pincushionman

That is a decision he will need to consider himself, but it is a fair point. Alternately, he could consider a Linux distro for one or both computers. Newegg has OEM versions of both 7 and 8.1 home/pro for $99/140, or full versions (transferrable) of 8.1 For $120/200. Either of these offer free upgrades to win10 for the first year (your old computer probably qualifies too, if it's 7 or 8). Glad to hear this.

It depends what kind of license he already has. If he has a "full" type he bought in a store (or online, whatever; it's the $200 or so complete install) he can remove it from the old and put it on the new whenever he wants. If it's an "OEM" license (costs sbout half as much on Newegg OR it was preinstalled by the manufacturer) it was locked to the motherboard model on first activation maybe the BIOS, but I think it's a case of "if your mobo dies, you can swap it with the exact same model and it will be fine". If it was an upgrade, the upgrade itself can be transferred, but the original OS is still subject to the full/OEM restriction.

I like stock because keeping up with all the mod updates and bugs for stuff I *might* want is a hassle. I make an exception for KJR ane KER, though. I'm going to try an install with KCAN after 1.0.3, though to see if that makes it better. But I do know even that doesn't always play nice with Ferram.

I feel for you. My younger boy is currently potty training, and we are currently making progress. I shall not be flying any "real" missions in the near future. On the other hand, I probably won't be able to get any chores done, either.

There is a lot of GUI text that gets lost even for color-capable seers. Basically any text that isn't backed by an opaque window.

Like a cash register cha-ching?

I must be mixing this up with another recent suggestion about automatic struts in this. In the real world, the outer tube of the rocket is the logitudinal structural member, regardless of the size and strength of the interior parts (in this case, the engine(s)) Two. (1) The fairing base and decoupler are merged. (2) The engine shroud "parts" go away. These may be non-persistent and do not contribute to debris build-up, but they are not physicsless. There are many threads on this forum describing the NERV shrouds in particular hanging on each other and having to be burned off at the expense of dV or crashing into other parts and damaging them. The new fairing system allows the old engine shroud system to be replaced with no work at all on Squad's part other than to disable those models/modules, since the fairing system is already implemented. More flexible too. Autostrut functionality would be more work, but the strut system itself is already present as well.

Propeller. We've got simple fixed landing gear now, we really need a puller engine to go with it. Would make small survey planes far easier to construct.

Yes. BUT now you have an engine (with its own fairing), a decoupler, AND a fairing base (also with its own fairing). All connected through weak 1.25m nodes instead of strong 2.5m or 3.75m ones.

I'm all for the interstage fairing change. It seems obvious. Not so convinced about the separate directions thing - if you need to jettison just what is "below" on the stack, shouldn't you have the decoupler turned the other way? When would it even make sense to separate one side of a stack-separator-connected stack without ditching the whole separator?

You could always write a comment on one of his videos and ask him?

I'm looking to upgrade my phone in the very near future (exactly when depends on when my wife says "we're going to get new phones, get in the car"). We've moved from iPhone 4's to iPhone 5's, and it's very likely we'll/I'll continue that trend with the 6 unless I hear a very convincing argument otherwise. I'm asking to see if any of you have any very convincing arguments otherwise - I don't want to dismiss a good opportunity to switch just because. So again: I have an iPhone 5, my wife does as well, and our little boys are using our old phones as toys, pretty much. Having the same platform that we're all comfortable with is a definite plus. Also, the size of the iPhone 6 is not that much larger than the 5, which is a good thing for me who keeps the phone in the pocket. All the Android models we saw earlier this year were more like small tablets. And I understand the cameras are very good for phones, especially with all the shooting modes available. Some things I am interested in about Androids, however: - Battery life. I've been having issues, to put it bluntly. - Flexibility. I understand that the Android platform can be customized much more than the iOS one; does anyone really do that and why? - Two bullets is a really short list, but I'm sure you users can better identify "these things work better/worse on X", and that's what I'm interested it. And which models are good? One last time: I'm most likely to stick with the Apple option here, but I want to hear from you about this because I don't want to rule out switching completely. Plus, somebody else who's more on the fence might appreciate the discussion too. Thanks much, folks!

