http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp

I know this is YMMV source, but according to it, IE hit 50% in August of 2008.

I know how browsers are detected. It's about as scientific as a Slashdot poll.

For example:

1. I'd bet that Chrome's download page has a much lower percentage of Chrome users than the general populace.
2. I'm sure M$ could show you stats with IE at 92% and the rest reading the files from FTP.
3. Corporate vs. Academic sites would probably see great variation for a single browser.

What makes any one set of browser share statistics any better than any other?

"When there's no limit to what Droid gets, there's no limit to what Droid does^H^H^H^H can do to you."

Amazing at how well-timed the previous XKCD turned out to be.

http://xkcd.com/893/

Not the same thing. Analogously, that is like saying "I can mail this letter, and if the envelope is opened, I can tell." vs. "I can mail this letter and get it to Mars in 23 minutes (this month)."

The first defies someone's opinion on a theory. The latter defies physics. You can fool the theory, but you can't fool the physics.

BTW, you just did what I initially complained about. "technological breakthrough."

Sadly, I have heard people use the argument that "the experts miss calls like this one" to point to how we can achieve Faster-Than-Light once we start to "think outside the box".

None of these missed calls, esp. satellite radio, defy the known physics of their day. Those FTL-friendly people see FTL as a mere 'technological breakthrough."

How much energy did it take to keep the polar caches in place? That's the difference. NASA can't just hang it up there, turn on the anti-gravity, and find it there in 10 years. I mean... explorers sailed to new worlds for centuries using nothing but windpower. Why doesn't NASA do the same thing...

Oh, right... they also have to take their own oxygen, and don't have a medium upon which to float. Gotcha...

Nope. I'm with LWATCDR. Check your facts or post on Facebook!

Disclaimer: degreed rocket scientist without time to do the math.

Rather than

1. lift a surplus of propellant to a gas station
2. have the Mars mission lift with just enough energy to park at L5, Phobos or whereever,
3. refuel and thrust away to mars... Instead:
4. launch the required propellant on nearly the same trajectory as the mission, once trajectory confirmed...
5. Launch the Mars mission with enough energy to travel to Mars
6. Rendezvous on the long trip, refuel, carry on

Advantages: putting the heavy lifting on the booster on Earth (where logistics is easier), don't waste energy stopping/pausing and restarting the trajectory.
Disadvantages: You better be sure you can refuel in flight.

Can it give Superman a paper cut?

"So is MINE! The two-timing $|^+!"

Before I argue whether iPad is a TV, first tell me why my iPhone ISN'T? I recorded Butler v. UConn on my ATT UVerse so my wife would watch it on the iPad in the morning. Couldn't. Make that, 'was not allowed'. But I COULD have watched it on my iPhone. What is the difference between iPad and iPhone?

So, they're saying SIZE matters?

Politicians.

...for the cameras. The whales wouldn't care. They spend lots of time in the dark. And besides, which would make you feel better? magically appearing in a black void? Or looking out and seeing the insides of a Bird of Prey?

What is the form of the dark matter? Does it coalesce into spherical bodies? Or does it homogenize into equidistant particles due to mutual repulsion? And if it is bound to the Milky Way by gravity, and itself bound to as a 'galaxy', does it exert cosmos expanding repulsion in an "inverse almost square" relationship? Is it 1/ (r- fudgeFactor)^2 or 1/ (r)^(2-fudgeFactor)?

Seriously. I'm a rocket scientist, and I'm baffled by the mixed properties of 'dark matter'. Can we land a probe on it, or would baryonic space probes pass right through it?

I actually bought her debut album BECAUSE of hearing her on Eminem. And then her next two albums. Pre-ordered the third, in fact.

It worked. I paid money.