Wow, I guess you just can't stop people from economically stratifying themselves. What happened to "The Internet! Where people can read/post whatever they want." If I want "hotfastbarelylegalbabes.com" that's fine, but if I want "hotfastbarelylegalbabes.pro" I've gotta be an accountant?
There's no reason for these people to be singled out. According to the article, they are not assigning the tld according to website content. They are offering it to people based on their profession. I guess my pr0n can be.pro if I'm a orthodontist, but I can't give.pro legal advice if I'm a paralegal. hmmmm.
<hippocrite mode="sarcasm"> "lawyers that need a brand that clearly identifies them."
What? You couldn't pick them out by their toothy smile?
</hippocrite>
that's because begging for money (regardless of how fantastic a comic you are giving away, and MT is fantastic) is not a business model. It's a lifestyle.
this particular shot may be doctored, however, you can't tell by the "lens flare". The lens flare is actually used in game. This video from the Halo site shows the flare in game. (FF past the developers talking...)
This article in Salon gives some pretty good rebuttals to the recent "Yahoo" bashing.
For example, Yahoo does turn a profit(unlike most online ventures), and remember - all those nay-sayers are the same analysts who steered you wrong a year ago.
What bothers me most about this is the "snooping" aspect. I have no desire to be part of Sony's demographics regardless of whether I like Incubus or not. Oddly enough, I've never seen any other type of marketing information gathering that monitored people's illegal activities.
No one has ever said that Bud is a good beer because it stolen often.
This part was less than 1/3 the length of any of the other 3 parts. It had almost nothing to do with the original intent of "up,up,down,down...". I thought this was all about the indepth gaming culture and the effects of it. Must be a mid-martini lunch post!
Oh- my vote for most addictive is evercrack... It's named that for a good reason.
While I'm not entirely familar with with laser technology, I am perplexed at some details with this.
Why mount the laser on the ground? It would seem to make more sense to place the laser in a orbital path in front of the station. My guess is that would either make maintanence easier or, due to the power that the laser must produce to eradicate small debris, the laser is too large to launch. But, targeting from the ground seems unweildy.
1. there is a lot of space for stuff to go between the ground and a space station (birds, planes, superheros...) .
2. I'm not sure what the orbit pattern of the station looks like, but if it wasn't stationary at one point above the earth, wouldn't it loose tracking as the station moved over the horizon? (or worse yet, what if the station slipped orbit and moved over the horizon, now when it is on a new trajectory where it would need it most the laser is not accessable.)
3. While the laser would have 360 degree range around the station, it could not destroy harmfull crap dropping from a higher orbit along the z-axis.
If anyone really knows the real reason for mounting on the ground, I'd appreciate it.
Slashdot Mirror
Quick! To arms! Everyone to the forte!
*groan*
Wow, I guess you just can't stop people from economically stratifying themselves. What happened to "The Internet! Where people can read/post whatever they want." If I want "hotfastbarelylegalbabes.com" that's fine, but if I want "hotfastbarelylegalbabes.pro" I've gotta be an accountant?
.pro if I'm a orthodontist, but I can't give .pro legal advice if I'm a paralegal. hmmmm.
There's no reason for these people to be singled out. According to the article, they are not assigning the tld according to website content. They are offering it to people based on their profession. I guess my pr0n can be
<hippocrite mode="sarcasm">
"lawyers that need a brand that clearly identifies them."
What? You couldn't pick them out by their toothy smile?
</hippocrite>
that's because begging for money (regardless of how fantastic a comic you are giving away, and MT is fantastic) is not a business model. It's a lifestyle.
this particular shot may be doctored, however, you can't tell by the "lens flare". The lens flare is actually used in game. This video from the Halo site shows the flare in game. (FF past the developers talking...)
Okay, I suck.
Evidently, I wasn't paying that much attention in chemistry.
Oh! Wait I want to guess!
Neodymium doped with Yttrium silver?
Woot! Woot! I would like to thank my high school chemistry teacher!
okay, I had to look it up on the periodic table.
This article in Salon gives some pretty good rebuttals to the recent "Yahoo" bashing.
For example, Yahoo does turn a profit(unlike most online ventures), and remember - all those nay-sayers are the same analysts who steered you wrong a year ago.
-wetwire
What bothers me most about this is the "snooping" aspect. I have no desire to be part of Sony's demographics regardless of whether I like Incubus or not. Oddly enough, I've never seen any other type of marketing information gathering that monitored people's illegal activities.
No one has ever said that Bud is a good beer because it stolen often.
wetwire
This part was less than 1/3 the length of any of the other 3 parts. It had almost nothing to do with the original intent of "up,up,down,down...". I thought this was all about the indepth gaming culture and the effects of it. Must be a mid-martini lunch post!
Oh- my vote for most addictive is evercrack... It's named that for a good reason.
Why mount the laser on the ground? It would seem to make more sense to place the laser in a orbital path in front of the station. My guess is that would either make maintanence easier or, due to the power that the laser must produce to eradicate small debris, the laser is too large to launch. But, targeting from the ground seems unweildy.
1. there is a lot of space for stuff to go between the ground and a space station (birds, planes, superheros...) .
2. I'm not sure what the orbit pattern of the station looks like, but if it wasn't stationary at one point above the earth, wouldn't it loose tracking as the station moved over the horizon? (or worse yet, what if the station slipped orbit and moved over the horizon, now when it is on a new trajectory where it would need it most the laser is not accessable.)
3. While the laser would have 360 degree range around the station, it could not destroy harmfull crap dropping from a higher orbit along the z-axis.
If anyone really knows the real reason for mounting on the ground, I'd appreciate it.