Persistent Trails. I haven't actually tried it, but that's what you want. (the name doesn't exactly get that point across, in my opinion). Don't know if it rewinds time to the proper timeframe or not, though.

Separate these statements. The second is true; the first most definitely is not. All of our technology requires constant upkeep, else it wears out and breaks. There is no self-repair or self-replication of even our most advanced technologies. Biological systems, on the other hand, have had millions if not billions of years to practice surviving, and are hell-bent on continuing that trend. Self-repair systems abound to treat injury from a wide variety of sources, and while they do in fact wear out, there are other systems in place to produce their own replacements. It's almost like it's the whole point.

A particle cannot collide with a partner with "opposite" momentum and cancel their momenta out, leaving them motionless in the same location (inelastic collision). Thus says Heisenberg. There is an unknown component of each particle's momentum both before and after the interaction. Furthermore, in a container of water, even an ideal one, there are components of energy in rotational and vibrational modes. Even if large portions of the translational momentum are "lost," they will be transferred to those modes.

Before you ask "what should we do" with it, you need to decide what you want to DO with it. Browse the internet, do e-mails, use word processors and spreadsheets? Most Linuxes (Linuces?) do that just fine, but there's no reason to bother because your Windows already does that just fine. Play games? Tough call since you're 2 1/2 versions back, but Windows still has a larger "library" of runnable games, though Linux is catching up. Play music and videos? Again, either one. If you want to muck around in a Linux distro just for the hell of it, that's different. But you still have to decide what you really want out of it first.

How are you equivalencing the mass, particularly for the 1.25m cases? You note that the backwards LV-T45 is almost better than no nosecone at all, but if you set the mass equal, it might be better for real.

Eagle Scout, 1995, I think. I started as a wee lad in Tiger Cubs. My older little boy is going to start Tiger Cubs this fall. I'm also interested in knowing more about the international members of the Movement, and what their equivalent awards are.

If you do your staging right (having enough stages, that is) your CoM moves forward as you drain from the first-stage tanks. And when you drop your now-empty first stage, you're out of the bulk of the atmosphere and it doesn't matter so much.

Hate what? Need more context, man.

It's the Space Lounge, man. Roll with it.

Actually, this is XP and Win7 experience here. Most programs are pretty self-contained, and the uninstallers work just fine cleaning up, other than sometimes leaving empty foders. The problem is not knowing whether that's the case. I'm wary because it's not just cheapies that are the problem. We have a program at work that clutters up two different folders in Application Data and eats all my user network storage without periodic cleaning. I got sick of that and wrote a .bat file that does it for me each login. The program happens to be CATIA v5, which costs tens of thousands of dollars for the installs we're dealing with. We also have Patran, which in the past started by default in C:\Windows\Temp. Check your temp folders too.

The issue is knowing where to look. Do you know off-hand which C:\Program Files\whatever\ folder a program installed into a couple of years ago (especially if you manually set the install folder)? When you use the program, does it put files in C:\Users\you\Application Data\…\whatever\? Did it install some data to a folder in C:\Program Data\? The first place (Program Files) is the obvious one. Some people don't even know the others (user\Application Data\… and Program Data) exist, since they're hidden. The program uninstaller or the control panel equivalent should do a good job of cleaning those up… Key word should. But I don't usually trust that. After all, a lot of programs try to trick me into installing random bull#*+ like Yahoo! Toolbar when they're done. Why should I think they've thought far enough ahead to properly set up their uninstaller? Once you know where the files are, normal file delete methods do just fine to clean up what the uninstallers might have missed, intentional or mistake or just lazy. I normally run with "show hidden files and folders" folder option to help me with this. Note that they're not usually hiding the folders to screw with you, they're just putting them in locations where it makes good sense to do so, and Windows assumes that you don't usually care to see the folders inside these locations.

The reason I asked about "military" engines is because the jets we have at our disposal are more like high-performance fighter engines than they are like engines used on transport category (airliners and military transport) aircraft. So the question was meant to be "in the real world, when using these 'special missions'-type airplanes and engines, do we eat the weight/complexity/cost penalty of a thrust reverser, or do we just use longer runways/better spoilers/drag chutes?"

Well, there's no signal delay, soooo…