Season X wasnt direct-to-DVD, it was aired on Dave in prime time. Dave is doing some decent original programming these days, its not just a rerun channel.
Are you aware that there was a fairly decent season 10 of Red Dwarf that aired during 2012? Back to Earth wasnt the last, and its not needed if you wanted to watch season 10.
Ladies and gentlemen, I give you Slashdot, where size is the only metric that some give a shit about when it comes to a non-US space program.
How about we stand in silent appreciation of the feat that China is accomplishing, like the geeks we should all be would do, k?
Perhaps China doesnt need a large station to achieve its goals - the Chinese don't seem to be bothered about taking it slow and steady with regard to their program, after all.
The 120 Million is for the wifi hotspots - the 100Mbps download speed will be a mandated requirement of all telecoma companys, and mandates requirements are free, the coat is borne by the telecoms company and its customers, but the EU commission gets the credit.
No. No thank you. We don't need another blogging service - Twitter is unique in its tight limits and those limits do provoke some good discussion while cutting down on the meaningless waffle. I can't count the number of Medium.com posts I have read which could be summed up in a couple of sentences, and thats what Twitter excels at.
You can still have meaningful discussions, but you do NOT get to post a wall of text and walk away - it takes effort to post a wall of tweets, during which time people may reply to individual tweets, and that is awesome.
Ireland actually joined the EU in its prior state as the EEC in 1973. And the rules that got Ireland in trouble here were in place way back then as well.
The Treaty of Lisbon is just another treat expanding the EUs constitution.
You cant exactly upgrade the RAM in a phone, and it can become an issue - the more RAM you have, the fewer backgrounded apps the phone has to terminate due to memory limitations.
So the iPhone being lauded because it has 3GB of memory is laughable when a cheaper phone manages to provide twice as much.
Why? You fail to provide an argument - it sounds like you simply don't want to agree that I have a point, and thus need to look for any excuse in order to discount said point.
You do realise what "white washing" refers to, right?
While the North does have a huge army, its main value (note I said "value", not "intention") is in its defensive ability - its artillery, bunkers, sheer weight of numbers etc. By and large, the NK military is still stuck in the 1960s, and would be decimated should it choose to cross the DMZ - it lacks serious armour, air support and mobility, and the NK supply chain is pathetic.
The nuclear option adds a certain... flavour to the mix, but NK only have a few bombs, and those are questionable. Seoul may get nuked, it may not - for any chance of a nuke hitting Seoul, it would need to be either mounted on a rocket, or fired as an artillery shell, and both of those options require some serious technical ability which the NK's lack. Airborne delivery is out of the question, as any NK aircraft wouldnt get far into the South before being shot down. Hand delivery is a distinct possibility, but nuking Seoul doesn't win the North the war, and it would have no effect on the US troops in the South.
I'm pretty sure the senior military are quite happy with the current situation, and should the leader of North Korea seek to alter that wholesale by resuming military activity in any serious way against the South, I have no doubt that there would be a quick and sudden illness and subsequent replacement of their supreme commander...
The OP pointed directly to the 1950 invasion as their point, so that is what I talk about - and if you read my comments in full, you would note that I accept that NK today is run by nut jobs, but that doesn't change the situation back then.
Its also worth noting that South Korea never signed the 1953 Armistice Agreement which resulted in the "permanent" partition of Korea into the North and South - it was signed by the UN and the North, but not the South. Odd that...
Meanwhile, the South hasn't exactly seen a great 75 years itself - coups, assassinations, martial law, political murders, torture of dissidents, dictatorships etc etc
You ignore the fact that the South is well documented as being as aggressive toward the North over the border prior to the invasion, and indeed again it is well documented that it was the South which started many of the skirmishes and exchanges of gun fire that blighted that period. Syngman Rhee is on record that he wanted to conquer the North by any means necessary.
And no, concentrating on one side while *explicitly* saying that is what I am doing does not in any way diminish the acts of the other side - especially when the point is to dispel the very polarised image that people have of the North and South during the Korean War. Trying to say otherwise is merely an ad hominem attack rather than engaging in the discussion.
