Here's a huge cluebat: If they allow the Satanist monument, and all that are offered, they are still "shoving religion down peoples' throats." They are just at that point doing it equally and with no hint of infringing on freedom.
According various religions the same respect is exactly what I want to see. We as a society can decide if all of them are allowed to show their propaganda anywhere and everywhere at any time, or if they are all restricted to behind closed doors, or somewhere in between. What I don't want to see is Christians asserting the right to put up their propaganda while denying the same right to others. If we decide that all of this pompous religious posturing on government land is not becoming, then we should not allow any of them to do it. I am completely fine with that.
Religion is often seen in public places, and rightfully so, and has had a prominent place in the public discourse on various matters on many occasions during the existence of the Republic.
How is that different than phallic symbols and masculine traits in general? There's a reason that when two men show off and try to upstage each other (whether that be in politics or elsewhere) that people describe that as a dick-measuring contest.
you probably don't have a well developed notion of their respective uses.
I'm pretty sure the reason for the existence of both of them is propagation to the next generation. One or more of them also has to do with human waste.
Your first paragraph is entirely self-contradictory regarding not trying to change their mind, but altering their world view
I guess I see that as a difference in language. When I think about someone changing their mind I think about a transitory decision. I think I'll have steak for dinner tonight. Wait, maybe I'll have chicken instead. I changed my mind.
I feel like this is a larger issue. I don't think "changing their mind" in the transitory sense applies to something as fundamental as their religion honoring the constitution and the law. In my grasp of the language, I see that as altering their world view instead of changing the mind. I see the difference in the two terms as a difference in scope, one is more important than the other.
The Ten Commandments in some degree agrees with that, and definitely does not come into opposition to that. To the contrary, Satanism directly and proudly promotes evil, damage, and chaos; Satanism conflicts with the constitutions.
That's an obviously dangerous statement, and you should notice that (by the way, you forgot to hit the "Post Anonymously" checkbox in your replies to people replying about your gay marriage screed). How about these statements:
Islam directly and proudly promotes evil, damage, and chaos. Judaism directly and proudly promotes evil, damage, and chaos. Scientology directly and proudly promotes evil, damage, and chaos.
See the problem? Now all of a sudden it becomes a subjective decision on which religions promote evil, and which promote virtue. That means that the government would have to prefer one religion over another, which goes directly contrary to the federal constitution which you say justifies your viewpoint. To say nothing that people are still trying to use Iron Age era guidelines intended for nomadic desert tribes to decide on modern public policy.
Moreover, if you're going to try and have an intelligent debate about Christianity vs. Satanism, you should really do some research into Satanists. For one, individual and not group practice is encouraged - there is not a single dogma that is followed by all Satanists. Some are theistic, some are atheistic. They are also a recent phenomenon. If there is a single most widely-followed dogma, it is that given in La Vey's Satanic Bible. La Vey's philosophy is atheistic and is centered around the individual and personal responsibility, not about the promotion of evil, damage, and chaos (you ignorant turd). In short, he says that people should be free to do what they want to do, as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else, and if your enemy should hit you on the cheek, then you should smash him on the other (as opposed to the pacifism encouraged by Christianity but rarely seen by Christians).
Frankly, I think that more people in America today live according to La Vey's philosophy than anything considered to be truly Christian. I've never met someone who refuses to wear clothes made of mixed fabric on principle, but I've met plenty of people who self-identify as Christians who are more than happy to seek revenge for a perceived wrongdoing. I've also met plenty of people who determine that if their child is being bullied by another kid at school, the correct response is to "stand up" to that bully and push them back, not just turn the other cheek. I've also never heard anyone suggest that someone guilty of adultery should be stoned to death. I'm not married, but I have sex with unmarried women. I don't really think that we deserve to die, do you?
Can you define what a "progressive" is? At first glance, it would not appear that seeking progress would be a bad thing. You must be using a definition that is different from the obvious one.
