President Trump could loosen regulations on coal as a short term way to pump life back into the Appalachian economy where he has lots of support. But to stay true to those supporters over time he needs to supplant that industry with others. If many, stable, well paying jobs are created there, those ex-coal miners will have no reason to bemoan the loss of jobs in a dirty, dying, and dangerous business.
Relax. It's just fun-spirited hijinks from those crazy guys over at Sun. It's like that time that Scott McNealy and Jonathon Schwartz snuck into the Microsoft headquarters and kidnapped Goatly, the Microsoft mascot, right before their big Windows ME launch. But then the goat ate a stack of Solaris installation diskettes in the closet where they hid it, and got so sick they thought it was going to die. So they had to return it before anyone found out but old Mr. Balmer caught them and made them promise never to do anything like that again. Those kooky kids!
CLIFTON: Oh, I'm glad you're here, so we can get this all straightened out. Would you like a cup of tea?
BOOKMAN: You got any orange drink?
CLIFTON: Orange drink?
BOOKMAN: Yeah. Orange drink.
CLIFTON: No, I don't drink orange drink.
BOOKMAN: Yeah, you don't drink orange drink? How about instant orange drink?
CLIFTON: No, I don't...
BOOKMAN: You don't have any instant Tang?
CLIFTON: Well, I don't normally--
BOOKMAN: Who doesn't have instant Tang?
CLIFTON: I don't.
BOOKMAN: You buy a jar of Tang, you put it in the cupboard, you
forget about it. Then later on when you need it, it's there. It lasts
forever. It's freeze-dried. Freeze-dried orange drink.
CLIFTON: Really? I'll have to remember that.
BOOKMAN: You took the moon landing movie out in 1979.
CLIFTON: Yes, and I returned it in 1979.
BOOKMAN: Yeah, '79. That was my first year on the job. Bad year for libraries.
Bad year for America. Hippies burning library cards, the Betamax decision letting
everybody steal movies. I don't judge a man by the length of
his hair or the kind of music he listens to. Rock was never my bag. But
you put on a pair of shoes when you walk into the NASA Film Library, fella.
CLIFTON: Look, Mr. Bookman. I--I returned that movie. I remember it very specifically.
BOOKMAN: You're a Rock cinematographer, you entertain people, make them have fun.
CLIFTON: I try.
BOOKMAN: You think this is all big fun, don't you?
CLIFTON: No, I don't.
BOOKMAN: I saw your name in the credits once; I remembered your name--from my list. I looked
it up. Sure enough, it checked out. You think because you're a celebrity
that somehow the law doesn't apply to you, that you're above the law?
CLIFTON: Certainly not.
BOOKMAN: Well, let me tell you something, music fun boy. Y'know that little stamp,
the one that says "NASA Film Library"? Well that may not mean
anything to you, but that means a lot to me. One whole hell of a lot.
Sure, go ahead, laugh if you want to. I've seen your type before:
Flashy, making the scene, flaunting convention. Yeah, I know what you're
thinking. What's this guy making such a big stink about old moon movies for?
Well, let me give you a hint, junior. Maybe we can live without
libraries, people like you and me. Maybe. Sure, we're too old to change
the world, but what about that kid renting a movie, right now,
in a branch at the local library and finding X rated porn taped over
the middle of The Dark Crystal and Finding Nemo?
Doesn't HE deserve better? Look. If you think this is about overdue
fines and missing movies, you'd better think again. This is about that
kid's right to borrow a movie without getting his mind warped! Or: maybe
that turns you on, Clifton; maybe that's how y'get your kicks. You and
your good-time buddies. Well I got a flash for ya, joy-boy: Party time
is over. Y'got seven days, Clifton. That is one week!
On the down side, now they won't be able to play the Goldstein Bar Mitzvah which was a paying gig and this Second Life island is going to cost them at least $9.95 a month.
The feds are just practicing for the day when the general population realizes that this isn't their grandpappy's democracy anymore and decide to do something about it.
'The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.' -Thomas Jefferson
I believe it was during the Reagan administration that I learned the folksy wisdom behind the saying 'it takes two to tango'. At the time, the first lady, Nancy Reagan, was heading a grade school anti-drug campaign characterized mainly by the slogan 'Just say No!' Now many of us in the general public didn't immediately understand how such an innocuous verbal assault was hurting the vicious gangsters of the drug cartels, and the administration's policies of mandatory minimum sentencing for even the smallest amounts of recreational drugs was equally mystifying.
