The second vehicle to be pursued is based on a 5 segment Solid Rocket Booster (SRB)
Aren't we better than this? I can understand using barbaric rocket technology to lift big payloads, but it is time that NASA got serious about X-project and spaceshipone type design. A re-usable vehicle that could take off from space, go into orbit, dock w/ space stations, etc., and then land back on earth is well within our reach technologically. Why not?
yeah, i agree...I'd even go further to include corporate logos and other things (like any cartoon mouse) that have had their copyrights extended indefinitely.
Do hackers and geeks just not care about communicating effectively?
Nice use of the loaded question. Of course they do. Hackers and geeks built, maintain, and teach others how to use the INTERNET, quite possibly the biggest communications advancement since the movable-type printing press
Do they not realize that a mediocre command of written English makes them appear less intelligent? Am I missing something here?
Why does missspellling a word make its use "mediocre"? It could be that people who are truly at the cutting edge of communications technology have realized that a wrong vowel here and an improper grammar there do not significantly or even noticably alter the message...unless the person reading is...um...overlyanalytical.
In the end, it is more efficient, and therefore, more effective to overlook some small, time saving errors in a message.
Some might say that geeks and hackers are allowed to communicate by their own rules in the digital reality that they created.
I came up with this kind of stuff from watching all the time travel movies when i was a kid in the 80's (terminator, back to the future, star trek, etc).
You know, the whole idea that you can go back in time and actually *change* the present...if you change it, then it's not the same present you came from...you either fullfill something you always had done but didn't know it yet, or you changed something and in-effect completely separated yourself forever from whatever 'present' you originated from...either way, you are either fullfilling or creating something new and separate, not changing the original.
I'm just wondering if I'm the only one who had thought this...it's really close to the research
I would agree with the general point of the article, which is be smart about terraforming if you want it to actually happen. An integral and gradual approach.
I see no reason not to investigate terraforming asteroids.
I would advocate starting to 'terraform' now. In the sense that we could send robots to mars, asteroids, etc. and have them *start* the process. For example, a robot could go to mars/suitable asteroid and from there try to grow plants.
The robot could start a very small hydroponic (or whatever) farm wherever and send us data that would give us a better look at what our limitations are for mars, asteroids, etc.
he wasn't dead for all intents and purposes, especially w/ star wars tech. His arms and leg were cut off, and he was badly burned...that's not 'dead for all intents and purposes' even today. He was definitely alive. He was actually crawling up the bank with one arm...far from 'dead for all intents and purposes.'
If 'the switch was complete' then why do people try to turn vader back from the dark side in other movies?
Just b/c his body was 'on fire' doesn't mean anything. It doesn't justify the horrible costume choice, or the inconsistancies in Vader's overall costume design.
Lastly, Obi Wan showed compassion? He left him for dead...Obi Wan did not know that the emporer would rescue Vader. If Obi Wan was truly trying to be compassionate, he would have killed vader then and there, or brought him back to get medical care.
I haven't put a dork like you who defends the inconsistancies in star wars to shame in awhile. flame on bitch
btw, how the hell do you get an informative up mod for your comment?
excellent comment...I had similar feelings as I watched. Especially when Obi-Wan abandons a crawling, one-armed Anakin. "good/evil" switch indeed. It seems everyone abandoned Anakin when he needed them, including Obi-Wan.
You'd think Obi-Wan would have taken the mortally injured Anakin back to be imprisoned if not try to win him back from dark side, but no, Obi Wan left him to die. The emporer was the only person who helped him. I can understand why Anakin would hate the Jedi.
I also am disappointed in the anakin/vader look. They could have put him into a really cool 'young vader' cyborg suit similar to the ridiculously names 'general grievous' (who as obviously the model for Vader's cybernetic enhancements).
Why put him directly into the big, stiff, clumsy, outdated 'old' suit?...he didn't need all that cyborg technology either, just new arms and leg. Seems like they were overly eager to make 'new hope' references.
ok, you have cemented your place in the inner sanctum of the counterpoint cabal my friend.
We're talking about concrete things here, not 'well, like, air traffic controllers are like, office workers too' (rolls eyes)...you sounds like a high school girl. You and I both know that fat secretaries typing in some office and air traffic controllers are two different things. Your point remains null, and so does your brain activity.
It might be interesting (or vital) for those in said situation to know what their expected error rates or potentials are.
