Uh, anyone can find out who I am in real life via the web from my Slashdot nick. Can't say the same about the AC option that you insist on hiding behind, can you?
And there was me thinking that "dumbass" was the limit of your vocabulary: nice to know that I was wrong.
Having said that, you still don't have the guts to post as anything but an AC do you? At least when I take potshots at someone I have the decency and the balls to stick my head above the paraphet. You really should try it sometime, because it might help you develop a spine.
You know Roland, you'd come across as far more credible in your quest to present yourself as a journalist if you could spell simple words like "rinse" correctly.
Don't you deal with Apple news on your site? If you do then you've probably just lost a few readers by suggesting that this is "obviously only of interest to Steve Jobs and Apple devotees", and they won't all be Apple fanatics: I'm sure there are plenty of non-devotees, including the CEOs of companies like Microsoft, Adobe, RealNetworks, Creative, HP and Sun to name but a few who pay close attention to what Jobs has to say.
The Office isn't exactly a current show anymore. And as no more episodes or specials are ever going to be made, and I've seen them all, there's little point in me listing it as a reason for me to carry on watching TV.
By the way, as well as the two series that you have, there are also two Christmas specials, both of which are available on a single DVD, if I remember correctly.
As for the US version of The Office, well I have to agree with you there. Most recent cult British comedies and dramas that have been remade for the US have failed miserably (Cracker/Fitz, Coupling, Cold Feet and Red Dwarf spring to mind; the last one didn't even make it past its pilot episode). I see no reason why The Office would buck that trend.
Make your mind up bro, either you don't this thread to "degenerate into some sort of 'my tv show is the greatest' rah rah session" or you do. Anyhow, assuming you really want to know what other people are watching on their TVs, here goes:
Battlestar Galactica ER Little Britain* QI* Question Time* Stargate Atlantis Stargate SG-1 Teachers* The West Wing
The shows marked * are probably only relevant to us Brits, and unlikely to be seen much elsewhere. However, the other shows should be familiar to most people around the world.
These are the things that I'm watching currently and of which I'd hate to miss an episode. You make like some of these shows or you may hate them, but they form the backbone of my current TV viewing. Throw in news, sports, some documentaries and films and you've got the rest too.
I can see why some people watch no TV whatsoever - I'm not one of those people who can't imagine not owning a TV at all - but I enjoy what I watch and I make no apologies for it.
Wow, I so care about being called an idiot by someone who's so spineless that he doesn't even have the guts to hide behind an assumed pseudonym but instead hides behind the AC option.
Grow a brain and a set of balls then come back to me when you have something intelligent to say and the conviction to say it with pride.
Hello, Rodney King called. He wants his memories back.
I think I could find examples of ignorant, brutal or corrupt police officers in any country you care to name in less than two minutes. What's your point here, apart from India-bashing?
You need to seriously examine how the US went from having the total support of virtually every nation on the planet to the mistrust of all but a few. France isn't responsible for that, it's just the convenient scapegoat.
And as for France only supporting the US when it further supported French interests well that's hardly any different from the US, is it? The US only entered WWI because of the Zimmerman telegraph unearthed by British Intelligence (do you even learn about that in school?) and it only entered WWII because of Pearl Harbour: even then it was Germany's declaration of war upon the US rather than any overwhelming desire on the part of the US that got it involved in the war in Europe.
If you keep regarding any friend who raises its voice in caution as an enemy then you'll soon have no friends at all. You (and I mean you personally) need to learn that friends are the people who tell you when you're screwing up royally and help you avoid trouble, not just the people who jump into trouble with you.
These constant anti-French comments are pathetic. One of your country's oldest allies is hestitant about giving you carte blanche to invade other sovereign states and all of a sudden it's open season on France?
The whole "let's declare war on anything associated with the word 'french' in it" is just pathetic. Really, it just is so petty and ridiculous that it borders on infantile: are freedom fries any tastier than french fries? No? I didn't think so.
Grow up. It's shit like this that has cost you the almost all of international support and goodwill that was apparent in the aftermath of September 11th.
Why don't you feel sorry for him? Is it because he's not you or because you instinctively know that he's guilty?
When you let the rights of one guy get trampled on then you've started down that slippery slope that leads to everyone's rights being trampled on. In a civilised society, people that the state believes to be criminals deserve fair trials, where the evidence against them is freely presented, not indefinite incarcaration without any proof of guilt being established.