Do you think this action will do anything to change anyones mind?
Change their mind about what, exactly? No one is trying to change their mind. What people are trying to achieve is to make them realize that the constitution requires separation of church and state, and that applies to their religion also. If evangelicals think that they should get special treatment under the law then they most certainly do deserve to have their world view altered a bit. It's not about them "changing their mind", it's about them adhering to the same laws that the rest of us follow, also. Because, as it stands, if they are going to have the right to put their religious propaganda on government land, then any religion should have that same right. If they are going to fight that then what they are fighting for is special treatment under the law, and I'm not willing to allow them to have special treatment under the law to avoid hurting their feelings.
This might force some bullshit legal decision that will force the monuments down, but the one thing it will not do is change anyones mind or make the kind of social progress we really need.
I'm not so sure about that. Forcing religious groups to follow the same set of laws that this country has always followed is certainly not a step back.
It's not about "really wanting them to change their mind", it's more about "forcing them to respect the law." I don't care how they think as long as they aren't shoving their religion in everyones' face.
Remember: religions are like penises. It's ok to have one, and it's even ok to be proud of it. But don't take it out and wave it around in public, and certainly do not try and shove it down anyone's throat (especially children).
Ahh, one of those goalpost-moving hypocrites, I see. I can see by your insults that you don't think your position on this argument is tenable, but what the hell I'll respond anyway just to point that out.
Here's what you first said:
the blunt facts of the matter are this - the problem has existed for quite a while and was ignored by Tesla and Musk. Until it started getting media attention.
"Ignored by Tesla and Musk", you claim. And now your story is changing to this:
The problem was known, but went unacknowledged, and when it was finally acknowledged, it went unfixed for a considerable time (after the patch that supposed to fix it) until the CEO learned the media was on the scent.
So first, the problem was known, but unacknowledged for some period of time before being acknowledged (as with happens with all problems, everywhere), and then it went unfixed, until it got fixed. So, not only is that completely different than "ignored by Tesla and Musk", but I'm pretty sure that's the exact life cycle of all problems that eventually get fixed. The problem is identified, then acknowledged, then fixed. It took them a while to fix it, sure. Go ahead, rake them over the fire for looking for a software fix that sounds like it turned out to be a hardware issue. You're still an asshole and a hypocrite though.
As for Musk being unaware of the problem until recently, I really hate pointing out the obvious but you ARE so concerned with facts, and all:
Last March, Tesla CEO Elon Musk addressed the vampire/sleep-mode issue in a meeting with Norwegian Model S buyers in Oslo. Musk promised that a new sleep mode would reduce vampire losses to a mere 0.2 percent--an insignificant 170 watt-hours--per day.
So, he was aware of it in March. All of your "facts" are bullshit, you move the goalposts when someone calls you out on it, and you resort to insults when you don't have anything substantive to say. Have a wonderful day.
where the blunt facts of the matter are this - the problem has existed for quite a while and was ignored by Tesla and Musk
As a point of fact, that "blunt fact" statement is incorrect. Tesla did not simply ignore the issue. They acknowledged that the problem existed (9 months ago) and promised a solution in the future. It might have taken them a while to identify what they thought was the cause and get a solution out, but that's hardly ignoring the problem.
Anyway, if you're going to start accusing people of ignoring facts or being willfully ignorant, it's probably a good idea to avoid using hyperbole in your own set of "blunt facts".
That model would work so much better for music services too. In the services I use, I straight up tell them exactly what I like and don't like. They don't even have to guess. There are little "thumbs up" and "thumbs down" buttons that I press that do all of that work for them. They could easily make a deal to send out a notice to everyone who expressed a like for a particular band that a new album has been released, with a deal for their users if they buy today or something like that. They could even do a query expansion type of search for that. If band A releases an album, and I like bands B, C, and D, and most people who like band A also like bands B, C, and D, then they send me a notice of the new album (unless I specifically indicated that I don't like band A).