About this time, during a press conference with Reagan's "drug czar", some intrepid journalist asked for an explanation of the method behind their madness. I discovered then what should have been obvious to us all: The borders cannot be closed tight enough to interdict the drugs, but the "pushers" would not be able to sell their "poison" if there were not a demand for it. So by indoctrinating the next generation of potential drug consumers to reject drugs and by locking away known drug users for offenses as slight as pot seeds in their ash tray, Reagan was using the well understood laws of Economics to win the War on Drugs ®.
Well we all know that there are two things Republican administrations are expert on and those things are Economics and War. After all, when is the last time you saw the Republicans lead us into an unwinnable quagmire and then withdraw in disgrace (uh, before 1975, that is)? Anyway, the Law of Supply and Demand says that if demand drops but supply stays the same then the price must drop as sellers compete to unload their wares to a dwindling number of consumers. How could Reagan have forseen the consequences of the combination of cheap coke from the Columbian cartels flooding the market and making the penalty for posession of a homegrown marijuana joint on par with those for kilos of crack rocks? It was inevitable that the number of young people smoking marijuana would decline while they spent their lunch money on the cheap and seemingly inexhaustible cocaine instead.
'Okay, thanks so much for the history lesson' you are probably thinking, ' but just how does this relate to the problem of porn spam?' Well my boy (or girl), just apply the principles of Reagan Voodoo Economics to this new situation. Imagine it. You're sitting at your desk smoking a cigarette, exhausted, drained, and utterly satisfied by the government regulated, imported foreign prostitute crouching still beaded with sweat on the carpet next to your Dell Dimension. Suddenly a new message pops up in your mailbox. What could that be? "Cum c Nud3 |_ez T33n5" 'Ha', you laugh, clicking the delete button. 'Begone you purveyors of filth. I have no more need of you' See? No demand, no reward to the advertisers, no more spam. Simple economics.
The effects of smoking on lung health are certainly more pronounced.
While I'm sure that's true. I chose the CHD study randomly.
Ask a non-smoker to stand near a campfire / charcoal grill smoke and ask them if it feels the same as standing near a smoker.
I am a non-smoker and I know the smoke from campfires and grills is much worse. The dust particles are much larger so they scar your lung tissue worse. They make me cough while standing in a smoky bar does not.
More importantly, though, from a liberty standpoint is the fact that you don't do these activities indoors without ventilation, and you do this only in areas where people have to actively choose to come to the smoke, like on private property or in parks.
But not private property like a bar, or the smoking section of a restaraunt, or a designated smoking area?
there is no reason that others should be forced to suffer it for the sake of the smoker's pleasure.
By your logic, we should also ban loud music, food additives, overhead power lines, drinking alcohol outside of walking distance from the home, and vogon poetry. What a safe, secure, boring, restrictive world you must dream of.
First off, I didn't argue about anything especially global warming. I am pretty well convinced in that area. My personal opinion of Chrichton is not as extreme as yours but leans in the same direction. Now as to the studies you linked to... I only looked at the one on Coronary Heart Disease (cause this isn't so important to me to spend that much time on). But if you examine Table 2 you will see that other factors such as high cholesterol levels, family history, lack of activity, and depression also exhibit effects, some such as family history are *much* greater than SHS (self reported, by the way, which is problematic). I have met many people with views similar to yours who want to pass laws based on minor statistical correlations for example to ban smoking in all public places (even outdoors!) They don't seem to realize that there is a cost to personal liberty to balance against a tiny increased health risk. And if there is enough reason to enforce behavior to prevent exposure to occasional SHS then where does it stop? Do we also ban other sources of occasional SHS such as sitting around campfires and cooking over charcoal grills? Should we ban persons with family histories of CHD (a much more pronounced effect) from having children? Do we require all citizens to exercise regularly? That would certainly have profound and beneficial effects for our society. Are you for it? Why or why not? By the way I am not a smoker and I always ask to sit in the non-smoking section, but I disagree with the health nazis who want to legislate based on unsupported or tenuous evidence.
and claims that they're distorting facts without backing any of it up with "facts" of his own -- except for "facts" like the harmlessness of second-hand smoke. Crichton's a loon and an asshole for making that last argument in particular
Penn and Teller present that same fact in episode 5 of season 1 of "Penn and Teller: Bullshit!" Here's a synopsis from tv.com:
Second hand smoke has been a major problem debated by many people. Joe Cherner, the presedent of smoke free educational services, will have his chance to explain his side of the fence. But Penn and Teller will soon be taking over his side as they explain the true reason of how only one report published years ago has caused this "second hand smoke health problem" See why it's all just a bunch of Bullshit!
