NASA was just a renaming of NACA which existed way back in the 1930s.
Airbus made more mistakes with the conventional A380 than Boeing has with the futuristic 787. The A350 response to the 787 is even farther behind, and isn't as advanced in spite of Boeing leading the way.
Try looking at that marketplace. Airbus is by no means kicking Boeing's ass. Tey've been running in a more or less dead heat for years.
We went to the moon because Kennedy needed a political distraction after Sputnik, Gagarin, the Bay of Pigs, and other screwups. No one in their right mind imagined any nuclear missiles being launched from the moon. The physics make no sense (neither do you).
In fact, your troll rant gets even less imaginative as you trundle it along, like flat tires that get flatter and flatter as you keep driving on them.
Yes, fraud after he started. I argue not that he didn't commit fraud, but that he didn't wake up one morning and say "Hey! (1) Fraud (2) Profit!" and then search for a way to commit the fraud. Rather, he started with a preconceived notion, evidence failed to back him up, by then it was too late and his mind was made up and he had commitments to the lawyers, too late to back down, so he then committed fraud.
The thrust of arguments seems to be that he intended fraud and a quick buck right from the start, or that he has been slandered and all will come out as he claimed once the dust settles.
But a more likely scenario is that he was convinced of the link between MMR and autism from the very early preliminary studies, so much so that he reached out for financial support and to the lawyers, expecting to not only prevent autism cases, but secondarily to make a buck from the evil pharma in the course of making them pay for their dastardly greedy mistakes. Revenge is all the sweeter when the revengee has to pay you for their mistake.
And in the end, so addicted was he to that end and his premature conclusion, that he deluded himself past the point where he could ever admit he had been wrong. When his data came out incompatible with his preconceived notion, he did not take a deep breath, count to ten, and reconsider his original position. He fudged the data to match his "reality" and passed the point of no return.
Yes, he deserves to be slapped around, but to say he planned this fraud right from the beginning is too facile an argument.
And socialism has done better? The curious corporate capitalism we have has done better?
We don't have laissez-faire capitalism and I don't think the world has ever seen it. Corporations themselves are defined by governments, and barbers need 2000 hours of schooling to get a license in some states.
Anyone who confuses any current or past economy with laissez-faire capitalism understands neither.
When you get "I was taught by a world-renowned professor (Paul Feyerabend) that there is no such thing as scientific method and that physicists have no better claim to knowledge than voodoo priests", then Sokal is perfectly cromulent.
They have taken measures to insure they will not fall out of style quickly, leading them to have a long term business model. Not immortal.
Balderdash! They have taken steps to stay current. They don't know what lies ahead one year, let alone ten, and certainly have taken no steps to ensure they will stay up to date with unknown future trends.
Unless you really did mean insure, in which case I would agree that selling stakes for billions of dollars certainly does insure the owners' ability to be well of fin ten years.
As the internet is used more and more, there are more and more layers, each with their own buffers, all getting bigger, so feedback on buffer capacity gets more and more stale and meaningless as it percolates back and forth according to protocol, leading to unanticipated side effects.
I would much rather have the soft keyboard than physical: it rotates with the phone, and you can get different languages and all the symbols you can think of.
However, when using ConnectBot especially, it takes up so much of the screen that I can understand the allure of the physical keyboard. I did not believe reports of how awkward it was until I tried it. For texting, small file editing, most other apps -- soft keyboard is great. With a terminal, it sucks.
We already have a lot of people who've bought into the idea that in "war" (defined as just about any kind of national security problem) the President's Constitutional powers are just about unconditional. Those people are nearly all Republicans
EVERY President has had the same philosophy. Obama does -- his minions have argued in court that he has the right to kill American citizens overseas without warning and not in combat zones or even combat operations; more so than Bush. LBJ certainly didn't believe in limited powers. Neither did FDR -- how many American citizens of Japanese descent did the Republicans intern?
Partisan differentiation is useless. The fact that you think the two US parties actually differ much is an indication that you are very naive.
Right wingers want big business to control big government.
Left wingers want big government to control big business.
Neither want individuals to have any power whatsoever.
I have a printout of the source code to a program which ran on the XDS-940 prototype. This KSR-33 was the sole input and output to which I had access. Does that count?
I used to have some punch card programs (CDC 6400) but I don't think I still have them. At least I haven't seen them the last few moves.
