The idea is that you send a rocket up in stages. When the first stage comes down, it normally lands in the ocean, slowed by parachutes. Then you've got to go out in a boat and pick it up, and it's a pain to clean it off and use it again.
With this, you can parachute it almost all the way down to earth, then kick in the rocket again, release the parachute, and land standing up. It would mean an extra payload (to lift the landing fuel) but that extra fuel will cost waaaaaay less than a whole first stage dumping into the sea.
The second stage usually burns up on re-entry. With shielding, it too can get into the atmosphere, deploy a chute, then land on its own torch.
While I'm sure that "space program debris" dropped into the ocean during a launch is a drop in the bucket, and all that fuel being burned up is definitely more ecologically impactful, I still think it's a saner, more responsible thing to land your first stages as described above than to just let them drop in the water and not worry about them further.
While I'm sure that "space program debris" dropped into the ocean during a launch is a drop in the bucket, and all that fuel being burned up is definitely more ecologically impactful, I still think it's a saner, more responsible thing to land your first stages as described above than to just let them drop in the water and not worry about them further.
So.. sounds good.
I was talking about cost in dollars, not in eco-units.
Well yeah I know that, but I was looking at it from the eco angle. In gross terms I'm sure there's very little difference, but to me there's a big conceptual difference between retrieving the booster stages over just letting them drop where they may.
He told my reporter that religion can't do anything to move humanity forward:
“Religion may have made contributions to global health with donations and missions,” he said. “But as far as a systematic way to solve problems, it doesn’t offer anything.” Varmus lamented what he perceives as a decline in public support for science. He said science has decreased in popularity since his childhood, when people throughout the country were enthralled with the space race between the U.S. and Soviet Union. He said a new scientific revolution is needed. “We need to set new goals to inspire the public,” he said. “Mapping the human brain — the most powerful biological machine ever generated by evolution — could be what grabs people’s attention again.”
This comes from Spotted flower, a manga about an otaku (who may or may not be from the series Genshiken) and his pregnant wife(who may or may not be from the same). Same person that did Genshiken and Kujibiki Unbalance.
Churba you should just tweet everything you are reading so others can share in this wonderful experience.
I really should just publish everything I write about the nonsense I read and play.
We have successfully determined that the Hardboiled rules can accurately simulate basketball, soccer, hockey, and, if you had enough patience and players, american football.
So my mom has started to notice various offers for in-app purchases/DLC in her iOS games. Fortunately, my mom has a natural paranoia against anything asking for money out of the blue, so she declined them all despite not being super technically savvy. We then had a discussion as to "good" and "bad" types of in-app purchases/DLC. As far as I'm concerned, the good kind consists of (but isn't necessarily limited to):
Full versions of a game after downloading a demo/trial version: Basically, this is like how the original Doom shipped back in the day: you could download the first episode for free but had to pay to get the other episodes. This is perfectly reasonable as it gives you an idea as to whether you like a game before you actually commit cash to it.
Additional bonus levels after completing a full game: Basically, suppose you have a 10 level game that's fully playable and has a satisfying ending after completing those 10 levels. However, it then gives you the offer of purchasing 10 more levels to challenge your skills. Again, this is okay as the original game without the DLC is fully playable and satisfying, but it does give you the option of playing more of the same game should you so choose.
The bad kind of DLC consists of (but is not limited to):
Crap that serves no purpose within the game itself. These are things such as outfits for the characters, random junk to decorate the in game experience, etc.
Additional characters for the game: just put the characters in the original game to begin with and don't use them as an excuse to milk more cash from your customers. This can be forgiven if the game is advertised as a trial/demo/limited version and all the characters are available at no additional cost once you purchase the full game.
In-game resources necessary to complete the game but that can only be acquired by spending more money, provided the game isn't advertised as a demo/trial/limited version. Again, put them in the damned base game, already.
