Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: I don't think it's the industry in general. (Score 1) 413

by mark-t (#47512349) Attached to: The Daily Harassment of Women In the Game Industry
I was working in the video game development industry for a number of years and in that time, I never once saw women being treated an differently than men.. although I have heard stories of it happening at other places. i think it depends, therefore, on the types of people that a particular game studio might tend to employ.

Comment: How's that supposed to work anyway? (Score 1) 258

I mean, if they were laid off, then that tends to mean that they *can't* be hired back on... at least not immediately. My understanding is that "laid off" means that the person is being let go because there isn't enough work to justify paying them, so how could they even *think* of hiring back anyone?

Comment: Re:Glass half-empty (Score 1) 156

by mark-t (#47500363) Attached to: NASA: Lunar Pits and Caves Could House Astronauts
You said

To suggest that we, ill adapted to space as we are, ought to go physically into space instead of sending a machine is absurd

... which suggests that we should not be sending human beings into space merely because we are ill-adapted to do so.

Of course, the same argument could be made for, as a previous poster had said... flight. Obviously human beings can't fly no matter how hard they flap their arms, but that's no reason to not get into an aircraft. And nobody disputes that it's equally obvious that space is an extraordinarily harsh environment that no human being could hope to survive in for any more than a brief instant... but if the argument that we shouldn't let the fact that we must use machines to achieve something keep us from doing it, then why the heck should human beings be kept from going into space merely because we can't survive there without sophisticated life support?

Comment: Re:Glass half-empty (Score 1) 156

by mark-t (#47498165) Attached to: NASA: Lunar Pits and Caves Could House Astronauts

It's not embarrassing to apply machines as all.... as you say,

I would like to fly to New York...

Or....

I would like to travel into space.

The fact that we are ill adapted to survive in space should be no more of a justification that we shouldn't go there than the fact that we are unable to fly without machines should be a justification to never get into an aircraft.

Really.... did I have to explain this twice?

Comment: Re:I don't see the problem. (Score 2) 662

by mark-t (#47498149) Attached to: Russian Government Edits Wikipedia On Flight MH17

Why did the plane deviated over 500km from its usual path? Obviously the ATC forced them to so otherwise they wouldn't be that fucking stupid and fly over a known war zone.

MH17 was also requested by Kiev to drop from 35000 ft to 33000 ft right before it got hit.

If, as you say, Kiev had confiscated the ATC record, then how on earth could you, or whoever you heard it from, have known any of that?

But of course... conspiracy theories are so much more interesting than reality, I can't fault people for wanting to believe them.

Comment: Re:I don't see the problem. (Score 1) 662

by mark-t (#47498099) Attached to: Russian Government Edits Wikipedia On Flight MH17
It's my understanding that all statements about the trajectory are deductive based on post-attack evidence. If they had actually identified the trajectory of the missile from a satellite, they would also easily know which side of the Russia/Ukraine border it originated on... which they do not.

Comment: Re:Do you have any hands-on experience ? (Score 4, Interesting) 662

by mark-t (#47497473) Attached to: Russian Government Edits Wikipedia On Flight MH17

Why would soldiers waste expensive missiles for some irrelevant passenger plane?

Why, indeed... and part of the reason why I don't think that this was done as any official act by either nation.

Why would be there a plane over a warzone in the first place?

Apparently, before takeoff, the aircraft was explicitly told that the route was safe to fly over.

When you perform a terrorist act you tell that YOU did it in order to intimidate. You don't deny you did it.

I think that would depend on whether or not the uncertainty and the slinging of accusations from all sides better serves their interest than the fear it might generate if they knew who did it. I strongly suspect that the actual perpetrators are sitting back and watching the fireworks right now... hoping it will eventually escalate to the point that they'll be too busy fighting eachother to notice what the group is *really* up to.

Comment: Re:I don't see the problem. (Score 1) 662

by mark-t (#47497403) Attached to: Russian Government Edits Wikipedia On Flight MH17

And what makes you think that organizations acting independently of the government wouldn't have that kind of money?

The biggest argument against the notion that it was government sanctioned is that Russia wouldn't have anything to gain from shooting down a civilian plane in Ukraine airspace and the Ukraine government doesn't have that kind of hardware in the first place.

Comment: Re:I don't see the problem. (Score 1) 662

by mark-t (#47496879) Attached to: Russian Government Edits Wikipedia On Flight MH17
Actually, I suspect that neither side knows the truth. Or at least neither government does. This strikes me as an act of somebody or some organization that was acting entirely independently of government authority or sanction (and most likely used illegally purchased munitions to achieve it).

Comment: Re:It's a fake! (Score 3, Interesting) 203

by mark-t (#47496239) Attached to: Apollo 11 Moon Landing Turns 45

Sort of.

Go there. See for yourself.

It won't necessarily prove exactly when it happened, if you're going to be really skeptical about it, but it should prove that it happened... at least to the extent that you can trust what your own senses tell you, and what you will find there will be completely consistent with what should be there. At an absolute worst case, it would prove that somebody spent a whole lot of money to fabricate a replica set of the"fake moon landing" on the real moon just to convince future people who land there that it actually happened... of course,even that still means that somebody has already been on the moon.

Oh, and of course, any stories you might tell upon your return would be categorized by skeptics as either you being paid off to say what you saw. And the really die hard skeptics who go up themselves would probably just believe that they were being brainwashed if they saw it for themselves.

There is a difference, you see, between proving that something happened and having somebody believe that it happened.

If money can't buy happiness, I guess you'll just have to rent it.

Working...