At that point in time, the South were every much the bit as brutal as the North - hundreds of thousands forced into reeducation camps, hundreds of thousands executed, tens of thousands killed in up risings etc etc etc.
But it would seem that people like you don't like that side of history being brought up - to people like you, the South is completely innocent, and *that* is quite disturbing because it means you arent willing to look at the history of the region in a dispassionate or detached manner...
Its a bit more complicated than that - the partition of Korea only happened in 1948, two years before the Korean War started, and *both* sides were making aggressive noises and movements toward the other, it was simply the North that first moved en mass south of the border to reunite the country. The South at that point was still building its military in preparation for its own invasion of the North, as well as disenfranchising a huge number of its own citizens who were communist or didn't support the US-and-UN imposed elections.
By the start of the Korean War in 1950, the South had imprisoned 30,000 communists, and had interred 300,000 more in "reeducation camps". They had also killed more than 60,000 of their own citizens in various quellings of uprisings by disowned groups. The North were doing their own similar thing, sure, but I concentrate on the South here because they are always the side which gets white washed when it comes to the Korean War. After all, you hardly ever hear that, in the early days of the war, the southern president, Syngmam Rhee, ordered the executions of between 100,000 and 200,000 of his political opponents in the Bodo League massacre.
The North today may be run by nut jobs, but do not mistake the cause of the Korean War as solely the Norths fault, nor on the same level as todays North Korea...
Whats this warning message you speak of? I solely run Chrome on both my Surface Pro 3 and my Surface Book and havent ever seen a warning message telling me to use Edge instead...
Now fix the fact that Chrome doesnt trigger the on-screen keyboard in tablet mode when you tap into an input box - this has been broken for several major versions now, after being "fixed" for a few versions after the last time they broke it.
The number of failures doesn't make a vehicle "experimental", and the point of the figures is to show that the Falcon 9 is launching pretty much on the same cadence as two very-much-not experimental rockets.
The Falcon 9 is no more experimental than either of the two examples I give.
On another note, you say that the Falcon 9 has had nearly 4 times fewer flights and matches the number of failures in a shorter lifespan than the Ariane 5. This is true.
Its also totally misleading, because the Ariane 5 had had both of its complete failures by launch 14 (launches 1 and 14, to be precise), and both of its partial failures also by launch 14 (launches 2 and 10). Since then, its been perfect in its success.
Compare that to the Falcon 9 - its first failure was launch 19, and its second failure on launch 29. There is no guarantee of a third failure - the Ariane 5 has had 71 successive successful missions under its hat, despite having two complete failures under its belt before the Falcon 9 even had one.
Going by your argument, the Ariane 5 is a worse risk than the Falcon 9...
Of course there is the potential that nothing will change - we could exit the EU but retain access to the common market, which means we would still be on the hook for membership fees, unlimited EU migration etc....
You know what would happen if that were the case? The government would lose the next general election. Badly. The sentiment of those who voted for Leave is pretty clear - they don't want unlimited migration (which is a requirement of membership now) etc. Usurp that sentiment and the electorate won't forget.
Because integration of the payload onto the stack takes days to carry out and test - you simply cant do a test and then reintegrate the payload because that means much more time between the test and launch, which means the test is basically invalidated.
I'm not sure if the stack remains vertical after the test, but I would think that raising and lowering the stack to and from a vertical position introduces brand new variables all of its own (moving debris around internally etc).
As noted by the other poster replying to me, this was a replacement for an older satellite which was being retired - if that older satellites life cannot be extended, Spacecom just lost customers to another provider, because there is no spare waiting to be launched and customers still want service...
Slashdot Mirror
Season X wasnt direct-to-DVD, it was aired on Dave in prime time. Dave is doing some decent original programming these days, its not just a rerun channel.
And since when is it the job of the DoJ or any law enforcement agency or officer to consider the credibility of reporters as a whole or individually?
Are you aware that there was a fairly decent season 10 of Red Dwarf that aired during 2012? Back to Earth wasnt the last, and its not needed if you wanted to watch season 10.