Alternatives to grinding, especially when they make the grinding incredibly tedious. For example, given the choice of killing 100 reasonably easy to defeat monsters or paying $1 to get enough in-game currency to buy the Sword+1, which I need to defeat the next area's monsters, I'd probably just kill the 100 monsters. However, if it came down to killing 100 million monsters vs. spending $1, I'd be like, "Fuck this stupid game!" and try to find a better way to spend my time and money.
There are certainly some gray areas, of course (like the case of bonus levels that include extra characters, for example), but I think these examples cover most of the basics.
You should make an exception for characters depending on the nature of the game. In an old fashioned 2d fighter like Street-fighter II, additional characters are a fairly substantial expansion of the game play. Characters as DLC only bothers me when said characters are effectively cosmetic changes only.
You should make an exception for characters depending on the nature of the game. In an old fashioned 2d fighter like Street-fighter II, additional characters are a fairly substantial expansion of the game play. Characters as DLC only bothers me when said characters are effectively cosmetic changes only.
See, I think those characters should be included in the base game, although I suppose for a fighting game there is a bit of a gray area, as you said.
Comments
With this, you can parachute it almost all the way down to earth, then kick in the rocket again, release the parachute, and land standing up. It would mean an extra payload (to lift the landing fuel) but that extra fuel will cost waaaaaay less than a whole first stage dumping into the sea.
The second stage usually burns up on re-entry. With shielding, it too can get into the atmosphere, deploy a chute, then land on its own torch.
So.. sounds good.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_E._Varmus
He told my reporter that religion can't do anything to move humanity forward:
“Religion may have made contributions to global health with donations and missions,” he said. “But as far as a systematic way to solve problems, it doesn’t offer anything.”
Varmus lamented what he perceives as a decline in public support for science.
He said science has decreased in popularity since his childhood, when people throughout the country were enthralled with the space race between the U.S. and Soviet Union.
He said a new scientific revolution is needed.
“We need to set new goals to inspire the public,” he said. “Mapping the human brain — the most powerful biological machine ever generated by evolution — could be what grabs people’s attention again.”
What the fuck is up with that Michael Jackson squeal at the end there?
- Full versions of a game after downloading a demo/trial version: Basically, this is like how the original Doom shipped back in the day: you could download the first episode for free but had to pay to get the other episodes. This is perfectly reasonable as it gives you an idea as to whether you like a game before you actually commit cash to it.
- Additional bonus levels after completing a full game: Basically, suppose you have a 10 level game that's fully playable and has a satisfying ending after completing those 10 levels. However, it then gives you the offer of purchasing 10 more levels to challenge your skills. Again, this is okay as the original game without the DLC is fully playable and satisfying, but it does give you the option of playing more of the same game should you so choose.
The bad kind of DLC consists of (but is not limited to):- Crap that serves no purpose within the game itself. These are things such as outfits for the characters, random junk to decorate the in game experience, etc.
- Additional characters for the game: just put the characters in the original game to begin with and don't use them as an excuse to milk more cash from your customers. This can be forgiven if the game is advertised as a trial/demo/limited version and all the characters are available at no additional cost once you purchase the full game.
- In-game resources necessary to complete the game but that can only be acquired by spending more money, provided the game isn't advertised as a demo/trial/limited version. Again, put them in the damned base game, already.
- Alternatives to grinding, especially when they make the grinding incredibly tedious. For example, given the choice of killing 100 reasonably easy to defeat monsters or paying $1 to get enough in-game currency to buy the Sword+1, which I need to defeat the next area's monsters, I'd probably just kill the 100 monsters. However, if it came down to killing 100 million monsters vs. spending $1, I'd be like, "Fuck this stupid game!" and try to find a better way to spend my time and money.
There are certainly some gray areas, of course (like the case of bonus levels that include extra characters, for example), but I think these examples cover most of the basics.1. It can sting like a mofo.
2. The smell.
Yes that's a penis.