Comment Re:Make the 3D fad go away (Score 4, Insightful) 255
Why do the movie companies believe that we want 3D?
Because otherwise you have no reason to upgrade your Blue-Ray player.
Why do the movie companies believe that we want 3D?
Because otherwise you have no reason to upgrade your Blue-Ray player.
....clearly, no physics paper is worth its name without a proper car analogy. *g*
Just a remark:
--> if you say "mother f*cker" to an officer, you give them a reason to actually arrest you, even if they had no reason before.
Best case, you'll be charged with one of those generic "disorderly conduct" violations.
You are much better off staying calm and cool.
While I largely disagree with the two posts above, they don't fit my definition of trolling.
Starting a moderation fight based on different opinions, does not bring anyone much further with the debate. Nor with anything else.
AFAIK, adaptive optics is of no use in space.
On top, sending a telescope of this size on a rocket, would probably require TNG level technology. (TOS level only if Scotty is around with some duct tape)
I admit i clicked on that, despite suspecting it was spam.
Well... I couldn't figure out whether the guy is a genius artist or an entertaining retard.
Either way, there is something about it - it's a website that Eric Cartman could have set up, and that's no small thing.
doesn't mean the ancients were stupid, incapable of basic arithmetic, or unaware of more than a couple generations' worth of their own history.
Respectfully, you miss the point.
Ancients were not "stupid" - they just didn't know that the world is very very old.
We know this since relatively recently (and not everybody believes it, even today.)
Hence, their scale of "forever" was different than ours.
luddism anyone?
just because a technology is available, it does not automatically make us more evil.
Along those same lines, you could argue that phone is inherently bad - as it is no substitute for comanionship. (phone is not bad: it is just an additional useful tool, to be used wisely)
This whole trans-ocean flame-thread is silly - especially in the context of a space exploration discussion.
Greetings from Planet Earth.
Contaminating celestial bodies with terrestrial microorganisms, is against international law.
NASA tries to avoid it
So the trade-off that is being sacrificed here appears to be life-span, right?
Theoretically, given the right conditions and luck, I reckon a solar-powered rover could last for an indefinite time.
Nuclear batteries seem to put a hard end-date to the mission timeline - in this case about two years.
"Floggings will continue until morale improves." -- anonymous flyer being distributed at Exxon USA