All of the data mining is already done by the users. Streaming services are the way I find new music now, generally not the radio. If the record companies figured that out and started treating the streaming services like radio on steroids (direct connection to the listeners - how novel!) then they might actually discover the future of their industry.
I enjoyed using Grooveshark, but switched to Spotify since Grooveshark typically doesn't pay the artists that I listen to. Spotify might not pay them much, but at least they pay them. It was also irritating to create a playlist with Grooveshark and then open it again several months later and find out that half the songs are gone because they were removed by Grooveshark (presumably over DMCA complaints). Grooveshark relies on its users to upload songs, so while you can typically find several copies of any song, they are constantly getting removed by the labels.
There are certainly radiation detectors that are deployed today, but they aren't in "the space". They are on highways and rails and in ports, the places where radioactive materials would have to travel through to reach their intended destination. And they are powerful enough to detect radiation in their immediate area, not tens of miles away.
Did you ever wonder what motivates people to take such extreme and risky actions? It isn't because they are evil or "bad guys".
Really? You're saying that the single best course of action they had available to them was to beat those guys and steal the truck? That, in addition, any rational person put in their situation would choose the exact same course of action?
Sort of makes you wonder why they chose to beat the two guys instead of just force them at gunpoint to be tied up. They must have had literally no other choice.
Yeah, that about sums it up. Still, this was considered as a large defeat for the power company based on what they wanted and what they spent. Personally, it sounds to me like that $3.7 million could have gone to better use elsewhere, but what do I know?
A few users even use password reset tools every time they access services without even trying a password first.
I do that for various things like utilities. Blame the site designers who decided to lock me out of their online system without telling me how many tries I get, who then set the number of tries at 2. I try one password, it doesn't work, I try another one, I'm locked out and now I have to wait until tomorrow to call them. Why bother, just reset the password.
Or you're telling me that Facebook just came up with blue because they had "intel" or "IBM" logos in front of them?
The way I've heard it is that when a company is deciding on branding, look at a couple enormous companies that have a well-established business and have been around for a long time. Chances are that they have spent a fair bit of money on marketing research and branding. Companies like IBM, for example. Look at the colors they use. You can either fund a study to figure out what colors people like, or have faith that IBM has already done such a study.
I'm sure it's related to the law that says that it is not legal for 6 unrelated women to live in the same house. That law was supposed to target brothels. Brothels are already illegal, so I'm not sure why they feel like they needed to make other things about brothels also illegal. Incidentally, that law is the reason why Arizona State University has frat houses but no sorority houses. The sororities live in dorms with other students.
This is just a hyper-volatile investment which can be bartered against goods from people who are either gamblers or clueless.
The sellers can avoid the volatility by cashing out their BTC as soon as they are received. But when the value is going up like this, I wouldn't expect that to happen much. I'm sure there are plenty of people who cashed out enough to basically break even and are letting the rest ride for a little while.
So when the fall does happen, and it will, then maybe we can start using them for what they are supposed to be used for.
People already are. In fact, they are both a currency and an investment. I used them like a currency. When I wanted to buy something with BTC I converted my USD, bought it, and that was it. Value fluctuations don't affect those kinds of transactions as long as you don't sit on the BTC for several days after converting (although now I wish I had - I paid $140 for them). On the other hand, if you want to treat it like an investment then you can do that too.
If you want to use them as cash though, considering how volatile they appear to be, it would not be a good idea to buy a large stockpile and then spend them here and there. Buy exactly how many you need, do your transaction, and the volatility won't affect you as long as all of that happens fast enough.
It's pretty amazing to watch a view of our solar system in motion like that, with us in the picture even. I believe the smaller comet in the video is Encke.
You really don't want to go 50 mph down a dark country road full of cows do you?
Can I make the decision how fast I drive? Are the choices either wait 10 minutes, or drive 50mph? What about if I drive 25 and use my high beams, is that going to be ok for you? Because what I really don't want to do is park my car, shoot off a rocket, and sit there for 10 minutes.
