« first day (747 days earlier)      last day (3066 days later) » 

02:13
@DaaaahWhoosh Heathen
 
11 hours later…
12:45
worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/q/56635/22678 I could have sworn there was a question on killing/influencing people with images on a TV, I can't find it.
13:02
@Skye My hunt has found nothing.
@ArtOfCode So dumb question, but the cables to connect the sound card directly to the speakers... What are they called? "Audio cable" is legit the only name I'm finding. Sometimes "6 channel audio cable" if it comes bundled.
@NexTerren I've heard them called interconnects
I call them 3.5mm to 3.5mm audio cables
granted interconnects is an audiophile term and somewhat hipster
Unless you mean rca cables
which are also sometimes used
@NexTerren Has the podcast come along well?
@JourneymanGeek Not 3.5mm aux cables. Maybe RCA? Here's the ports, pictured: goo.gl/images/VDKmSa
those are definately 3.5mm
@NexTerren this might help? tomshardware.com/forum/…
13:13
@Skye Recorded, edited, given back, ready to go to YouTube!
Unless you mean the two off to the right
@NexTerren Can't wait :D
2
@JourneymanGeek 3.5 carries stereo with optional input, right? These are each single channel.
@NexTerren I think the idea is you connect one per speaker to each channel, yes
13:15
This website also talks about the audio card and speakers pcguide.com/buy/des/compSound-c.html
More precisely it should be forward/centre/rear
@Skye huh. This says they're called BOTH RCA and 3.5mm
er
noooo
Outside the really prosumer stuff, you are not finding RCA in consumer gear
@JourneymanGeek That is honestly what the link says, right or wrong. :P
@Green I don't mean to beat up your answer. My comments are just half-baked musings I don't have time to turn into an actual answer yet.
13:19
@NexTerren they are not the same
@JourneymanGeek Thus my confused "huh."
@NexTerren my dad says that RCA is not something commonly referred to or something so just ignore it for now?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RCA_connector <wiki page on RCA connectors
@HDE226868 No offense taken. I wrote that answer without doing much research and written on the way into work. My degree of handwaving is very high and my astrophysics is very weak.
Hmmmm. Thanks for the help, @Skye @JourneymanGeek!
 
5 hours later…
18:15
Posted a question. Almost immediately get two answers. Entirely separate ends of the spectrum with no middle ground. I love it.
19:08
ohh noooo whyyyyy to clooosee worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/q/57410/20315
wrtiting answer, and this question have answer, after spacex presentation (((
@MolbOrg If you feel it should be reopened, flag it for reopening, and leave a comment explaining your viewpoint.
@NexTerren ok tnx
Ahahah, yeah, I've had a question deleted/closed several times when I hit page 2-3 with my answer before. It hurts. :)
19:28
@NexTerren I just begun to formulate the answer, when it showed to be closed, so pain is more about opportunity, although Thucydides posted answer in direction I wanted to post, but I wished to be more practical, and ORION is not needed, yhea. This Q fits exactly about ITS and SpaceX
kk will go to reddit, to release steam of my thoughts about ITS and our bright future))
20:25
@Mołot Hey there.
@Mołot First, thanks for bringing this issue up. I would have asked it as a separate question if I knew it was worth discussing. Hindsight 20/20 and all that.
Hi. No problem
@Mołot First question: Based on your/my/WhatRoughBeast's comments, are we still saying it's impossible or just ineffective?
I was a physics student and a Kerbal player, and read a lot of military space fiction, so things like this are something i got (over) sensitive to.
Haha, yeah, I could never get very good at Kerbal.
Well if it helps you didn't come across as oversensitive in your comments, just helpful!
You can shoot missile from orbit. there is a chance it would reach an atmosphere. Much less chance it would survive reentry.
virtually no chance of hitting anything IF you want to stay above the reach of nuclear missiles
because of ballistic nuclear rockets usa, russia and china got quite good at hitting manuevring missiles from space
and yours would not be able to maneuver
20:29
So with that launch velocity it would be able to launch from orbit, and it would reach the surface of the Earth. If humans don't try to stop it, it'll (more or less, with the variance of wind which while it could be calculated in like normal artillery firing, but I'd imagine it'd be too complex to entirely account for at that altitude) hit target. However it'll be easy to aim for and take out by modern developed nations.

Am I more or less on target with that summary of points?
it wouldn't be "too complex"
your missile would hit the atmosphere so much time after the shot
you wouldn't know what wind would be there
Mkay, so no accounting for wind speed at all.
The rest of it, did I understand correctly?
And they'd take out the shells with... nuclear missiles?
Russians use about 20m radius when they have to predict touchdown area for uncontrolled reentry, as far as I remember
no, they'd take them out with missiles meant to hit nuclear missiles ;)
Okay, that makes more sense.
they'd use nuclear missiles if your ships are near LEO
as far as I remember, they can shoot them this high
I remember reading somewhere that geostationary orbit is safe from this, so that's where I imagined your motherships
20:33
Like... this might be vastly something that nobody knows, but how many counter-missiles are there? Since my question boils down to "how much do we have to upsize this force" it seems like at some point they could fire just enough shells where the counter-nuclear-missile missiles would be exhausted.
An anti-ballistic missile (ABM) is a surface-to-air missile designed to counter ballistic missiles (see missile defense). Ballistic missiles are used to deliver nuclear, chemical, biological or conventional warheads in a ballistic flight trajectory. The term "anti-ballistic missile" is a generic term conveying a system designed to intercept and destroy any type of ballistic threat, however it is commonly used for systems specifically designed to counter intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs). == Current counter-ICBM systems == There are only two systems in the world that can intercept ICBMs...
it's classified but
a hell damn lot and they can make more quite fast
Mmmkay. I'm going to edit my post with this information.
or at least that's what everyone wants their opponents to believe ;)
in your story it might be revealed that such missiles were a bluff to disciurage nuclear war
or something
but with them in place, you are not landing anything on Earth, really
@NexTerren hope it'll help :)
@Mołot Absolutely. I have to handwave certain things, but I like to be as brutal realistic as I can with everything else. That way if I do dial something back (like claiming the number of missiles were a bluff as you suggest) I know the baseline I'm adjusting from.
OK, waiting to see your edited question
20:40
@Mołot Done, actually. The paragraph starting with "edit" includes notes from this discussion. To clean up the comment section, I'm going to remove some of my comments.
See if you see anything wrong with that paragraph. If so I'll edit it again.
Seems OK now
Okay, awesome. Thanks again, @Mołot, for your help.
Just let me know the title when it's published ;)
@Mołot Ha! I'll be sure to.
Good night, it's late here
20:50
@Mołot Night. Take care.

« first day (747 days earlier)      last day (3066 days later) »