I didn't mean *looking* for another terrestrial planet was next to impossible; I meant *finding* one in range was next to impossible. And, I'd *love* to hear your ``evidence'' that we can find other terrestrial planets.
Btw.: where is the use of building a generational starship that can come back? Hoping *somebody* thousands of years in the future will care when they get back (and whatever comes back will be able to communicate with whatever is here)?
Perhaps, but unless you're looking for an *already habitable* planet (hint: that's next to impossible), you'll need either terraforming or universal space suits at the destination. I don't think the second is likely for settlement, and I assume ``generation starship'' means the travel times last longer than most businesses, so mining/economic exploration for the mother world is impossible. So, the only option that avoids the necessity of terraforming is a diplomatic mission. I consider that *highly* unlikely.
If you want terraforming (or any other long-term habitation of non-Earths), you'd better be damn sure the practice it. That means moon bases, mars bases, asteroid bases, etc.
On the other hand, I still know of people who would still be on Windows 3.1 and word 5.0 if they were not forced to "upgrade" for one reason or another.
I think Walmart will pre-load Open Office. Then, it'll be easier to use that than bother/trying/ to put Office on the computer. We know that'll work, since that's how M$ stomped Netscape.
I was talking about the mainstream press. And as for ``doing scandals well''---Waco, Vince Foster, Robert Brown, etc. You don't know about those because the media refuses to report on them.
Oh, btw., how did you know I was a conservative and not an honest liberal? Oh that's right, liberals have exactly the same beliefs as you. Conservatives are everyone else.
Slashdot Mirror
Although W2K doesn't have anything half as good as most of the GNU utilities.
Moderators: I admit this is a troll, but it's against M$. Please mod accordingly.
Let me ask you: do you have *any* evidence that there are other terrestrial planets out there?
I didn't mean *looking* for another terrestrial planet was next to impossible; I meant *finding* one in range was next to impossible. And, I'd *love* to hear your ``evidence'' that we can find other terrestrial planets.
Btw.: where is the use of building a generational starship that can come back? Hoping *somebody* thousands of years in the future will care when they get back (and whatever comes back will be able to communicate with whatever is here)?
Perhaps, but unless you're looking for an *already habitable* planet (hint: that's next to impossible), you'll need either terraforming or universal space suits at the destination. I don't think the second is likely for settlement, and I assume ``generation starship'' means the travel times last longer than most businesses, so mining/economic exploration for the mother world is impossible. So, the only option that avoids the necessity of terraforming is a diplomatic mission. I consider that *highly* unlikely.
If you want terraforming (or any other long-term habitation of non-Earths), you'd better be damn sure the practice it. That means moon bases, mars bases, asteroid bases, etc.
What good would a terrestrial planet be without a moon base?
You don't know the first thing about the Western reservations, do you?
Hint: the reason all the reservations are in the west is because that's where all the worthless land is.
How did this get (Score:0) when NanoGator usually posts at (Score:2)?
Re: KISS
The second link in Google's results points to the Jargon File entry for KISS. That's why I love Google!
I hope he is, as long as its free. Ungrammatical documentation is better than no documentation at all, and someone will fix it.
I generally find Google is good enough for finding official sites. Maybe I just don't enter sufficiently obscure searches...
It works on OpenBSD...
It's a better model for three inter-connecting reasons:
1. It isn't fatally flawed like anything based on mean-time-to-failure.
2. It corresponds (roughly) to every programmer's inner experience.
3. There's no objective evidence to contradict the programmer's intution.
You use feet in American Football---to run.
IBM, Apple, and RedHat base their business on selling poorly designed crap like M$?
Um, the only Word 5.0 was for Macintosh...
Do you want the damn U.S. assistance or not?
First, you say y'all don't want our help.
Then, you attack the U.S. for not helping y'all when you (actually your colonial overlords in Great Britain) get attacked.
I think Walmart will pre-load Open Office. Then, it'll be easier to use that than bother /trying/ to put Office on the computer. We know that'll work, since that's how M$ stomped Netscape.
Check the license requirements on you Windows software, and you'll one of an elite group of .000000000001% of Windows users...
Appearantly you don't grok Walmart's business model: lower prices, raise profits.
The original poster claimed Java isn't backward compatible. Are you denying that (yes, I really am too lazy to look it up myself)?
How the hell was this modded Troll?
Btw., The Haskell School of Expression by Dr. Hudak is an excellent choice.
I was talking about the mainstream press. And as for ``doing scandals well''---Waco, Vince Foster, Robert Brown, etc. You don't know about those because the media refuses to report on them.
Oh, btw., how did you know I was a conservative and not an honest liberal? Oh that's right, liberals have exactly the same beliefs as you. Conservatives are everyone else.
You should definitely add a book on a non-strict language like Haskell. beta-contraction rocks!