Ok, I'll grant you that there *might* be SOME situation were this information would be necessary, but from TFA, we aren't talking about something like antarctic helicopter pilots, the study was for office drones.
Tell me why this study was necessary to find out common sense information...ie, what temp. to keep a workplace.
Assuming you can't, I'll tell you something else, my main problem with the idea that this science is legit. is corporate wastefulness and backwards thinking. Is this a smart use of science? Study something more relevant. All you need is the sense God gave the common dog to know when a workplace is too cold and making it harder for employees to do their job. Studies like these are an outgrowth of the counter-intuitive, wasteful thinking that is rampant in corporate America.
If it's so futile to perform the experiment, if the answers are so obvious, you won't mind telling us the temperature at which a healthy 30-year old male experiences a 10% temperature-induced error rate.
I'm sure you wouldn't mind using your guess when deciding when you should shut down air-traffic control if the heating malfunctions, but I'd rather the people making decisions like that have some hard data to work from.
I can't tell you that, buddy. I can tell you that TFA guotaion I cited said the study was about typing in an office, so your air-traffic controller point is null.
Also, a question. Why would someone need to know the answers to these questions you asked:
Do you know exactly how badly cold affects typing? Just how cold is "chilly"? Is it 280K or 290K? How is the error rate correlated with temperature? How is it correlated with age and sex?
You answer me that, and we can discuss further if you'd like.
You, parent, and the whole/. counterpoint cabal need to relax. You don't have to provide b.s. counterpoints to every popular thread just for the sake of being a contrarian...
You and parent are also wrong.
And like the parent poster says, you can't just go around saying "Why research that? It's obvious?" We get proved wrong on "obvious" shit all the time.
There IS a such thing as stupid research. For example, from TFA:
In what its sponsors called a "landmark study," scientists found that when your fingers are numb and turning that lovely robin's-egg blue, you make more typing effors. Er, errors. "When employees get chilly," the scientists concluded, "they are not working to their full potential."
Can you tell me one logical reason why anyone might think that people with stiff, cold fingers would not make more typing errors than people with normal fingers? That's the point of the whole thing: only an idiot would need to test that hypothesis. That's like testing to decide if people who read non-fiction often like non-fiction.
There are some things that do not need to be tested with methodology to be agreed as true. You don't need a study to find out that shooting yourself in the head will hurt you.
Wait, maybe you should test out that hypothesis...
you can add "Any post critical of mainstream evolutionary theory" to that list...
I'm not a creationist, but in a recent/. post I had the primative audacity to call into question the report that miniature skeletal remains found in a cave were pre-human homonids. I thought they might be midgets or something.
I was flamed like I was jerry falwell for being a 'creationist', modded up at first, then modded way down as a flamer...
what's the deal/.? I didn't even mention creation/evolution debate, I just questioned facts. It seems sometimes there ISN'T room for any kind of dissenting opinion.
Mod parent down...S/he makes a huge logical leap...
ANYONE who uses a Mac, or Linux, or any other OS that's not Windows, ALMOST CERTAINLY has made an informed decision to do so based on harsh experience with Microsoft's crap.(emphasis added)
People make uninformed Mac purchases all the time. (Linux is another story, and ultimately off-topic in this thread)
Most undergradbots here at CU boulder sport the iPod...not b/c of it's sound, or storage or any fo that, no...they buy b/c iPods have good marketing. Many that I've talked to don't even know that other mp3 players exist.
To assume someone who buys a Mac is doing so b/c they don't like windows is just dumb.
The list really is pure b.s. because they really didn't have any kind of methodology. They just smoked a joint and started writing down films they liked.
Rolling Stone's recent issues with the 'top xxx' songs, albums, bands, artists, etc. at least had an in-depth description of the large panel of artists, industry, and writers who were commissioned to select the 'top xxx'. I found RS's lists to be satisfactory, if not definitive.
Windows is to computers what Time is to magazines...it's quick, available, entrenched, consumer friendly...and completely full of shit
I could talk about this all day...the idea of using a regular chain of vessels is great and kind of a no-brainer.
I'm interested that one post advocated more ISS work. I can definitely see the point to what you suggest. I don't know specifics, but is the ISS even worth a damn? I am in favor of more orbiting space stations for sure, but is the ISS worth it? I'm asking b/c I don't know...
