Population Numbers...

I'm not recommending you go hang out with a cat lady right away but if you have a loco relative that you can incrementally increase time with it helps in dealing with random random people.

I don't think I would characterize this as an argument. Its an argument in the same sense that a child asking "are we there yet" and the parent saying "no" is an argument. One of us is making a supposition. One of us is stating facts in response. That's not really an argument.

Just to be clear, and just to make sure all angles are covered, in the general case it is not true that it is easier to design, construct, operate, maintain, upgrade, or repair one large thing that performs a task relative to a lot of smaller things designed to collectively do the same task. It *can* sometimes be cheaper, in spite of that complexity, to use one big thing relative to a lot of smaller things, which is why big things are even made at all (the other reason: some tasks cannot be decomposed into smaller units).

Furthermore, this is not solely a limitation of gravity, structural integrity, or current technology.

This is not an argument. This is an observation.


I'm not sure if its possible to convince Durakken of this fact, but the simple matter is there is basically no chance of a competent engineer not drawing the conclusion that he is just making stuff up. And I have never understood why, when people are confronted with that knowledge, it does not give them pause. For me personally, its not the 99% of the population I could probably snow into believing anything I say that concern me, its the 1% that could trivially see through an attempt at fabrication that do: they are the ones whose respect I care more about, and would be forfeiting by talking crazy. Maybe its the attitude that comes from being a professional anything for a long enough period of time, but I've always felt that way.

I once argued with someone on the internet about a protocol that turned out to be one of the authors of that protocol. That argument bothered me for months after I found out that fact: I turned that argument over and over in my mind looking at it from all angles searching for either the point where I must have made an error, or alternatively the point where I failed to comprehend a possible alternate interpretation of the argument, simply because it bothered me that out there somewhere the author of the protocol thought I was bat-**** nuts. It wasn't until a couple of years later I found out that I was wrong, but in a way that a lot of people made the same error for the same reason (it had to do with the intent of a feature of the protocol, which the author obviously knew better than I, but it was documented in such a misleading way that actually *most* people interpreted it incorrectly, it turns out).

Even so, to this day I wonder if there was a way to figure that out at the time, because I hate being wrong in front of people who know I'm wrong with absolute certainty. It doesn't matter how many other people think I was right. And that's why I've always been fascinated with this sort of behavior.

Actually, you're the only one who doesn't know what it means. Everyone else is in complete agreement.

You would still need a more complex steering system. Because a larger ship can not speed up, slow down, or turn as quickly as a smaller ship due to the greatly increased mass. These things do not work like you believe they do

Dude, the interactions are the most complex part of the whole deal. We are all in agreement that you 1) have no idea what you're talking about, and 2) you're too stubborn to even try to think about where you might be in error.

Truth is truth, and you're completely missing it

Business as usual.

You weren't insulted. People pointed out your apparent lack of an ability to make a logical argument and reassess it when your assumptions were proven to be in error.

To be fair, in my case i did frame it in an insulting manner after reading the thread and eventually losing all patience and inclination to indulge someone who is willfully and aggressively obtuse. A number of other posts also expressed similar exasperation in a less than tactful manner.

For what it's worth i have reached the point where i'm not even going to bother responding directly to the OP's assertions in the future. It's like trying to teach a tank full of hamsters calculus, only less rewarding. (For one thing there's less chance your students will eliminate themselves through violence and cannibalism.) On the other hand i may respond to some of the more interesting and informative replies.

Vizzini was explaining that it's impossible to best his dizzying intellect.

Conceivable!

I laughed to death.

Can you be more specific? With the exception of "The Wrath of Khan" they were all incredibly stupid.

Bravo, man! Nailed it in 1

Some were more so than others.

People seem to forget that WoK had as many if not more plot holes than the Abrams Trek, but we forgive that because a) at the time it was totally cool, and b) you know, Khaaaaaaaaan!

I disagree Khan had more plot holes than JJ Trek. I mean, Abrams' movie has so many it is essentially one big plot hole.