If someone locked you up tomorrow and didn't allow you the right to challenge your situation in any way whatsoever wouldn't you feel that was wrong? Well, if it's true for you then why isn't it true for Jose Padilla?
When engineering you have to plan for every conceivable possibility. A disasterous explosion like that experienced by Challenger is one such possibility. When you run a politically funded operation like NASA then you have to take into account the possible negative impact of failure. That negative impact is a couple of orders of magnitude higher when the word "nuclear" enters the equation. Now whether you like it or not, that's the reality of the situation.
To look at how safe space travel is you only have to consider the success rate of the STS and other programmes. From memory, there have been about 100 STS missions and two catastrophic failures. Now, it doesn't take a genius to realise that that's a publicly unacceptable rate of failure for a potential nuclear-powered craft.
Show me a containment method that's guaranteed to survive something as bad as Challenger or Columbia and I'll show you a lie. Got anything that's guaranteed to take all the force of an uncontrolled re-entry into the Earth's atmosphere, do you? No? I didn't think so.
I think you're missing the point or being deliberately obtuse: I'll assume it's the former rather than the latter.
Challenger wasn't nuclear-powered, but if a nuclear-powered craft was to explode shortly after take-off like Challenger did then there is a significant probability that radioactive debris would be strewn over a large area.
The original poster talked about "begin building nuclear powered rockets to take us off of the planet and out of earth's orbit", and that "off of the planet" bit is about getting off the ground in the first place.
As for straw men to beat up, well that's not what I'm interested in. I was only pointing out that nuclear-powered ascent vehicles have some opposition to overcome before they become a reality.
I don't think malfunctions in space are the issue here, it's malfunctions during launch and ascent that are the issue. Can you imagine how much radioactive debris would have dropped over a wide portion of the Atlantic Ocean just off of one of the world's most populated coasts if a nuclear-powered Challenger had exploded?*
That's the image NASA has to combat and that's only partially why nuclear-powered ascent vehicles aren't as attractive as other available options.
Besides, the amount of nuclear material needed to maintain a nuclear-powered satellite is nowhere near close to the amount of nuclear material that would be needed to lift a useful cargo into orbit.
(*No, I'm not dumb, and I do know that if Challenger was nuclear-powered then it probably wouldn't have had the need for external SRBs, so that disaster wouldn't have happened. However, it's the whole "nuclear spaceship goes bang" picture that's important here. Challenger has only been used for illustration, OK?)
No one can guarantee a 100% success rate of when you drive your car either, so what's your point? The real reason we'll never see nuclear rockets is the same reason the medical profession quietly dropped the 'nuclear' in MRI: people are stupid and politicians know this.
Well that's part of the reason why: public perception as well as practical performance.
However I'd contend that most politicians are just as stupid as the people that elected them. They're just better equipped to screw up.
Because truckers are really interested in self-preservation whereas NASA administrators are really interested in putting on a good show whilst crossing their fingers that nothing bad happens.
When someone can guarantee a 100 percent success rate for nuclear-powered launches then they'll happen. Until then, nuclear-powered ascents are a no-go.
Denegrate the Queen all you want, but at least she's not a Head of State that's culturally-, intellectually- and geographically-challenged, unlike those of some other countries that I can mention.
By the way, you have no idea how the British honours system works. The Queen has about much say so in who does and doesn't get recognised as you do over who does and doesn't get to be struck by lightning.
Some parts of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands are home to tribes that have had very little contact with the outside world and who have little or no natural immunity against the illnesses that most of the rest of us take for granted.
They've had cases where vast swathes of these tribes have been wiped out by things like measles, influenza, etc, with recorded instances of deadly outbreaks as far back as the 18th and 19th centuries.
Hence, for their own protection, access to those people has been limited. I guess it's easier to spot a fair-skinned Westerner as being an outsider and avoid them accordingly than it is to do the same with mainland Indians who share similar complexions. Even so, you need a permit to visit the islands, and that's why.
Slashdot Mirror
What, no "dumbass"? I'm disappointed.
Uh, anyone can find out who I am in real life via the web from my Slashdot nick. Can't say the same about the AC option that you insist on hiding behind, can you?
And there was me thinking that "dumbass" was the limit of your vocabulary: nice to know that I was wrong.