I'm reminded about an old/. story that said space stations in geosychrynous orbit could be accessed via an umbilical with a gondola-style platform...
to close, again, I like the supply chain ship idea, and i think these ships could even be fully automated. Perhaps a fully automated supply ship could bridge the gap.
As for actual Mars colonization, I can envision scores of possibilities for the ship...it could be a interplanetary vessel that 'doubles' as an orbiting station. This ship would have a samller landing craft that can take people/supplies to and from the surface back to the 'mothership' orbiting. Basically like the starship enterprise...
i'm not a wikihead, i_don't_think...but I AM a professional writer so I have some perspective here. The bottom line is, wikipedia is inifinitely better than a hard-bound encyclopedia. It has the same level of writing, on the whole, plus it is free and updated regularly.
Furthermore, this is not a case of an article being 'wrong.' If the cat article in wiki said cats are a type of pasta usually served with tomato basil and pesto then that would be wrong. With this article about Voyager, the article simply had the best information available (for wiki...there's no hardbound encyclopedia in the world that had anything to say about voyager leaving our solar system).
As soon as better information was available, it was included. How could you have a problem with that??? And since you are so smart, once you tell me what the problem with this wiki article is specifically, then you can tell me your idea for a better, more easily updated, and free encyclopedia...i'll be waiting
sway him that this is some incredible data discovery over wasting money to put people on Mars in 40+ years?
no idea...really hard to know what any leader is really driven by. I found his Mars initiative to be lacking as well, and ultimately unfeasable. I just don't understand...it seems NASA is willing to learn from its mistakes, but they neglect the lessons of hugely successful projects like Voyager.
One of those lessons being that making sustainable, lasting spacecraft is possible. I think sustaianability should be the cornerstone of a Mars mission, not just drop-in - jump-off moonshot style.
<i>One sort of grows up realising theres a special mythological England with bizarre Ye Olde customs and behaviour that exists in films and the one you actually live in. But then thats probably true for everyone across the world to some extent.</i><br><br>It's true for people in America as well, even though Hollywood is for better or worse 'ours'. It's because moviegoers are happy to be spoonfed unwatchable, irrelevant crap, and the film industry is willing to give it to them on the whole. After a few decades of cliched crap, a sort of 'movie reality' version of England (or the U.S., etc.) somehow becomes the common image people have, even though they have never been there.
given ~15 more years of battery life, i wonder what more Voyager can do for us. Maybe give us new data about the composition of interstellar space. Reminds me of an old/. post about how 'space' has a somewhat fixed temperature.
It is somehow comforting to know that Voyager is still up there doing its thing for us even though it is crossing the boundaries of our solar system. Quite a design accomplishment I'd say.
just because this is an open discussion forum does not make every post equal. People post all kinds of crap on here, which makes the good, ON-TOPIC posts stand out more.
I think bragging about how you can run Red Hat with no problems instead of discussing the actually issues mentioned in the post is off-topic and lame.
If you can tell me how some uber-geek bragging about how he/she 'didn't have those problems, red hat is so easy' is an on-topic post discussing choice of OS, then please do so, otherwise don't bother responding.
Hard to think of Image Comics as a success story. It's a husk of it's former self (if it even exists...haven't read comics in a few years), abandoned by the same forces that created the once-vibrant label.
The books were never EVER on time, and were mostly flash after the first year or so. Remember Deathmate? Deathmate Red was like 6 months late!
Image started as a bunch of kids telling the big two (Marvel and DC) to screw off, then each and every one of those founders started their own imprints and started to do the very things they left the big two for (you reading, Todd McFarlane?).
If the Image artists had 'stayed true to their roots' then they would still be relevant AND profitable. Individually, some of them are still going strong, but the whole idea got kicked to the side as soon as they made their first big paycheck. Good thing Alan Moore knows who butters his bread. He's always been a class act.
Slashdot Mirror
from TFA:
The second vehicle to be pursued is based on a 5 segment Solid Rocket Booster (SRB)
Aren't we better than this? I can understand using barbaric rocket technology to lift big payloads, but it is time that NASA got serious about X-project and spaceshipone type design. A re-usable vehicle that could take off from space, go into orbit, dock w/ space stations, etc., and then land back on earth is well within our reach technologically. Why not?
yeah, i agree...I'd even go further to include corporate logos and other things (like any cartoon mouse) that have had their copyrights extended indefinitely.