Meanwhile, Reddit only provides community-moderated plain-text discussion threads via a lightweight web interface.
I wouldn't consider myself a Reddit user (i.e. I don't have an account), but from looking at their site they at least have a mobile version, and like I said they maintain browser addons and extensions and various things like that. They also have a store, and whatever reddit.tv and radioreddit are. It's more than plain-text discussion threads and a lightweight web interface. It's a company worth hundreds of millions of dollars, depending on who you ask.
Dropbox has several native clients for their service, but all of the heavy lifting is still done on their servers. The clients are just that - clients that connect to their actual services.
Not to mention they store many orders of magnitude more data than Reddit.
That doesn't matter. When my company quadrupled our client base and therefore the data that we store, we did not have to quadruple our engineering staff. A 100GB database does not require 10 times more engineers to maintain it than a 10GB database. We have twice as many servers as we used to, and the same number of engineers (actually 1 fewer person).
how do you make the jump to assume that what they're doing is on par or more difficult than what Dropbox does?
Because I am looking at what they actually provide. Reddit provides a text storage service with multiple ways to access it, with various account permissions and sharing features and interaction between users. Dropbox provides a binary storage service with multiple ways to access it, with various account permissions and sharing features and interaction between users. It's really not all that different. I would not say that Dropbox is an order of magnitude more difficult to implement than Reddit is, but they do have 10 times the engineers.
Slashdot Mirror
Here's a huge cluebat: If they allow the Satanist monument, and all that are offered, they are still "shoving religion down peoples' throats." They are just at that point doing it equally and with no hint of infringing on freedom.
According various religions the same respect is exactly what I want to see. We as a society can decide if all of them are allowed to show their propaganda anywhere and everywhere at any time, or if they are all restricted to behind closed doors, or somewhere in between. What I don't want to see is Christians asserting the right to put up their propaganda while denying the same right to others. If we decide that all of this pompous religious posturing on government land is not becoming, then we should not allow any of them to do it. I am completely fine with that.
Religion is often seen in public places, and rightfully so, and has had a prominent place in the public discourse on various matters on many occasions during the existence of the Republic.
How is that different than phallic symbols and masculine traits in general? There's a reason that when two men show off and try to upstage each other (whether that be in politics or elsewhere) that people describe that as a dick-measuring contest.
you probably don't have a well developed notion of their respective uses.
I'm pretty sure the reason for the existence of both of them is propagation to the next generation. One or more of them also has to do with human waste.
Your first paragraph is entirely self-contradictory regarding not trying to change their mind, but altering their world view
I guess I see that as a difference in language. When I think about someone changing their mind I think about a transitory decision. I think I'll have steak for dinner tonight. Wait, maybe I'll have chicken instead. I changed my mind.
I feel like this is a larger issue. I don't think "changing their mind" in the transitory sense applies to something as fundamental as their religion honoring the constitution and the law. In my grasp of the language, I see that as altering their world view instead of changing the mind. I see the difference in the two terms as a difference in scope, one is more important than the other.
The Ten Commandments in some degree agrees with that, and definitely does not come into opposition to that. To the contrary, Satanism directly and proudly promotes evil, damage, and chaos; Satanism conflicts with the constitutions.
That's an obviously dangerous statement, and you should notice that (by the way, you forgot to hit the "Post Anonymously" checkbox in your replies to people replying about your gay marriage screed). How about these statements:
Islam directly and proudly promotes evil, damage, and chaos.
Judaism directly and proudly promotes evil, damage, and chaos.
Scientology directly and proudly promotes evil, damage, and chaos.
See the problem? Now all of a sudden it becomes a subjective decision on which religions promote evil, and which promote virtue. That means that the government would have to prefer one religion over another, which goes directly contrary to the federal constitution which you say justifies your viewpoint. To say nothing that people are still trying to use Iron Age era guidelines intended for nomadic desert tribes to decide on modern public policy.
