Humor Random Comments Thread

[Urwumpe]

The only thing I know is that C++ would complain about an operator in the L-value :shifty:

Same in python. But the indentation error would be triggered first. :lol:

 

[MattBaker]

Same in python. But the indentation error would be triggered first. :lol:

print "Until"
...
print "here"
...
print "the"
...
print "code"
...
print "is"
...
print "working!"
print "Huge success!"

 

[Pablo49]

import antigravity

 

[Pipcard]

One of my pet peeves:

whenever someone talks about a new space capsule design (like the CST-100) as if it should only belong in the 60s/70s.

 

[MattBaker]

We should have a million people in Orbit

Hahahaha. Ha ha haaa. HAHAHA.

Even Wernher von Braun's wettest dreams would have only included a giant Nova rocket to Venus/Mars.
They didn't even want to make space stations until the Soviets did, right?

 

[Urwumpe]

Yesterday he declared that he was not dead yet. Today he is.

Rest in peace, Dieter Hildebrandt, grandmaster of German cabaret.

 

[n122vu]

 

[Athena]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=po62aXeveUs

 

[n122vu]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=po62aXeveUs

Exactly. The person who made the pic was probably just playing off the title of the game, not knowing anything about its content (such as, there are no ghosts in the game, it refers to a small squad of soldiers).

But any excuse to use the George meme is always good eh? *L*

 

[mojoey]

 

[jedidia]

I'll never get that out of my mind again! :lol:

 

[Urwumpe]

I'll never get that out of my mind again! :lol:

C++ and metal are compatible. :lol:

 

[MattBaker]

May I demand that the "xyzception" comments to something (deemed incorrect due to "Inception" being about implanting ideas into someone's mind while he sleeps) must be replaced with array structure comments.

For example the satellite carrying a satellite in itself is just a two dimensional array. A satellite carrying a satellite that is carrying a satellite would be a three dimensional one.

Learning programming languages was a bad idea.

 

[Linguofreak]

One of my pet peeves:

whenever someone talks about a new space capsule design (like the CST-100) as if it should only belong in the 60s/70s.

At least they're saying that we should have SSTOs by now, rather than saying "why aren't we building Shuttle 2.0?".

 

[C3PO]

At least they're saying that we should have SSTOs by now, rather than saying "why aren't we building Shuttle 2.0?".

Look at the fatality records:
Deaths in a capsule: 4
Deaths in a spaceplane: 14

The Phoenicians started numbering their houses around 1500BC, and IMHO it's still a great idea.

 

[MattBaker]

Deaths in a capsule: 4
Deaths in a spaceplane: 14

Fatal accidents in capsules: 2
Fatal accidents in spaceplanes: 2
Fatal accidents in the spaceplane: 1
Fatal accidents in the launcher of the spaceplane: 1

 

[MattBaker]

Thanks for making me check CNN...

 

[Linguofreak]

Look at the fatality records:
Deaths in a capsule: 4
Deaths in a spaceplane: 14

I'm not arguing there, although if you count Apollo 1 it's actually 7 deaths in a capsule (4 in flight).

---------- Post added at 17:33 ---------- Previous post was at 17:12 ----------

Fatal accidents in capsules: 2
Fatal accidents in spaceplanes: 2
Fatal accidents in the spaceplane: 1
Fatal accidents in the launcher of the spaceplane: 1

The issue here is that the causes of the capsule accidents were correctable without major redesign of the capsule, whereas the causes of the spaceplane accidents were inherent to the design and not fully solvable on any multistage spaceplane design.

 

[orbitingpluto]

The issue here is that the causes of the capsule accidents were correctable without major redesign of the capsule, whereas the causes of the spaceplane accidents were inherent to the design and not fully solvable on any multistage spaceplane design.

I thought that even after Apollo 1, they were still using a all oxygen atmosphere, except at launch, because modifying Apollo for a safer mix was judged to be too far a redesign for the time and money they had. Since I remember that one of the changes needed was a thicker/stronger pressure vessel, I disagree with you saying that all the capsule accidents were correctable without major redesigns.

 

[Linguofreak]

I thought that even after Apollo 1, they were still using a all oxygen atmosphere, except at launch, because modifying Apollo for a safer mix was judged to be too far a redesign for the time and money they had.

The new atmosphere was 60% oxygen at 14.7 psi as opposed to 16 psi of pure oxygen at launch, dropping to 60% O2 at 5 psi during launch, with the nitrogen then being purged over the next day, giving 100% O2 at 5 psi. Suit atmosphere was 100% O2 at cabin pressure. In any case, at 5 psi, even 100% O2 isn't a significant fire risk.

60% O2 at 5 psi has the same partial pressure of oxygen as Earth's atmosphere at sea level (which is 14.7 psi with 20% O2).

A significant amount of flammable material was removed from the Block 2 CM interior, and a fair number of wiring faults were also fixed.

Since I remember that one of the changes needed was a thicker/stronger pressure vessel, I disagree with you saying that all the capsule accidents were correctable without major redesigns.

No stronger pressure vessel was needed that I've ever heard.