Do hackers and geeks just not care about communicating effectively?
Nice use of the loaded question. Of course they do. Hackers and geeks built, maintain, and teach others how to use the INTERNET, quite possibly the biggest communications advancement since the movable-type printing press
Do they not realize that a mediocre command of written English makes them appear less intelligent? Am I missing something here?
Why does missspellling a word make its use "mediocre"? It could be that people who are truly at the cutting edge of communications technology have realized that a wrong vowel here and an improper grammar there do not significantly or even noticably alter the message...unless the person reading is...um...overlyanalytical.
In the end, it is more efficient, and therefore, more effective to overlook some small, time saving errors in a message.
Some might say that geeks and hackers are allowed to communicate by their own rules in the digital reality that they created.
I came up with this kind of stuff from watching all the time travel movies when i was a kid in the 80's (terminator, back to the future, star trek, etc).
You know, the whole idea that you can go back in time and actually *change* the present...if you change it, then it's not the same present you came from...you either fullfill something you always had done but didn't know it yet, or you changed something and in-effect completely separated yourself forever from whatever 'present' you originated from...either way, you are either fullfilling or creating something new and separate, not changing the original.
I'm just wondering if I'm the only one who had thought this...it's really close to the research
I would agree with the general point of the article, which is be smart about terraforming if you want it to actually happen. An integral and gradual approach.
I see no reason not to investigate terraforming asteroids.
I would advocate starting to 'terraform' now. In the sense that we could send robots to mars, asteroids, etc. and have them *start* the process. For example, a robot could go to mars/suitable asteroid and from there try to grow plants.
The robot could start a very small hydroponic (or whatever) farm wherever and send us data that would give us a better look at what our limitations are for mars, asteroids, etc.
just MHO
You and parent missed the article's overall point:
/. would agree that text w/ good content is better than a flash website w/ shitty content.
Focus on logical gameplay
Yes you may disagree with some of the author's nitpicks, but everyone who games, or used to game, knows that it's mostly a style/substance debate.
In the end, I think most people on
Do you still disagree?...look -----> SHINY!
he wasn't dead for all intents and purposes, especially w/ star wars tech. His arms and leg were cut off, and he was badly burned...that's not 'dead for all intents and purposes' even today. He was definitely alive. He was actually crawling up the bank with one arm...far from 'dead for all intents and purposes.'
If 'the switch was complete' then why do people try to turn vader back from the dark side in other movies?
Just b/c his body was 'on fire' doesn't mean anything. It doesn't justify the horrible costume choice, or the inconsistancies in Vader's overall costume design.
Lastly, Obi Wan showed compassion? He left him for dead...Obi Wan did not know that the emporer would rescue Vader. If Obi Wan was truly trying to be compassionate, he would have killed vader then and there, or brought him back to get medical care.
I haven't put a dork like you who defends the inconsistancies in star wars to shame in awhile. flame on bitch
btw, how the hell do you get an informative up mod for your comment?
excellent comment...I had similar feelings as I watched. Especially when Obi-Wan abandons a crawling, one-armed Anakin. "good/evil" switch indeed. It seems everyone abandoned Anakin when he needed them, including Obi-Wan.
You'd think Obi-Wan would have taken the mortally injured Anakin back to be imprisoned if not try to win him back from dark side, but no, Obi Wan left him to die. The emporer was the only person who helped him. I can understand why Anakin would hate the Jedi.
I also am disappointed in the anakin/vader look. They could have put him into a really cool 'young vader' cyborg suit similar to the ridiculously names 'general grievous' (who as obviously the model for Vader's cybernetic enhancements).
Why put him directly into the big, stiff, clumsy, outdated 'old' suit?...he didn't need all that cyborg technology either, just new arms and leg. Seems like they were overly eager to make 'new hope' references.
ok, you have cemented your place in the inner sanctum of the counterpoint cabal my friend.
We're talking about concrete things here, not 'well, like, air traffic controllers are like, office workers too' (rolls eyes)...you sounds like a high school girl. You and I both know that fat secretaries typing in some office and air traffic controllers are two different things. Your point remains null, and so does your brain activity.
Your logical fallacy: straw man
It might be interesting (or vital) for those in said situation to know what their expected error rates or potentials are.
Ok, I'll grant you that there *might* be SOME situation were this information would be necessary, but from TFA, we aren't talking about something like antarctic helicopter pilots, the study was for office drones.