It has been a while since I watched it but I remember that they don't claim that second hand smoke is not bad for you. Instead they show that the wide spread claims that it is bad for you are based on an executive summary written by a political appointee which was not supported by the data in the report. In short, you may be right that second hand smoke is bad for you, but if you don't do the research to actually find out whether and how much of an effect it has, then you are just as bad as creationists.
I watched Chrichton explain his viewpoint on a late night talk show. In the few minutes he talked about it he seemed to be taking a reactionary stance against people like you who attack and namecall based on your unsupported assumptions. If you want to sway the middle-of-the-roaders like me, you need to provide scientific evidence rather than conjecture blown way out of proportion by people with extreme views.
Maybe Indians who drank the water were taken over by the alien parasites and are now infiltrating the U.S. on H1-B Visas. So when Chandresh, the new employee, brings in food for everyone in your department, whatever you do, don't eat the red chutney.
I think you underestimate the primal aggression of women.
Just as I mentioned that there are men who fall into the effeminate portion of the Bell curve there are women who fall on the masculine side, so I know that there are some who get into fist fights. There have even been a few who were serial killers. But for the most part, I think women tend to inflict emotional pain on each other rather than physical violence. Excluding someone from the group is one of the most hurtful things they can do.
Or the writer is effeminate, either by virtue of being female or being a male who falls on that end of the Bell curve. Women really do think everything is lollypops and sunshine. They don't understand that one of our basic needs is to choke the shit out of that driver in front of us who is going five miles an hour under the speed limit on a two lane road with no passing zone. So just turn to your girlfriend in the passenger seat and smile and say 'Gosh this really is inconvenient since we were already going to be ten minutes late.' And then memorize that SOB's license number and dream about what you're going to do to him after you find out where he lives!
Both Voyager spacecrafts were launched from Cape Canaveral Air Force Station in Florida: Voyager II headed out on August 20, 1977, Voyager I on September 5, 1977.
Can anyone tell me why the probe launched first is called Voyager II and the one launched last is Voyager I?
For once I agree with Gates. The PC is not dead yet. Of course, he had his fun back in the nineties when Microsoft would have their hench-pundits predict the death of Apple and Unix every few months. That wasn't really happening either. Just guerrilla marketing tactics.
Calculators were big and expensive ($500.) and did the basic stuff.
I remember all that other stuff but I don't remember seeing calculators until the mid seventies. They may have been around earlier than that but not in the sixties I don't think. That $500 price sounds about right though.
Maybe it helped. But then why has Mercury which orbits much, much closer never gotten as hot as Venus? We know this by the number of craters on its surface. Venus had a complete surface meltdown within the last 700-800 million years while Mercury has not. Radiation intensity from a point source diminishes according to the inverse square law so a 27% increase in orbit will only make a 38% decrease in solar intensity. Are you suggesting then that the greenhouse effect can not happen if solar radiation intensity is just slightly less than it is for Venus? Now that Venus is surrounded by greenhouse gases, what would happen if we could move Venus out to Earth's orbit? The heat input would only be 62% as much yet the heat output would not be significantly changed. Radiative cooling behaves in accordance with the absolute temperature to the fourth power. So its mean temp of 737 kelvin would only need to drop to 654 kelvin to maintain a steady state if it were in Earth's orbit. But I am still waiting for SetupWeasel to explain it to me since he dismisses global warming as 'environbabble'.
Venus is considered the sister planet to Earth because of its uncanny similarities. Earth and Venus are closer to each other than any other two planets in the solar system. Earth and Venus are almost the same in size, mass, and composition. Earth and Venus are believed to have iron cores of approximately the same size. Earth and Venus both orbit the sun in nearly circular orbits. Venus is believed to have once had large amounts of water just like the Earth. Now, since you claim to understand the differences between Earth and Venus, please tell us what the difference was which made Venus undergo a runaway greenhouse effect and why such a runaway effect could never happen to our planet.