Ladies and gentlemen, I give you Slashdot, where size is the only metric that some give a shit about when it comes to a non-US space program.
How about we stand in silent appreciation of the feat that China is accomplishing, like the geeks we should all be would do, k?
Perhaps China doesnt need a large station to achieve its goals - the Chinese don't seem to be bothered about taking it slow and steady with regard to their program, after all.
The 120 Million is for the wifi hotspots - the 100Mbps download speed will be a mandated requirement of all telecoma companys, and mandates requirements are free, the coat is borne by the telecoms company and its customers, but the EU commission gets the credit.
No. No thank you. We don't need another blogging service - Twitter is unique in its tight limits and those limits do provoke some good discussion while cutting down on the meaningless waffle. I can't count the number of Medium.com posts I have read which could be summed up in a couple of sentences, and thats what Twitter excels at.
You can still have meaningful discussions, but you do NOT get to post a wall of text and walk away - it takes effort to post a wall of tweets, during which time people may reply to individual tweets, and that is awesome.
Ireland actually joined the EU in its prior state as the EEC in 1973. And the rules that got Ireland in trouble here were in place way back then as well.
The Treaty of Lisbon is just another treat expanding the EUs constitution.
You cant exactly upgrade the RAM in a phone, and it can become an issue - the more RAM you have, the fewer backgrounded apps the phone has to terminate due to memory limitations.
So the iPhone being lauded because it has 3GB of memory is laughable when a cheaper phone manages to provide twice as much.
The OnePlus 3, which is half the price of the iPhone 7, has 6GB RAM...
I never said it wasnt.
Why? You fail to provide an argument - it sounds like you simply don't want to agree that I have a point, and thus need to look for any excuse in order to discount said point.
You do realise what "white washing" refers to, right?
While the North does have a huge army, its main value (note I said "value", not "intention") is in its defensive ability - its artillery, bunkers, sheer weight of numbers etc. By and large, the NK military is still stuck in the 1960s, and would be decimated should it choose to cross the DMZ - it lacks serious armour, air support and mobility, and the NK supply chain is pathetic.
The nuclear option adds a certain ... flavour to the mix, but NK only have a few bombs, and those are questionable. Seoul may get nuked, it may not - for any chance of a nuke hitting Seoul, it would need to be either mounted on a rocket, or fired as an artillery shell, and both of those options require some serious technical ability which the NK's lack. Airborne delivery is out of the question, as any NK aircraft wouldnt get far into the South before being shot down. Hand delivery is a distinct possibility, but nuking Seoul doesn't win the North the war, and it would have no effect on the US troops in the South.
I'm pretty sure the senior military are quite happy with the current situation, and should the leader of North Korea seek to alter that wholesale by resuming military activity in any serious way against the South, I have no doubt that there would be a quick and sudden illness and subsequent replacement of their supreme commander...
The OP pointed directly to the 1950 invasion as their point, so that is what I talk about - and if you read my comments in full, you would note that I accept that NK today is run by nut jobs, but that doesn't change the situation back then.
Its also worth noting that South Korea never signed the 1953 Armistice Agreement which resulted in the "permanent" partition of Korea into the North and South - it was signed by the UN and the North, but not the South. Odd that...
Meanwhile, the South hasn't exactly seen a great 75 years itself - coups, assassinations, martial law, political murders, torture of dissidents, dictatorships etc etc
You ignore the fact that the South is well documented as being as aggressive toward the North over the border prior to the invasion, and indeed again it is well documented that it was the South which started many of the skirmishes and exchanges of gun fire that blighted that period. Syngman Rhee is on record that he wanted to conquer the North by any means necessary.
And no, concentrating on one side while *explicitly* saying that is what I am doing does not in any way diminish the acts of the other side - especially when the point is to dispel the very polarised image that people have of the North and South during the Korean War. Trying to say otherwise is merely an ad hominem attack rather than engaging in the discussion.
At that point in time, the South were every much the bit as brutal as the North - hundreds of thousands forced into reeducation camps, hundreds of thousands executed, tens of thousands killed in up risings etc etc etc.
