago, Alshain said:
True, but I was cross referencing the cost to build, which has been estimated about $100 billion. Now, I don't know what the depreciation of a space station is (you know they lose value the moment you launch them off the pad), but $80 billion seems about right.
I read somewhere that half of ISS belongs to Russians and if they are going to detach their part... US part of ISS is going to be useless.
-
3 minutes ago, Alshain said:
If you add the word "billion" after that "$80" you'd be pretty close.
Item is worth as much as people are willing to pay for it, not as much as owner wants
-
Very nice, but I saw that docking... my suggestion is to use one more part for perfect docking angle
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/ZmIA2do.png[/IMG] -
[quote name='Shpaget']New Shepard did not land just anywhere. It landed on a small target. It is directly comparable to landing on the barge. It also landed right smack in the middle of that target.
[url]http://i.imgur.com/YaUzusV.png[/url][/QUOTE]
Ok, but what was its ascend path and what is ascend path of falcon? -
[quote name='Red Iron Crown']Carrying any significant payload. Have a look at some of the real world electric prop-powered planes, especially the solar ones.[/QUOTE]
But in real life we don't have SSTO (because it is hard)? Yet in KSP SSTOs are very common, we could get electric engines (for low alts) and changed jets to balance things.
I would also like parts with some new game features:
- hinges
- balloons (should work under water :) )
(space station and planetary base parts)
- inflatable crew sections
- landing legs
- wind turbine
- larger radial batteries
- radiation shielding
- rover crew cabin, we have pretty new mk1 crew part, but no front section
(other)
- cargo/storage parts, current 2.5m cargo part needs larger version
- 0.625m and 2.5m SRBs,
- 2 and 4 crew capsule
- larger panels m-4x4, m-4x2 and larger beams
- caterpillar tracks
- water ski (not only for kerbals ;) ) -
Models made in Japan are good quality, models made in factories located outside of Japan aren't.
-
I wouldn't mind have structural fuselage for all part sizes that typically are used with planes. I like the new hollow ones in Mk1, it allows you to place components that do not need to be accessible by Kerbals but still shielded, like batteries.
^this, also for 2.5m parts would be great or we need procedural inter stages to emulate this
-
I doubt it you can get lots of power by reflecting light, but concentrating light on solar panel is interesting idea
-
The teachers do not work for free, but the education is free. This is demonstrated by the fact that you pay the same, whether you are making use of the educational system or not. Pawel is right. Besides, no need to get technical about it anyway.
At least being technically wrong is the best kind of wrong
What? Hahaha wow... that means all have to pay for those who study. It is simply not fair for poor people who can't afford to go to this "free studies" and they have to work for 10h per day and pay high taxes, what makes them more poor, for education of students from wealthier families.
-
Thanks, we in Poland have free education, we not need pay,
You pay for it every day doing shopping. It would be free if teachers would work for free, but they want money for their jobs, so we as society have to pay for their work.
-
Yea we have Moon, something that Mars doesn't have and that is only reason we are still here
But still if you take energy from environment you affect that environment, so taking energy from Earth core is one of the worst ideas I can think of.
Solar panels on high orbits in ring formation around Earth would be pretty good IMO... problem transfering energy to Earth :/
Meanwhile this is US and UK project to continue studies on cloning humans in outposts located in China, but in media they are quoting Chinese scientist.
Devnote Tuesday: Everyone Pitches In
in KSP1 The Daily Kerbal
Posted
Still no stock delta-v?