When they fought the one click patent war and bragged otherwise, started publishing stats on what their.com customers were buying, and laughed at my privacy complaint (I have my own.com domain), I dropped them and found that almost everything they have, I can get cheaper elsewhere.
They keep on pulling shenanigans like caving to the government over wikileaks, one excuse after another for being craven cowards and bullies, and I continue to wonder why people trust them.
We've been at war with EastAsia for so long that people are upset at being reminded of it far more than they are at the war itself. No one wants to believe their government is an empire.
Repeat any of this to anyone, and odds are long that they will close their mind and look at you crosseyed; you can see their mind shifting you into that "nutjob traitor" category. But they can't refute any of it. They just want to get away from you, or talk about football teams.
On the other hand, at least some of the trillions we've spent are an inevitable part of defending ourselves in a world where there are always people trying to enslave you.
Someone is trying to enslave the US? You mean, other than the politicians who use those puny terror attacks as an excuse to grab more power?
Go back and read history. Osama bin Laden has the capability to fight us because we armed him to fight the Russians in Afghanistan. He wants to fight us because we have armies in Muslim countries. We have armies there because Saddam invaded a neighbor and Bush the first had to help his oil friends, even tho Saddam had also been "our" ally. Saddam was our ally because Iran was our enemy; we supplied him with chemicals and all sorts of other weapons. Iran was our enemy because they held our embassy staff hostage after their revolution. They had a revolution because our friend, the Shah, was a horrific dictator. The Shah was in power because we put him there. We put him there because the previous semi-dictator had nationalized the oil industry. He nationalized the oil industry because the Brits and Americans were robbing them blind.
On and on... go back and look at American history. Up until the 1880s, the US was pretty isolated and pretty much left other countries alone, other than war with Mexico several times to steal their land, and genocide against the natives, but that was acceptable practice back then.
Then the country got powerful enough that the power grabbing control freaks, and the robber barons who wanted more power, and the media magnates who wanted more power, agitated for a bigger military, specifically the navy, with the stated rationale of keeping the Europeans from invading. Never mind that they couldn't have, and didn't want to. The unstated but still bogus reason was to keep the Europeans out of South American, the Monroe Doctrine from the early 1800s, 75 years before. Never mind that this was also control freakery and power grabbing, it was also bogus.
But we had a nice modern navy... well gee, what to do with it, can't let it sit idle, let's wage war... take Cuba from Spain (with the excuse of liberating them, gee that sounds familiar), and the Philippines comes along for the ride, now we have an empire, now we need a bigger navy AND army to protect it....
Everything, absolutely every single foreign problem the US has had, stems from a previous bandaid fix to the previous problem, all going back to power grabs and control freaks.
No one wants to invade or enslave the US. They just want the US to leave them alone. No doubt other power grabbers and control freaks would control those parts of the world that we now control, but so what? Saddam didn't want to destroy Kuwait's oil; he wanted to sell it just as the Kuwaities were selling it. China doesn't want to stop selling rare earths, they just want to sell them at a better price, and quite possible make products directly instead of letting someone else sell the finished goods.
Try a thought experiment. What would happen if the US withdrew all military forces from foreign countries, immediately. Europe wouldn't collapse. South Korea would have to stand up for itself, maybe finally move their capitol city away from where it is held hostage to North Korean artillery. China would have to reign in its supposed ally because it could no longer rely on the US bogeyman to scare people and bluster; they would have to face reality that North Korea is not worth sustaining. Iraq and Afghanistan would go back to what they were and will be, once and future piss poor countries wun by dictators.
And the rest of the world would run out of excuses to hate the US. I have traveled some. I have heard plenty of complaints about the US government, but the only complaints about American tourists are on the petty side. NO ONE wants to enslave or invade the US. They want US to stop enslaving and invading tem.
It's pretty damned simple if you follow a bit of history and open your eyes.
Slashdot Mirror
NASA was just a renaming of NACA which existed way back in the 1930s.
Airbus made more mistakes with the conventional A380 than Boeing has with the futuristic 787. The A350 response to the 787 is even farther behind, and isn't as advanced in spite of Boeing leading the way.
Try looking at that marketplace. Airbus is by no means kicking Boeing's ass. Tey've been running in a more or less dead heat for years.
We went to the moon because Kennedy needed a political distraction after Sputnik, Gagarin, the Bay of Pigs, and other screwups. No one in their right mind imagined any nuclear missiles being launched from the moon. The physics make no sense (neither do you).