Tell me why this study was necessary to find out common sense information...ie, what temp. to keep a workplace.
Assuming you can't, I'll tell you something else, my main problem with the idea that this science is legit. is corporate wastefulness and backwards thinking. Is this a smart use of science? Study something more relevant. All you need is the sense God gave the common dog to know when a workplace is too cold and making it harder for employees to do their job. Studies like these are an outgrowth of the counter-intuitive, wasteful thinking that is rampant in corporate America.
If it's so futile to perform the experiment, if the answers are so obvious, you won't mind telling us the temperature at which a healthy 30-year old male experiences a 10% temperature-induced error rate.
I'm sure you wouldn't mind using your guess when deciding when you should shut down air-traffic control if the heating malfunctions, but I'd rather the people making decisions like that have some hard data to work from.
I can't tell you that, buddy. I can tell you that TFA guotaion I cited said the study was about typing in an office, so your air-traffic controller point is null.
Also, a question. Why would someone need to know the answers to these questions you asked:
Do you know exactly how badly cold affects typing? Just how cold is "chilly"? Is it 280K or 290K? How is the error rate correlated with temperature? How is it correlated with age and sex?
You answer me that, and we can discuss further if you'd like.
You, parent, and the whole /. counterpoint cabal need to relax. You don't have to provide b.s. counterpoints to every popular thread just for the sake of being a contrarian...
You and parent are also wrong.
And like the parent poster says, you can't just go around saying "Why research that? It's obvious?" We get proved wrong on "obvious" shit all the time.
There IS a such thing as stupid research. For example, from TFA:
In what its sponsors called a "landmark study," scientists found that when your fingers are numb and turning that lovely robin's-egg blue, you make more typing effors. Er, errors. "When employees get chilly," the scientists concluded, "they are not working to their full potential."
Can you tell me one logical reason why anyone might think that people with stiff, cold fingers would not make more typing errors than people with normal fingers? That's the point of the whole thing: only an idiot would need to test that hypothesis. That's like testing to decide if people who read non-fiction often like non-fiction.
There are some things that do not need to be tested with methodology to be agreed as true. You don't need a study to find out that shooting yourself in the head will hurt you.
Wait, maybe you should test out that hypothesis...
you can add "Any post critical of mainstream evolutionary theory" to that list...
/. post I had the primative audacity to call into question the report that miniature skeletal remains found in a cave were pre-human homonids. I thought they might be midgets or something.
/.? I didn't even mention creation/evolution debate, I just questioned facts. It seems sometimes there ISN'T room for any kind of dissenting opinion.
I'm not a creationist, but in a recent
I was flamed like I was jerry falwell for being a 'creationist', modded up at first, then modded way down as a flamer...
what's the deal
Mod parent down...S/he makes a huge logical leap...
ANYONE who uses a Mac, or Linux, or any other OS that's not Windows, ALMOST CERTAINLY has made an informed decision to do so based on harsh experience with Microsoft's crap.(emphasis added)
People make uninformed Mac purchases all the time. (Linux is another story, and ultimately off-topic in this thread)
Most undergradbots here at CU boulder sport the iPod...not b/c of it's sound, or storage or any fo that, no...they buy b/c iPods have good marketing. Many that I've talked to don't even know that other mp3 players exist.
To assume someone who buys a Mac is doing so b/c they don't like windows is just dumb.
I agree, and I'd go further...
The list really is pure b.s. because they really didn't have any kind of methodology. They just smoked a joint and started writing down films they liked.
Rolling Stone's recent issues with the 'top xxx' songs, albums, bands, artists, etc. at least had an in-depth description of the large panel of artists, industry, and writers who were commissioned to select the 'top xxx'. I found RS's lists to be satisfactory, if not definitive.
Windows is to computers what Time is to magazines...it's quick, available, entrenched, consumer friendly...and completely full of shit
_j
I could talk about this all day...the idea of using a regular chain of vessels is great and kind of a no-brainer.
/. story that said space stations in geosychrynous orbit could be accessed via an umbilical with a gondola-style platform...
I'm interested that one post advocated more ISS work. I can definitely see the point to what you suggest. I don't know specifics, but is the ISS even worth a damn? I am in favor of more orbiting space stations for sure, but is the ISS worth it? I'm asking b/c I don't know...