Having said that, you still don't have the guts to post as anything but an AC do you? At least when I take potshots at someone I have the decency and the balls to stick my head above the paraphet. You really should try it sometime, because it might help you develop a spine.
You know Roland, you'd come across as far more credible in your quest to present yourself as a journalist if you could spell simple words like "rinse" correctly.
Don't you deal with Apple news on your site? If you do then you've probably just lost a few readers by suggesting that this is "obviously only of interest to Steve Jobs and Apple devotees", and they won't all be Apple fanatics: I'm sure there are plenty of non-devotees, including the CEOs of companies like Microsoft, Adobe, RealNetworks, Creative, HP and Sun to name but a few who pay close attention to what Jobs has to say.
The Office isn't exactly a current show anymore. And as no more episodes or specials are ever going to be made, and I've seen them all, there's little point in me listing it as a reason for me to carry on watching TV.
By the way, as well as the two series that you have, there are also two Christmas specials, both of which are available on a single DVD, if I remember correctly.
As for the US version of The Office, well I have to agree with you there. Most recent cult British comedies and dramas that have been remade for the US have failed miserably (Cracker/Fitz, Coupling, Cold Feet and Red Dwarf spring to mind; the last one didn't even make it past its pilot episode). I see no reason why The Office would buck that trend.
Make your mind up bro, either you don't this thread to "degenerate into some sort of 'my tv show is the greatest' rah rah session" or you do. Anyhow, assuming you really want to know what other people are watching on their TVs, here goes:
Battlestar Galactica
ER
Little Britain*
QI*
Question Time*
Stargate Atlantis
Stargate SG-1
Teachers*
The West Wing
The shows marked * are probably only relevant to us Brits, and unlikely to be seen much elsewhere. However, the other shows should be familiar to most people around the world.
These are the things that I'm watching currently and of which I'd hate to miss an episode. You make like some of these shows or you may hate them, but they form the backbone of my current TV viewing. Throw in news, sports, some documentaries and films and you've got the rest too.
I can see why some people watch no TV whatsoever - I'm not one of those people who can't imagine not owning a TV at all - but I enjoy what I watch and I make no apologies for it.
Of course, if someday some cops are ever treating you as a punchbag then you'll have the good grace to laugh off their leniency then too.
No? I didn't think so.
Wow, I so care about being called an idiot by someone who's so spineless that he doesn't even have the guts to hide behind an assumed pseudonym but instead hides behind the AC option.
Grow a brain and a set of balls then come back to me when you have something intelligent to say and the conviction to say it with pride.
Duh. The humour has to do with cops who think that monitors are computers.
Who's the idiot (as well as the coward) now?
Hello, Rodney King called. He wants his memories back.
I think I could find examples of ignorant, brutal or corrupt police officers in any country you care to name in less than two minutes. What's your point here, apart from India-bashing?
You need to seriously examine how the US went from having the total support of virtually every nation on the planet to the mistrust of all but a few. France isn't responsible for that, it's just the convenient scapegoat.
And as for France only supporting the US when it further supported French interests well that's hardly any different from the US, is it? The US only entered WWI because of the Zimmerman telegraph unearthed by British Intelligence (do you even learn about that in school?) and it only entered WWII because of Pearl Harbour: even then it was Germany's declaration of war upon the US rather than any overwhelming desire on the part of the US that got it involved in the war in Europe.
If you keep regarding any friend who raises its voice in caution as an enemy then you'll soon have no friends at all. You (and I mean you personally) need to learn that friends are the people who tell you when you're screwing up royally and help you avoid trouble, not just the people who jump into trouble with you.
These constant anti-French comments are pathetic. One of your country's oldest allies is hestitant about giving you carte blanche to invade other sovereign states and all of a sudden it's open season on France?
The whole "let's declare war on anything associated with the word 'french' in it" is just pathetic. Really, it just is so petty and ridiculous that it borders on infantile: are freedom fries any tastier than french fries? No? I didn't think so.
Grow up. It's shit like this that has cost you the almost all of international support and goodwill that was apparent in the aftermath of September 11th.
Why don't you feel sorry for him? Is it because he's not you or because you instinctively know that he's guilty?
When you let the rights of one guy get trampled on then you've started down that slippery slope that leads to everyone's rights being trampled on. In a civilised society, people that the state believes to be criminals deserve fair trials, where the evidence against them is freely presented, not indefinite incarcaration without any proof of guilt being established.