In fact, your troll rant gets even less imaginative as you trundle it along, like flat tires that get flatter and flatter as you keep driving on them.
Miracle on the Hudson
Yes, fraud after he started. I argue not that he didn't commit fraud, but that he didn't wake up one morning and say "Hey! (1) Fraud (2) Profit!" and then search for a way to commit the fraud. Rather, he started with a preconceived notion, evidence failed to back him up, by then it was too late and his mind was made up and he had commitments to the lawyers, too late to back down, so he then committed fraud.
None of your points changes the possibility of him having reached his conclusion before being paid by the lawyers or before doing his own study.
The thrust of arguments seems to be that he intended fraud and a quick buck right from the start, or that he has been slandered and all will come out as he claimed once the dust settles.
But a more likely scenario is that he was convinced of the link between MMR and autism from the very early preliminary studies, so much so that he reached out for financial support and to the lawyers, expecting to not only prevent autism cases, but secondarily to make a buck from the evil pharma in the course of making them pay for their dastardly greedy mistakes. Revenge is all the sweeter when the revengee has to pay you for their mistake.
And in the end, so addicted was he to that end and his premature conclusion, that he deluded himself past the point where he could ever admit he had been wrong. When his data came out incompatible with his preconceived notion, he did not take a deep breath, count to ten, and reconsider his original position. He fudged the data to match his "reality" and passed the point of no return.
Yes, he deserves to be slapped around, but to say he planned this fraud right from the beginning is too facile an argument.
Yes.
And socialism has done better? The curious corporate capitalism we have has done better?
We don't have laissez-faire capitalism and I don't think the world has ever seen it. Corporations themselves are defined by governments, and barbers need 2000 hours of schooling to get a license in some states.
Anyone who confuses any current or past economy with laissez-faire capitalism understands neither.
You can read while rolling your eyes?
Keerist in a bucket! I like pictures of ships, lots of people do. Maybe you are just too self-centered.
When you get "I was taught by a world-renowned professor (Paul Feyerabend) that there is no such thing as scientific method and that physicists have no better claim to knowledge than voodoo priests", then Sokal is perfectly cromulent.
Check out Sokal's Hoax
You must be new in the world, ie, a few months old.
The left wants Big Government to control Big Business.
The right wants Big Business to control Big Government.
Neither wants the individual to have any power. The very thought of it scares them shitless.
Given those two awful choices, I would choose Big Business controlling Big Government, because governments cannot go out of business.
Other than that, there is no practical difference.
They have taken measures to insure they will not fall out of style quickly, leading them to have a long term business model. Not immortal.
Balderdash! They have taken steps to stay current. They don't know what lies ahead one year, let alone ten, and certainly have taken no steps to ensure they will stay up to date with unknown future trends.
Unless you really did mean insure, in which case I would agree that selling stakes for billions of dollars certainly does insure the owners' ability to be well of fin ten years.
How silly! EVERY company loses favor. Styles change, customs change, companies bet on the wrong horse or stay the course and stagnate.
EVERY company loses favor sooner or later. Facebook is not going to be the first immortal company.
As the internet is used more and more, there are more and more layers, each with their own buffers, all getting bigger, so feedback on buffer capacity gets more and more stale and meaningless as it percolates back and forth according to protocol, leading to unanticipated side effects.
I would much rather have the soft keyboard than physical: it rotates with the phone, and you can get different languages and all the symbols you can think of.
However, when using ConnectBot especially, it takes up so much of the screen that I can understand the allure of the physical keyboard. I did not believe reports of how awkward it was until I tried it. For texting, small file editing, most other apps -- soft keyboard is great. With a terminal, it sucks.
Sweet!
We already have a lot of people who've bought into the idea that in "war" (defined as just about any kind of national security problem) the President's Constitutional powers are just about unconditional. Those people are nearly all Republicans
EVERY President has had the same philosophy. Obama does -- his minions have argued in court that he has the right to kill American citizens overseas without warning and not in combat zones or even combat operations; more so than Bush. LBJ certainly didn't believe in limited powers. Neither did FDR -- how many American citizens of Japanese descent did the Republicans intern?
Partisan differentiation is useless. The fact that you think the two US parties actually differ much is an indication that you are very naive.
Right wingers want big business to control big government.