I'm reminded about an old
to close, again, I like the supply chain ship idea, and i think these ships could even be fully automated. Perhaps a fully automated supply ship could bridge the gap.
As for actual Mars colonization, I can envision scores of possibilities for the ship...it could be a interplanetary vessel that 'doubles' as an orbiting station. This ship would have a samller landing craft that can take people/supplies to and from the surface back to the 'mothership' orbiting. Basically like the starship enterprise...
flame on anonymous!
i'm not a wikihead, i_don't_think...but I AM a professional writer so I have some perspective here. The bottom line is, wikipedia is inifinitely better than a hard-bound encyclopedia. It has the same level of writing, on the whole, plus it is free and updated regularly.
Furthermore, this is not a case of an article being 'wrong.' If the cat article in wiki said cats are a type of pasta usually served with tomato basil and pesto then that would be wrong. With this article about Voyager, the article simply had the best information available (for wiki...there's no hardbound encyclopedia in the world that had anything to say about voyager leaving our solar system).
As soon as better information was available, it was included. How could you have a problem with that??? And since you are so smart, once you tell me what the problem with this wiki article is specifically, then you can tell me your idea for a better, more easily updated, and free encyclopedia...i'll be waiting
sway him that this is some incredible data discovery over wasting money to put people on Mars in 40+ years?
no idea...really hard to know what any leader is really driven by. I found his Mars initiative to be lacking as well, and ultimately unfeasable. I just don't understand...it seems NASA is willing to learn from its mistakes, but they neglect the lessons of hugely successful projects like Voyager.
One of those lessons being that making sustainable, lasting spacecraft is possible. I think sustaianability should be the cornerstone of a Mars mission, not just drop-in - jump-off moonshot style.
<i>One sort of grows up realising theres a special mythological England with bizarre Ye Olde customs and behaviour that exists in films and the one you actually live in. But then thats probably true for everyone across the world to some extent.</i><br><br>It's true for people in America as well, even though Hollywood is for better or worse 'ours'. It's because moviegoers are happy to be spoonfed unwatchable, irrelevant crap, and the film industry is willing to give it to them on the whole. After a few decades of cliched crap, a sort of 'movie reality' version of England (or the U.S., etc.) somehow becomes the common image people have, even though they have never been there.
I agree, it is frustrating. Voyager 1 and 2 are really proving to be good investments, and it seems like few people in politics see it.
You could say the Voyagers are one of the most successful projects NASA has undertaken.
I was wondering what more could be done with them before the batteries final go out...
interesting article from your link...
/. post about how 'space' has a somewhat fixed temperature.
given ~15 more years of battery life, i wonder what more Voyager can do for us. Maybe give us new data about the composition of interstellar space. Reminds me of an old
It is somehow comforting to know that Voyager is still up there doing its thing for us even though it is crossing the boundaries of our solar system. Quite a design accomplishment I'd say.
Hey, it was out out date info, but it's still better than an old hard bound 'World Book Encyclopedia'...
plus, this post has been up for less than a day and someone updated it...pretty good i'd say
are you flaming?
just because this is an open discussion forum does not make every post equal. People post all kinds of crap on here, which makes the good, ON-TOPIC posts stand out more.
I think bragging about how you can run Red Hat with no problems instead of discussing the actually issues mentioned in the post is off-topic and lame.
If you can tell me how some uber-geek bragging about how he/she 'didn't have those problems, red hat is so easy' is an on-topic post discussing choice of OS, then please do so, otherwise don't bother responding.
Hard to think of Image Comics as a success story. It's a husk of it's former self (if it even exists...haven't read comics in a few years), abandoned by the same forces that created the once-vibrant label.
The books were never EVER on time, and were mostly flash after the first year or so. Remember Deathmate? Deathmate Red was like 6 months late!
Image started as a bunch of kids telling the big two (Marvel and DC) to screw off, then each and every one of those founders started their own imprints and started to do the very things they left the big two for (you reading, Todd McFarlane?).
If the Image artists had 'stayed true to their roots' then they would still be relevant AND profitable. Individually, some of them are still going strong, but the whole idea got kicked to the side as soon as they made their first big paycheck. Good thing Alan Moore knows who butters his bread. He's always been a class act.
bonus trivia: what does I.M.A.G.E. stand for?
score YOU -1, sometimes being three steps ahead means being one step behind