...for adults to probe for signs of intelligent life in cyberspace. Unfortunately one team working on the project was using the EB information capacity units defined as the data stored in one set of the Encyclopedia Britannica while the other team was using the more standard LOC units defined as the amount of information held in the US's Library of Congress. Just as the engineers were ready to celebrate a success, the server overheated and burnt up, and is now believed to be lost in the vicinity of a Sun SparcStation. A little brother website for children was saved from the same fate through some quick programming changes, but some in Congress are calling for a commision to look into this latest in a string of failures.
Slashdot Mirror
President Trump could loosen regulations on coal as a short term way to pump life back into the Appalachian economy where he has lots of support. But to stay true to those supporters over time he needs to supplant that industry with others. If many, stable, well paying jobs are created there, those ex-coal miners will have no reason to bemoan the loss of jobs in a dirty, dying, and dangerous business.
Relax. It's just fun-spirited hijinks from those crazy guys over at Sun. It's like that time that Scott McNealy and Jonathon Schwartz snuck into the Microsoft headquarters and kidnapped Goatly, the Microsoft mascot, right before their big Windows ME launch. But then the goat ate a stack of Solaris installation diskettes in the closet where they hid it, and got so sick they thought it was going to die. So they had to return it before anyone found out but old Mr. Balmer caught them and made them promise never to do anything like that again. Those kooky kids!
CLIFTON: Oh, I'm glad you're here, so we can get this all straightened out. Would you like a cup of tea?
BOOKMAN: You got any orange drink?
CLIFTON: Orange drink?
BOOKMAN: Yeah. Orange drink.
CLIFTON: No, I don't drink orange drink.
BOOKMAN: Yeah, you don't drink orange drink? How about instant orange drink?
CLIFTON: No, I don't...
BOOKMAN: You don't have any instant Tang?
CLIFTON: Well, I don't normally--
BOOKMAN: Who doesn't have instant Tang?
CLIFTON: I don't.
BOOKMAN: You buy a jar of Tang, you put it in the cupboard, you forget about it. Then later on when you need it, it's there. It lasts forever. It's freeze-dried. Freeze-dried orange drink.
CLIFTON: Really? I'll have to remember that.
BOOKMAN: You took the moon landing movie out in 1979.
CLIFTON: Yes, and I returned it in 1979.
BOOKMAN: Yeah, '79. That was my first year on the job. Bad year for libraries. Bad year for America. Hippies burning library cards, the Betamax decision letting everybody steal movies. I don't judge a man by the length of his hair or the kind of music he listens to. Rock was never my bag. But you put on a pair of shoes when you walk into the NASA Film Library, fella.
CLIFTON: Look, Mr. Bookman. I--I returned that movie. I remember it very specifically.
BOOKMAN: You're a Rock cinematographer, you entertain people, make them have fun.
CLIFTON: I try.
BOOKMAN: You think this is all big fun, don't you?
CLIFTON: No, I don't.
BOOKMAN: I saw your name in the credits once; I remembered your name--from my list. I looked it up. Sure enough, it checked out. You think because you're a celebrity that somehow the law doesn't apply to you, that you're above the law?
CLIFTON: Certainly not.
BOOKMAN: Well, let me tell you something, music fun boy. Y'know that little stamp, the one that says "NASA Film Library"? Well that may not mean anything to you, but that means a lot to me. One whole hell of a lot. Sure, go ahead, laugh if you want to. I've seen your type before: Flashy, making the scene, flaunting convention. Yeah, I know what you're thinking. What's this guy making such a big stink about old moon movies for? Well, let me give you a hint, junior. Maybe we can live without libraries, people like you and me. Maybe. Sure, we're too old to change the world, but what about that kid renting a movie, right now, in a branch at the local library and finding X rated porn taped over the middle of The Dark Crystal and Finding Nemo? Doesn't HE deserve better? Look. If you think this is about overdue fines and missing movies, you'd better think again. This is about that kid's right to borrow a movie without getting his mind warped! Or: maybe that turns you on, Clifton; maybe that's how y'get your kicks. You and your good-time buddies. Well I got a flash for ya, joy-boy: Party time is over. Y'got seven days, Clifton. That is one week!
On the down side, now they won't be able to play the Goldstein Bar Mitzvah which was a paying gig and this Second Life island is going to cost them at least $9.95 a month.
Under the original system, unlucky students were mysteriously thumbless.