Moreover, if you're going to try and have an intelligent debate about Christianity vs. Satanism, you should really do some research into Satanists. For one, individual and not group practice is encouraged - there is not a single dogma that is followed by all Satanists. Some are theistic, some are atheistic. They are also a recent phenomenon. If there is a single most widely-followed dogma, it is that given in La Vey's Satanic Bible. La Vey's philosophy is atheistic and is centered around the individual and personal responsibility, not about the promotion of evil, damage, and chaos (you ignorant turd). In short, he says that people should be free to do what they want to do, as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else, and if your enemy should hit you on the cheek, then you should smash him on the other (as opposed to the pacifism encouraged by Christianity but rarely seen by Christians).
Frankly, I think that more people in America today live according to La Vey's philosophy than anything considered to be truly Christian. I've never met someone who refuses to wear clothes made of mixed fabric on principle, but I've met plenty of people who self-identify as Christians who are more than happy to seek revenge for a perceived wrongdoing. I've also met plenty of people who determine that if their child is being bullied by another kid at school, the correct response is to "stand up" to that bully and push them back, not just turn the other cheek. I've also never heard anyone suggest that someone guilty of adultery should be stoned to death. I'm not married, but I have sex with unmarried women. I don't really think that we deserve to die, do you?
Can you define what a "progressive" is? At first glance, it would not appear that seeking progress would be a bad thing. You must be using a definition that is different from the obvious one.
Do you think this action will do anything to change anyones mind?
Change their mind about what, exactly? No one is trying to change their mind. What people are trying to achieve is to make them realize that the constitution requires separation of church and state, and that applies to their religion also. If evangelicals think that they should get special treatment under the law then they most certainly do deserve to have their world view altered a bit. It's not about them "changing their mind", it's about them adhering to the same laws that the rest of us follow, also. Because, as it stands, if they are going to have the right to put their religious propaganda on government land, then any religion should have that same right. If they are going to fight that then what they are fighting for is special treatment under the law, and I'm not willing to allow them to have special treatment under the law to avoid hurting their feelings.
This might force some bullshit legal decision that will force the monuments down, but the one thing it will not do is change anyones mind or make the kind of social progress we really need.
I'm not so sure about that. Forcing religious groups to follow the same set of laws that this country has always followed is certainly not a step back.
It's not about "really wanting them to change their mind", it's more about "forcing them to respect the law." I don't care how they think as long as they aren't shoving their religion in everyones' face.
Remember: religions are like penises. It's ok to have one, and it's even ok to be proud of it. But don't take it out and wave it around in public, and certainly do not try and shove it down anyone's throat (especially children).
Jay Elliot described Grace Hopper as appearing to be "'all Navy', but when you reach inside, you find a 'Pirate' dying to be released".
Ahh, one of those goalpost-moving hypocrites, I see. I can see by your insults that you don't think your position on this argument is tenable, but what the hell I'll respond anyway just to point that out.
Here's what you first said:
the blunt facts of the matter are this - the problem has existed for quite a while and was ignored by Tesla and Musk. Until it started getting media attention.
"Ignored by Tesla and Musk", you claim. And now your story is changing to this:
The problem was known, but went unacknowledged, and when it was finally acknowledged, it went unfixed for a considerable time (after the patch that supposed to fix it) until the CEO learned the media was on the scent.
So first, the problem was known, but unacknowledged for some period of time before being acknowledged (as with happens with all problems, everywhere), and then it went unfixed, until it got fixed. So, not only is that completely different than "ignored by Tesla and Musk", but I'm pretty sure that's the exact life cycle of all problems that eventually get fixed. The problem is identified, then acknowledged, then fixed. It took them a while to fix it, sure. Go ahead, rake them over the fire for looking for a software fix that sounds like it turned out to be a hardware issue. You're still an asshole and a hypocrite though.
