I didn't watch the video but I’ll give my opinion anyway since this is/. after all. Anyway, space exploration, either robot or manned, is critical to the long term safety of mankind. So, significant amounts of money and time should be invested into research and development. That said though, I feed we need to slow down the number of launches. Launches simply cost too much money, and I'm not convinced that they return enough to warrant their expense. Is now really the time to be considering sending a man to Mars? What will we learn from the mission if it succeeds, and will there be another mission if it fails? I'd prefer to see that money used to further terrestrial development of improved propulsion systems.
You're right, assuming they'd decided they wanted a presense in the village, what they should have done was (ironically) bought out the lease on "The Land of Nod" (also ironically) located beside the starbucks, unless of course you know "The land of Nod" people said no... Honestly, Microsoft is a very very large company, but they can't just go around burning down other buildings just so they can get the good spots. I mean, the Apple store is in a good spot, maybe they should have tried to get that lease, two birds with one stone! Anyway, I can't say that I think the store will be popular (I doubt it) but opposite an Apple store and a Starbucks seems like a good location to me.
I disagree; it proves nothing of the sort. I haven't read the article because the/. title reeks of flamebait, but the location is obviously well frequented by their target market and has nearby parking, end of story. You even suggest that they're no longer direct competitors. If that's the case, then the location makes even more sense, and could ultimately be good for both companies.
Vegetation is not free and plentiful in Iraq. Stealing does not make something free. Why are you talking about the desert? Login and post with an account that isn't brand new and I'll be happy to reply again.
So you reckon native vegetation is free and plentiful in Iraq for example?
Have you considered the cost of "vegitation" between missions etc etc the list goes on.
I believe you either did not read all of my post, or you did not understand all of it. I'll assume it was the former though, which was quite rude seeing as how you decided to preach down to me afterwards.
You seem to be a little biased. You touch roughly upon the current limitations of renewables (yes there are many) ignoring the fact that they're become more viable with every passing year, yet you're happy to prattle on about mini thorium reactors for every city as though they're the most trival thing in the world. You also seem to think that energy consumtion will increase forever and at the current rate, so renewables can never fill the gap. In your universe we'll eventually need some sort of planet sized heat pump to get rid of all the waste heat we generate. I happen to agree that nuclear is the way to go in the short term (relatively speaking) but renewables have to be the end game play.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't believe he was, the AC was probably just trolling for you and anyone else that would bite.
I didn't watch the video but I’ll give my opinion anyway since this is /. after all. Anyway, space exploration, either robot or manned, is critical to the long term safety of mankind. So, significant amounts of money and time should be invested into research and development. That said though, I feed we need to slow down the number of launches. Launches simply cost too much money, and I'm not convinced that they return enough to warrant their expense. Is now really the time to be considering sending a man to Mars? What will we learn from the mission if it succeeds, and will there be another mission if it fails? I'd prefer to see that money used to further terrestrial development of improved propulsion systems.
1$ for bullets... Why don't you just send him in with a knife you cheapskate.
I've been posting here for years and I still can't quite tell if some posts are flamebait or long winded trolls :S
Give it time, Richard Branson is looking to have tourists up there by the end of next year.
I thought of a furnace.
Doesn't really matter, only relevant if you live in Tunguska anyway.
The key is to marry younger women.
People do that already.
woosh
You're right, assuming they'd decided they wanted a presense in the village, what they should have done was (ironically) bought out the lease on "The Land of Nod" (also ironically) located beside the starbucks, unless of course you know "The land of Nod" people said no... Honestly, Microsoft is a very very large company, but they can't just go around burning down other buildings just so they can get the good spots. I mean, the Apple store is in a good spot, maybe they should have tried to get that lease, two birds with one stone! Anyway, I can't say that I think the store will be popular (I doubt it) but opposite an Apple store and a Starbucks seems like a good location to me.
I disagree; it proves nothing of the sort. I haven't read the article because the /. title reeks of flamebait, but the location is obviously well frequented by their target market and has nearby parking, end of story. You even suggest that they're no longer direct competitors. If that's the case, then the location makes even more sense, and could ultimately be good for both companies.
You can if it's been sufficiently blended.
I love my samsung g s2. I would marry it if God existed and allowed such unholy unions.
MS doesn't care much about your phone either. They do care about people that want to buy smartphones.
I thought it was "1.21 jiggawatts"
Vegetation is not free and plentiful in Iraq. Stealing does not make something free. Why are you talking about the desert? Login and post with an account that isn't brand new and I'll be happy to reply again.
So you reckon native vegetation is free and plentiful in Iraq for example? Have you considered the cost of "vegitation" between missions etc etc the list goes on.
True, and when you're not using it you can just shut it down to save fuel.
That depends, is Charle Sheen a user?
Would it not be better to point out that you considered the post to be a "false dichotomy", rather than just assume ignorance on the part of the AC.
I think the ratio of "jokes" to interesting posts on /. is a "joke"
I believe you either did not read all of my post, or you did not understand all of it. I'll assume it was the former though, which was quite rude seeing as how you decided to preach down to me afterwards.
You seem to be a little biased. You touch roughly upon the current limitations of renewables (yes there are many) ignoring the fact that they're become more viable with every passing year, yet you're happy to prattle on about mini thorium reactors for every city as though they're the most trival thing in the world. You also seem to think that energy consumtion will increase forever and at the current rate, so renewables can never fill the gap. In your universe we'll eventually need some sort of planet sized heat pump to get rid of all the waste heat we generate. I happen to agree that nuclear is the way to go in the short term (relatively speaking) but renewables have to be the end game play.
posting on account of fat finger mod