'The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.' -Thomas Jefferson
About this time, during a press conference with Reagan's "drug czar", some intrepid journalist asked for an explanation of the method behind their madness. I discovered then what should have been obvious to us all: The borders cannot be closed tight enough to interdict the drugs, but the "pushers" would not be able to sell their "poison" if there were not a demand for it. So by indoctrinating the next generation of potential drug consumers to reject drugs and by locking away known drug users for offenses as slight as pot seeds in their ash tray, Reagan was using the well understood laws of Economics to win the War on Drugs ®.
Well we all know that there are two things Republican administrations are expert on and those things are Economics and War. After all, when is the last time you saw the Republicans lead us into an unwinnable quagmire and then withdraw in disgrace (uh, before 1975, that is)? Anyway, the Law of Supply and Demand says that if demand drops but supply stays the same then the price must drop as sellers compete to unload their wares to a dwindling number of consumers. How could Reagan have forseen the consequences of the combination of cheap coke from the Columbian cartels flooding the market and making the penalty for posession of a homegrown marijuana joint on par with those for kilos of crack rocks? It was inevitable that the number of young people smoking marijuana would decline while they spent their lunch money on the cheap and seemingly inexhaustible cocaine instead.
'Okay, thanks so much for the history lesson' you are probably thinking, ' but just how does this relate to the problem of porn spam?' Well my boy (or girl), just apply the principles of Reagan Voodoo Economics to this new situation. Imagine it. You're sitting at your desk smoking a cigarette, exhausted, drained, and utterly satisfied by the government regulated, imported foreign prostitute crouching still beaded with sweat on the carpet next to your Dell Dimension. Suddenly a new message pops up in your mailbox. What could that be? "Cum c Nud3 |_ez T33n5" 'Ha', you laugh, clicking the delete button. 'Begone you purveyors of filth. I have no more need of you' See? No demand, no reward to the advertisers, no more spam. Simple economics.
While I'm sure that's true. I chose the CHD study randomly.
Ask a non-smoker to stand near a campfire / charcoal grill smoke and ask them if it feels the same as standing near a smoker.
I am a non-smoker and I know the smoke from campfires and grills is much worse. The dust particles are much larger so they scar your lung tissue worse. They make me cough while standing in a smoky bar does not.
More importantly, though, from a liberty standpoint is the fact that you don't do these activities indoors without ventilation, and you do this only in areas where people have to actively choose to come to the smoke, like on private property or in parks.
But not private property like a bar, or the smoking section of a restaraunt, or a designated smoking area?
there is no reason that others should be forced to suffer it for the sake of the smoker's pleasure.
By your logic, we should also ban loud music, food additives, overhead power lines, drinking alcohol outside of walking distance from the home, and vogon poetry. What a safe, secure, boring, restrictive world you must dream of.
First off, I didn't argue about anything especially global warming. I am pretty well convinced in that area. My personal opinion of Chrichton is not as extreme as yours but leans in the same direction. Now as to the studies you linked to... I only looked at the one on Coronary Heart Disease (cause this isn't so important to me to spend that much time on). But if you examine Table 2 you will see that other factors such as high cholesterol levels, family history, lack of activity, and depression also exhibit effects, some such as family history are *much* greater than SHS (self reported, by the way, which is problematic). I have met many people with views similar to yours who want to pass laws based on minor statistical correlations for example to ban smoking in all public places (even outdoors!) They don't seem to realize that there is a cost to personal liberty to balance against a tiny increased health risk. And if there is enough reason to enforce behavior to prevent exposure to occasional SHS then where does it stop? Do we also ban other sources of occasional SHS such as sitting around campfires and cooking over charcoal grills? Should we ban persons with family histories of CHD (a much more pronounced effect) from having children? Do we require all citizens to exercise regularly? That would certainly have profound and beneficial effects for our society. Are you for it? Why or why not? By the way I am not a smoker and I always ask to sit in the non-smoking section, but I disagree with the health nazis who want to legislate based on unsupported or tenuous evidence.
Penn and Teller present that same fact in episode 5 of season 1 of "Penn and Teller: Bullshit!" Here's a synopsis from tv.com:
It has been a while since I watched it but I remember that they don't claim that second hand smoke is not bad for you. Instead they show that the wide spread claims that it is bad for you are based on an executive summary written by a political appointee which was not supported by the data in the report. In short, you may be right that second hand smoke is bad for you, but if you don't do the research to actually find out whether and how much of an effect it has, then you are just as bad as creationists.I watched Chrichton explain his viewpoint on a late night talk show. In the few minutes he talked about it he seemed to be taking a reactionary stance against people like you who attack and namecall based on your unsupported assumptions. If you want to sway the middle-of-the-roaders like me, you need to provide scientific evidence rather than conjecture blown way out of proportion by people with extreme views.