As for Musk being unaware of the problem until recently, I really hate pointing out the obvious but you ARE so concerned with facts, and all:
Last March, Tesla CEO Elon Musk addressed the vampire/sleep-mode issue in a meeting with Norwegian Model S buyers in Oslo. Musk promised that a new sleep mode would reduce vampire losses to a mere 0.2 percent--an insignificant 170 watt-hours--per day.
So, he was aware of it in March. All of your "facts" are bullshit, you move the goalposts when someone calls you out on it, and you resort to insults when you don't have anything substantive to say. Have a wonderful day.
where the blunt facts of the matter are this - the problem has existed for quite a while and was ignored by Tesla and Musk
As a point of fact, that "blunt fact" statement is incorrect. Tesla did not simply ignore the issue. They acknowledged that the problem existed (9 months ago) and promised a solution in the future. It might have taken them a while to identify what they thought was the cause and get a solution out, but that's hardly ignoring the problem.
Anyway, if you're going to start accusing people of ignoring facts or being willfully ignorant, it's probably a good idea to avoid using hyperbole in your own set of "blunt facts".
That model would work so much better for music services too. In the services I use, I straight up tell them exactly what I like and don't like. They don't even have to guess. There are little "thumbs up" and "thumbs down" buttons that I press that do all of that work for them. They could easily make a deal to send out a notice to everyone who expressed a like for a particular band that a new album has been released, with a deal for their users if they buy today or something like that. They could even do a query expansion type of search for that. If band A releases an album, and I like bands B, C, and D, and most people who like band A also like bands B, C, and D, then they send me a notice of the new album (unless I specifically indicated that I don't like band A).
All of the data mining is already done by the users. Streaming services are the way I find new music now, generally not the radio. If the record companies figured that out and started treating the streaming services like radio on steroids (direct connection to the listeners - how novel!) then they might actually discover the future of their industry.
Grooveshark stays afloat because they don't bother with all of the pesky license agreements that the other services require.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grooveshark#Lawsuits_and_Controversies
I enjoyed using Grooveshark, but switched to Spotify since Grooveshark typically doesn't pay the artists that I listen to. Spotify might not pay them much, but at least they pay them. It was also irritating to create a playlist with Grooveshark and then open it again several months later and find out that half the songs are gone because they were removed by Grooveshark (presumably over DMCA complaints). Grooveshark relies on its users to upload songs, so while you can typically find several copies of any song, they are constantly getting removed by the labels.
There are certainly radiation detectors that are deployed today, but they aren't in "the space". They are on highways and rails and in ports, the places where radioactive materials would have to travel through to reach their intended destination. And they are powerful enough to detect radiation in their immediate area, not tens of miles away.
Did you ever wonder what motivates people to take such extreme and risky actions? It isn't because they are evil or "bad guys".
Really? You're saying that the single best course of action they had available to them was to beat those guys and steal the truck? That, in addition, any rational person put in their situation would choose the exact same course of action?
Sort of makes you wonder why they chose to beat the two guys instead of just force them at gunpoint to be tied up. They must have had literally no other choice.
Well, here's the list:
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/2013/full_list/
They have a website and mobile apps and are a household name for people with kids. Hmm. How about Apple?
Or maybe #66, Walt Disney. Or Time Warner. Or General Mills, or Kellogg. Or Toys R Us. Or GameStop.
Or depending on how much you like having your kids, maybe Las Vegas Sands.
Or depending on how much you liked making your kids, maybe Pfizer.
Famo.us To Open Source Rendering Engine Replacement JavaScript Framework
That headline was generated using one of those marketing buzzword generators, wasn't it?
Yeah, that about sums it up. Still, this was considered as a large defeat for the power company based on what they wanted and what they spent. Personally, it sounds to me like that $3.7 million could have gone to better use elsewhere, but what do I know?
If used on a motorcycle, it can mean the rider can lose control, causing a crash, fatality, and lawsuits.
What is the alternative for safely stopping a speeding motorcycle?