If someone locked you up tomorrow and didn't allow you the right to challenge your situation in any way whatsoever wouldn't you feel that was wrong? Well, if it's true for you then why isn't it true for Jose Padilla?
Thanks for being such a pedantic dick.
When engineering you have to plan for every conceivable possibility. A disasterous explosion like that experienced by Challenger is one such possibility. When you run a politically funded operation like NASA then you have to take into account the possible negative impact of failure. That negative impact is a couple of orders of magnitude higher when the word "nuclear" enters the equation. Now whether you like it or not, that's the reality of the situation.
To look at how safe space travel is you only have to consider the success rate of the STS and other programmes. From memory, there have been about 100 STS missions and two catastrophic failures. Now, it doesn't take a genius to realise that that's a publicly unacceptable rate of failure for a potential nuclear-powered craft.
Show me a containment method that's guaranteed to survive something as bad as Challenger or Columbia and I'll show you a lie. Got anything that's guaranteed to take all the force of an uncontrolled re-entry into the Earth's atmosphere, do you? No? I didn't think so.
Read. Learn. Then speak.
OK, wireless but still less space than a Nomad. I guess that still makes it lame in some people's eyes...
I think you're missing the point or being deliberately obtuse: I'll assume it's the former rather than the latter.
Challenger wasn't nuclear-powered, but if a nuclear-powered craft was to explode shortly after take-off like Challenger did then there is a significant probability that radioactive debris would be strewn over a large area.
The original poster talked about "begin building nuclear powered rockets to take us off of the planet and out of earth's orbit", and that "off of the planet" bit is about getting off the ground in the first place.
As for straw men to beat up, well that's not what I'm interested in. I was only pointing out that nuclear-powered ascent vehicles have some opposition to overcome before they become a reality.
I don't think malfunctions in space are the issue here, it's malfunctions during launch and ascent that are the issue. Can you imagine how much radioactive debris would have dropped over a wide portion of the Atlantic Ocean just off of one of the world's most populated coasts if a nuclear-powered Challenger had exploded?*
That's the image NASA has to combat and that's only partially why nuclear-powered ascent vehicles aren't as attractive as other available options.
Besides, the amount of nuclear material needed to maintain a nuclear-powered satellite is nowhere near close to the amount of nuclear material that would be needed to lift a useful cargo into orbit.
(*No, I'm not dumb, and I do know that if Challenger was nuclear-powered then it probably wouldn't have had the need for external SRBs, so that disaster wouldn't have happened. However, it's the whole "nuclear spaceship goes bang" picture that's important here. Challenger has only been used for illustration, OK?)
No one can guarantee a 100% success rate of when you drive your car either, so what's your point? The real reason we'll never see nuclear rockets is the same reason the medical profession quietly dropped the 'nuclear' in MRI: people are stupid and politicians know this.
Well that's part of the reason why: public perception as well as practical performance.
However I'd contend that most politicians are just as stupid as the people that elected them. They're just better equipped to screw up.
Because truckers are really interested in self-preservation whereas NASA administrators are really interested in putting on a good show whilst crossing their fingers that nothing bad happens.
When someone can guarantee a 100 percent success rate for nuclear-powered launches then they'll happen. Until then, nuclear-powered ascents are a no-go.
One look at a British passport will confirm that for you.
An elected chimp is still a chimp.
Denegrate the Queen all you want, but at least she's not a Head of State that's culturally-, intellectually- and geographically-challenged, unlike those of some other countries that I can mention.
By the way, you have no idea how the British honours system works. The Queen has about much say so in who does and doesn't get recognised as you do over who does and doesn't get to be struck by lightning.
Fool.
Some parts of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands are home to tribes that have had very little contact with the outside world and who have little or no natural immunity against the illnesses that most of the rest of us take for granted.
They've had cases where vast swathes of these tribes have been wiped out by things like measles, influenza, etc, with recorded instances of deadly outbreaks as far back as the 18th and 19th centuries.
Hence, for their own protection, access to those people has been limited. I guess it's easier to spot a fair-skinned Westerner as being an outsider and avoid them accordingly than it is to do the same with mainland Indians who share similar complexions. Even so, you need a permit to visit the islands, and that's why.