The engines on the the DNEPR-1 launched on 26 July 2006 shut down 86 seconds into the flight. It crashed approximately 25 km downrange. So, quite a bit of "bang" for your buck.
Then don't bother with the disingenuous bullshit about "lower average age". Just say "We're putting middle-aged Americans out of work and sending it to countries with lower standards of living and more exploitative social settings because we can make more money that way". That wasn't so hard was it?
These competitive and transparent efforts affirm the benefits of an open market, and the Constitutionally mandated legislative process ensures that the diverse interests of the many stakeholders are considered and balanced, accommodating copyright owners, online services, libraries and the public. The proposed settlement, on the other hand, pursues an illegitimate approach. Following closed-door negotiations that excluded millions of copyright owners and the very public that copyright law serves, Google and the plaintiffs seek to arrogate public policymaking to themselves, bypass Congress and the free market, and force a sweeping "joint venture" - built on copyrights owned by a largely absent class - via this Court's order.
So, in this one paragraph, Microsoft says:
1. Competition and open/free markets are good.
2. The diverse interests of the many outweighs the greed of the few (a corporation).
3. Closed-door negotiations are bad.
4. Copyright law serves the public.
5. Joint ventures are bad.
6. We should be worried about the millions of unenfranchised who were left out of a back-room deal.
Such a beautiful, beautiful, beautiful troll. All the more breathtaking because you actually seem to believe the crap you're spewing. It's interesting to me how your "argument" style parallels the way the Intelligent Designers present their frothing whackjobisms. Even the words and phrases are similar. I know for certain I won't be able to sway you with such trifles as facts or logic, or even carry on a reasoned discussion, but perhaps you could enlighten us:
1. Swindle?/Scam?/Fraud? Perpetrated by who? For what purpose? Who (which golem "them") gains exactly what from preventing this "global warming/climate change" that "they" say is happening and you insist is not? What is their payoff? And why are you so dead-set against it?
2. Are you seriously denying that humanity has, since the start of the Industrial Age, pumped trillions of tons of carbon (we'll ignore the sulfides, the chlorine, etc.) back into the atmosphere that have been locked away as coal and oil for hundreds of millions of years? Really? That just didn't happen? Really? It couldn't possibly have an effect? Really? And you're certain of this, how?
3. What's it to you? Why does it bother you so that people are worried about this and want to do something about it? Why are you so determined to stop them doing so?
Excess CO2 has nothing to do with global warming in fact rising CO2 is an effect of increased global temps not a cause.
A good case can be made for the good caused by a warming planet.
Facepalm. Increased ocean temperatures == releases of methane hydrate == more atmospheric methane == increased ocean temperatures.
Have you heard of the notion of "tipping points"? Runaway positive feedback?
The US senate means nothing. The hundreds of scientists that disagree with the climate change fraud do.
Can you name THREE? Reputable environmental scientists, climatologists, even (real) meteorologists? You know, scientists with expertise in the field we're talking about? Do they have any, what's that word, evidence? Because the glaciologists and geologists and oceanologists are pretty convinced that something pretty wildly out-of-scale for the time frames involved, (in the absence of any other environmental factors: supervolcanos, large meteor strikes) is going on. Do these reputable environmental scientists really think that climate change isn't a real and worrisome threat, that mankind's stewardship of the planet hasn't been incredibly shocking irresponsible?
Possible suggestions included: 'a giant mirror on the Moon; a space parasol made of superfine aluminum mesh; and a swarm of 10 trillion small mirrors launched into space one million at a time every minute for the next 30 years.'"
Further, studies show that the eye's point-of-focus jerks all over the place. Your gaze is rarely centered in just one spot in a scene. Then there's the question of (depth-of-field) focus...
I absolutely love Popular Science illustrations like that; with little bitty boxes marked "Heinsenberg compensator" and "Zero-point module" and "Inertial dampener" and suchlike. They show me what future technology will be like.