Maybe Indians who drank the water were taken over by the alien parasites and are now infiltrating the U.S. on H1-B Visas. So when Chandresh, the new employee, brings in food for everyone in your department, whatever you do, don't eat the red chutney.
Just as I mentioned that there are men who fall into the effeminate portion of the Bell curve there are women who fall on the masculine side, so I know that there are some who get into fist fights. There have even been a few who were serial killers. But for the most part, I think women tend to inflict emotional pain on each other rather than physical violence. Excluding someone from the group is one of the most hurtful things they can do.
Or the writer is effeminate, either by virtue of being female or being a male who falls on that end of the Bell curve. Women really do think everything is lollypops and sunshine. They don't understand that one of our basic needs is to choke the shit out of that driver in front of us who is going five miles an hour under the speed limit on a two lane road with no passing zone. So just turn to your girlfriend in the passenger seat and smile and say 'Gosh this really is inconvenient since we were already going to be ten minutes late.' And then memorize that SOB's license number and dream about what you're going to do to him after you find out where he lives!
Wozniak should honor Bill Gates. He invented Windows!
Can anyone tell me why the probe launched first is called Voyager II and the one launched last is Voyager I?
Before Microsoft liberated me, I was having nightmares about awful, awful freedom. But I'm all better now.
But only after the delay because it would be all Symantec's fault, every bit of it, nothing whatever to do with slipping schedules.
So says Oz the great and terrible.
For once I agree with Gates. The PC is not dead yet. Of course, he had his fun back in the nineties when Microsoft would have their hench-pundits predict the death of Apple and Unix every few months. That wasn't really happening either. Just guerrilla marketing tactics.
I remember all that other stuff but I don't remember seeing calculators until the mid seventies. They may have been around earlier than that but not in the sixties I don't think. That $500 price sounds about right though.
Yes I'm very sorry but we do not carry Tang. Perhaps you would like to be trying a nice glass of Mang.
Now if only someone would invent a way to do exactly the opposite so we could find out what the lyrics really are to Louie Louie!
Maybe it helped. But then why has Mercury which orbits much, much closer never gotten as hot as Venus? We know this by the number of craters on its surface. Venus had a complete surface meltdown within the last 700-800 million years while Mercury has not. Radiation intensity from a point source diminishes according to the inverse square law so a 27% increase in orbit will only make a 38% decrease in solar intensity. Are you suggesting then that the greenhouse effect can not happen if solar radiation intensity is just slightly less than it is for Venus? Now that Venus is surrounded by greenhouse gases, what would happen if we could move Venus out to Earth's orbit? The heat input would only be 62% as much yet the heat output would not be significantly changed. Radiative cooling behaves in accordance with the absolute temperature to the fourth power. So its mean temp of 737 kelvin would only need to drop to 654 kelvin to maintain a steady state if it were in Earth's orbit. But I am still waiting for SetupWeasel to explain it to me since he dismisses global warming as 'environbabble'.
Venus is considered the sister planet to Earth because of its uncanny similarities. Earth and Venus are closer to each other than any other two planets in the solar system. Earth and Venus are almost the same in size, mass, and composition. Earth and Venus are believed to have iron cores of approximately the same size. Earth and Venus both orbit the sun in nearly circular orbits. Venus is believed to have once had large amounts of water just like the Earth. Now, since you claim to understand the differences between Earth and Venus, please tell us what the difference was which made Venus undergo a runaway greenhouse effect and why such a runaway effect could never happen to our planet.
That didn't save Netscape. EchoStar should have "integrated" the box into their service and called themselves "innovative".
...for adults to probe for signs of intelligent life in cyberspace. Unfortunately one team working on the project was using the EB information capacity units defined as the data stored in one set of the Encyclopedia Britannica while the other team was using the more standard LOC units defined as the amount of information held in the US's Library of Congress. Just as the engineers were ready to celebrate a success, the server overheated and burnt up, and is now believed to be lost in the vicinity of a Sun SparcStation. A little brother website for children was saved from the same fate through some quick programming changes, but some in Congress are calling for a commision to look into this latest in a string of failures.