But it would seem that people like you don't like that side of history being brought up - to people like you, the South is completely innocent, and *that* is quite disturbing because it means you arent willing to look at the history of the region in a dispassionate or detached manner...
Its a bit more complicated than that - the partition of Korea only happened in 1948, two years before the Korean War started, and *both* sides were making aggressive noises and movements toward the other, it was simply the North that first moved en mass south of the border to reunite the country. The South at that point was still building its military in preparation for its own invasion of the North, as well as disenfranchising a huge number of its own citizens who were communist or didn't support the US-and-UN imposed elections.
By the start of the Korean War in 1950, the South had imprisoned 30,000 communists, and had interred 300,000 more in "reeducation camps". They had also killed more than 60,000 of their own citizens in various quellings of uprisings by disowned groups. The North were doing their own similar thing, sure, but I concentrate on the South here because they are always the side which gets white washed when it comes to the Korean War. After all, you hardly ever hear that, in the early days of the war, the southern president, Syngmam Rhee, ordered the executions of between 100,000 and 200,000 of his political opponents in the Bodo League massacre.
The North today may be run by nut jobs, but do not mistake the cause of the Korean War as solely the Norths fault, nor on the same level as todays North Korea...
Whats this warning message you speak of? I solely run Chrome on both my Surface Pro 3 and my Surface Book and havent ever seen a warning message telling me to use Edge instead...
Now fix the fact that Chrome doesnt trigger the on-screen keyboard in tablet mode when you tap into an input box - this has been broken for several major versions now, after being "fixed" for a few versions after the last time they broke it.
You miss the point of my post...
See my other reply for why.
The number of failures doesn't make a vehicle "experimental", and the point of the figures is to show that the Falcon 9 is launching pretty much on the same cadence as two very-much-not experimental rockets.
The Falcon 9 is no more experimental than either of the two examples I give.
On another note, you say that the Falcon 9 has had nearly 4 times fewer flights and matches the number of failures in a shorter lifespan than the Ariane 5. This is true.
Its also totally misleading, because the Ariane 5 had had both of its complete failures by launch 14 (launches 1 and 14, to be precise), and both of its partial failures also by launch 14 (launches 2 and 10). Since then, its been perfect in its success.
Compare that to the Falcon 9 - its first failure was launch 19, and its second failure on launch 29. There is no guarantee of a third failure - the Ariane 5 has had 71 successive successful missions under its hat, despite having two complete failures under its belt before the Falcon 9 even had one.
Going by your argument, the Ariane 5 is a worse risk than the Falcon 9...
Of course there is the potential that nothing will change - we could exit the EU but retain access to the common market, which means we would still be on the hook for membership fees, unlimited EU migration etc....
You know what would happen if that were the case? The government would lose the next general election. Badly. The sentiment of those who voted for Leave is pretty clear - they don't want unlimited migration (which is a requirement of membership now) etc. Usurp that sentiment and the electorate won't forget.
Because integration of the payload onto the stack takes days to carry out and test - you simply cant do a test and then reintegrate the payload because that means much more time between the test and launch, which means the test is basically invalidated.
I'm not sure if the stack remains vertical after the test, but I would think that raising and lowering the stack to and from a vertical position introduces brand new variables all of its own (moving debris around internally etc).
What makes the Falcon 9 an "experimental vehicle" any more than any other launch system?
The Falcon 9 has had 27 successful launches and 2 failures in 6 years. It has had three major variations in that time (v1.0, v1.1 and FT).
The Ariane 5 has had 83 successful launches and 2 failures in 20 years. It has had five major variations in that time (G, G+, GS, ECA and ES).
The Atlas V has had 60 successful launches and no failures in 14 years. It has had nine major variations which have flown in that time.
I'm not seeing anything which would put the Falcon 9 into a higher risk band than its contemporaries...
Ouch, looks like a second stage failure - seems very odd!
As noted by the other poster replying to me, this was a replacement for an older satellite which was being retired - if that older satellites life cannot be extended, Spacecom just lost customers to another provider, because there is no spare waiting to be launched and customers still want service...