Slashdot Mirror
shoot(huntdown(original developer))
If it's Perl or VB, you might want to consider self-immolation as a first step.
I felt a great disturbance in The Force...
/. readers cried out "DUH!!" and were suddenly silenced...
As if millions of
Something like a Magnetorquer?
The engines on the the DNEPR-1 launched on 26 July 2006 shut down 86 seconds into the flight. It crashed approximately 25 km downrange. So, quite a bit of "bang" for your buck.
Then don't bother with the disingenuous bullshit about "lower average age". Just say "We're putting middle-aged Americans out of work and sending it to countries with lower standards of living and more exploitative social settings because we can make more money that way". That wasn't so hard was it?
Sure. You want to control it so that shit doesn't get out-of-hand.
Yeah, I'm sure that's their motivation... (Nothing about salaries or insurance or taxes or any of that financial stuff.
It would, if Apple cared.
Mr. cyberjock1980? George Lucas is on line one for you.
So, in this one paragraph, Microsoft says:
1. Competition and open/free markets are good.
2. The diverse interests of the many outweighs the greed of the few (a corporation).
3. Closed-door negotiations are bad.
4. Copyright law serves the public.
5. Joint ventures are bad.
6. We should be worried about the millions of unenfranchised who were left out of a back-room deal.
*boggle*
Democracy (in the U.S.) died some time ago. Gerrymandering killed it. The election is already rigged when the districts are drawn.
1. Swindle?/Scam?/Fraud? Perpetrated by who? For what purpose? Who (which golem "them") gains exactly what from preventing this "global warming/climate change" that "they" say is happening and you insist is not? What is their payoff? And why are you so dead-set against it?
2. Are you seriously denying that humanity has, since the start of the Industrial Age, pumped trillions of tons of carbon (we'll ignore the sulfides, the chlorine, etc.) back into the atmosphere that have been locked away as coal and oil for hundreds of millions of years? Really? That just didn't happen? Really? It couldn't possibly have an effect? Really? And you're certain of this, how?
3. What's it to you? Why does it bother you so that people are worried about this and want to do something about it? Why are you so determined to stop them doing so?
Facepalm.
Increased ocean temperatures == releases of methane hydrate == more atmospheric methane == increased ocean temperatures.
Have you heard of the notion of "tipping points"? Runaway positive feedback?
Can you name THREE? Reputable environmental scientists, climatologists, even (real) meteorologists? You know, scientists with expertise in the field we're talking about? Do they have any, what's that word, evidence? Because the glaciologists and geologists and oceanologists are pretty convinced that something pretty wildly out-of-scale for the time frames involved, (in the absence of any other environmental factors: supervolcanos, large meteor strikes) is going on. Do these reputable environmental scientists really think that climate change isn't a real and worrisome threat, that mankind's stewardship of the planet hasn't been incredibly shocking irresponsible?
1. Human nature
2. Entropy
3. Budget cuts/regime change.
Pick one.
News bulletin: We've already fucked with it. (Without understanding).
Nice to see they consulted Wyle E. Cyote.
Seriously, how about a chalk farm?
After they add the second LED to the contact lens, they'll have to figure out where to put the heatsink.
Further, studies show that the eye's point-of-focus jerks all over the place. Your gaze is rarely centered in just one spot in a scene. Then there's the question of (depth-of-field) focus...
I absolutely love Popular Science illustrations like that; with little bitty boxes marked "Heinsenberg compensator" and "Zero-point module" and "Inertial dampener" and suchlike. They show me what future technology will be like.
I'm getting a HUGE LOL from the
Solaris budget concerns?
You have options!
Advert on the El Reg page announcing "EMC co-founder kills himself".
Flaws in the OS might be exploited by apps. Film at 11:00.
Duh. This is /.
6. ???
7. Profit!!
True, but somehow "the KGB's Washington office" sounds eerily plausible.
The country that brought you Big Brother is bringing you ... Big Brother.
Can you imagine a Beowulf cluster of...oh...wait...never mind.