A few users even use password reset tools every time they access services without even trying a password first.
I do that for various things like utilities. Blame the site designers who decided to lock me out of their online system without telling me how many tries I get, who then set the number of tries at 2. I try one password, it doesn't work, I try another one, I'm locked out and now I have to wait until tomorrow to call them. Why bother, just reset the password.
Or you're telling me that Facebook just came up with blue because they had "intel" or "IBM" logos in front of them?
The way I've heard it is that when a company is deciding on branding, look at a couple enormous companies that have a well-established business and have been around for a long time. Chances are that they have spent a fair bit of money on marketing research and branding. Companies like IBM, for example. Look at the colors they use. You can either fund a study to figure out what colors people like, or have faith that IBM has already done such a study.
I'm sure it's related to the law that says that it is not legal for 6 unrelated women to live in the same house. That law was supposed to target brothels. Brothels are already illegal, so I'm not sure why they feel like they needed to make other things about brothels also illegal. Incidentally, that law is the reason why Arizona State University has frat houses but no sorority houses. The sororities live in dorms with other students.
This is just a hyper-volatile investment which can be bartered against goods from people who are either gamblers or clueless.
The sellers can avoid the volatility by cashing out their BTC as soon as they are received. But when the value is going up like this, I wouldn't expect that to happen much. I'm sure there are plenty of people who cashed out enough to basically break even and are letting the rest ride for a little while.
So when the fall does happen, and it will, then maybe we can start using them for what they are supposed to be used for.
People already are. In fact, they are both a currency and an investment. I used them like a currency. When I wanted to buy something with BTC I converted my USD, bought it, and that was it. Value fluctuations don't affect those kinds of transactions as long as you don't sit on the BTC for several days after converting (although now I wish I had - I paid $140 for them). On the other hand, if you want to treat it like an investment then you can do that too.
If you want to use them as cash though, considering how volatile they appear to be, it would not be a good idea to buy a large stockpile and then spend them here and there. Buy exactly how many you need, do your transaction, and the volatility won't affect you as long as all of that happens fast enough.
NASA also put together a video of the same slideshow:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZi4Ecu_cfY
It's pretty amazing to watch a view of our solar system in motion like that, with us in the picture even. I believe the smaller comet in the video is Encke.
You really don't want to go 50 mph down a dark country road full of cows do you?
Can I make the decision how fast I drive? Are the choices either wait 10 minutes, or drive 50mph? What about if I drive 25 and use my high beams, is that going to be ok for you? Because what I really don't want to do is park my car, shoot off a rocket, and sit there for 10 minutes.
Meanwhile, Reddit only provides community-moderated plain-text discussion threads via a lightweight web interface.
I wouldn't consider myself a Reddit user (i.e. I don't have an account), but from looking at their site they at least have a mobile version, and like I said they maintain browser addons and extensions and various things like that. They also have a store, and whatever reddit.tv and radioreddit are. It's more than plain-text discussion threads and a lightweight web interface. It's a company worth hundreds of millions of dollars, depending on who you ask.
Dropbox has several native clients for their service, but all of the heavy lifting is still done on their servers. The clients are just that - clients that connect to their actual services.
Not to mention they store many orders of magnitude more data than Reddit.
That doesn't matter. When my company quadrupled our client base and therefore the data that we store, we did not have to quadruple our engineering staff. A 100GB database does not require 10 times more engineers to maintain it than a 10GB database. We have twice as many servers as we used to, and the same number of engineers (actually 1 fewer person).
how do you make the jump to assume that what they're doing is on par or more difficult than what Dropbox does?
Because I am looking at what they actually provide. Reddit provides a text storage service with multiple ways to access it, with various account permissions and sharing features and interaction between users. Dropbox provides a binary storage service with multiple ways to access it, with various account permissions and sharing features and interaction between users. It's really not all that different. I would not say that Dropbox is an order of magnitude more difficult to implement than Reddit is, but they do have 10 times the engineers.