Left wingers want big government to control big business.
Neither want individuals to have any power whatsoever.
You could always Palin nail .... I mean, nail Palin.
I have a printout of the source code to a program which ran on the XDS-940 prototype. This KSR-33 was the sole input and output to which I had access. Does that count?
I used to have some punch card programs (CDC 6400) but I don't think I still have them. At least I haven't seen them the last few moves.
I wonder if it will try to install a root kit on a rooted Android.
When they fought the one click patent war and bragged otherwise, started publishing stats on what their .com customers were buying, and laughed at my privacy complaint (I have my own .com domain), I dropped them and found that almost everything they have, I can get cheaper elsewhere.
They keep on pulling shenanigans like caving to the government over wikileaks, one excuse after another for being craven cowards and bullies, and I continue to wonder why people trust them.
We've been at war with EastAsia for so long that people are upset at being reminded of it far more than they are at the war itself. No one wants to believe their government is an empire.
Repeat any of this to anyone, and odds are long that they will close their mind and look at you crosseyed; you can see their mind shifting you into that "nutjob traitor" category. But they can't refute any of it. They just want to get away from you, or talk about football teams.
On the other hand, at least some of the trillions we've spent are an inevitable part of defending ourselves in a world where there are always people trying to enslave you.
Someone is trying to enslave the US? You mean, other than the politicians who use those puny terror attacks as an excuse to grab more power?
Go back and read history. Osama bin Laden has the capability to fight us because we armed him to fight the Russians in Afghanistan. He wants to fight us because we have armies in Muslim countries. We have armies there because Saddam invaded a neighbor and Bush the first had to help his oil friends, even tho Saddam had also been "our" ally. Saddam was our ally because Iran was our enemy; we supplied him with chemicals and all sorts of other weapons. Iran was our enemy because they held our embassy staff hostage after their revolution. They had a revolution because our friend, the Shah, was a horrific dictator. The Shah was in power because we put him there. We put him there because the previous semi-dictator had nationalized the oil industry. He nationalized the oil industry because the Brits and Americans were robbing them blind.
On and on ... go back and look at American history. Up until the 1880s, the US was pretty isolated and pretty much left other countries alone, other than war with Mexico several times to steal their land, and genocide against the natives, but that was acceptable practice back then.
Then the country got powerful enough that the power grabbing control freaks, and the robber barons who wanted more power, and the media magnates who wanted more power, agitated for a bigger military, specifically the navy, with the stated rationale of keeping the Europeans from invading. Never mind that they couldn't have, and didn't want to. The unstated but still bogus reason was to keep the Europeans out of South American, the Monroe Doctrine from the early 1800s, 75 years before. Never mind that this was also control freakery and power grabbing, it was also bogus.
But we had a nice modern navy ... well gee, what to do with it, can't let it sit idle, let's wage war ... take Cuba from Spain (with the excuse of liberating them, gee that sounds familiar), and the Philippines comes along for the ride, now we have an empire, now we need a bigger navy AND army to protect it ....
Everything, absolutely every single foreign problem the US has had, stems from a previous bandaid fix to the previous problem, all going back to power grabs and control freaks.
No one wants to invade or enslave the US. They just want the US to leave them alone. No doubt other power grabbers and control freaks would control those parts of the world that we now control, but so what? Saddam didn't want to destroy Kuwait's oil; he wanted to sell it just as the Kuwaities were selling it. China doesn't want to stop selling rare earths, they just want to sell them at a better price, and quite possible make products directly instead of letting someone else sell the finished goods.
Try a thought experiment. What would happen if the US withdrew all military forces from foreign countries, immediately. Europe wouldn't collapse. South Korea would have to stand up for itself, maybe finally move their capitol city away from where it is held hostage to North Korean artillery. China would have to reign in its supposed ally because it could no longer rely on the US bogeyman to scare people and bluster; they would have to face reality that North Korea is not worth sustaining. Iraq and Afghanistan would go back to what they were and will be, once and future piss poor countries wun by dictators.
And the rest of the world would run out of excuses to hate the US. I have traveled some. I have heard plenty of complaints about the US government, but the only complaints about American tourists are on the petty side. NO ONE wants to enslave or invade the US. They want US to stop enslaving and invading tem.
It's pretty damned simple if you follow a bit of history and open your eyes.
Whooshe .... and I'm oldeer than you.