That's more like it! Well played! :)

If I needed to duck but forgot, then nothing went over my head, right? Otherwise, why would I have needed to duck?

Anyway, if you're saying your original statement was meant to be ironic, then I'll just say you need to brush up on your delivery, as it really didn't strike me as funny (or even intended as such). It sounded more like commentary about the military not making data-driven decisions, which is neither funny nor insightful.

"WOOOOSSSHHHHHH!!!!!!" [sic] indeed. I don't get it.

P.S. It's spelled whoosh or WHOOOOSSSHHHHHH!!!!!! Don't forget that extra 'H'.

I am pretty sure that's the most idiotic comment I've read on slashdot this month.

And it's the 24th already.

Let's do the math. Google tells me that "Everybody knows that the Apollo program costs $20 billion in 1970s dollars—the equivalent of $100 billion in today’s money". That's roughly 45 days worth of Social Security spending. That's why we can't take care of a few million old people and a few million disabled. Because it costs a lot more to do that than to get a man on the moon.

I think you're just throwing numbers around without actually thinking about what they mean. Social Security costs about $2600 per American every year. The entirety of NASA costs about $56 per American every year. It's hard to wrap one's head around just how expensive social welfare is in this country.

So, let me get this straight. You're pointing out that increasing a tax on something will "reduce consumption" of that thing (whether this is the intent or not), but then you go on to say that you think we should spread the cost of road maintenance better, for example by instituting a mileage tax on electric vehicles, or a mandatory registration fee for bicycles.

According to your own reasoning, this would "reduce consumption" of electric vehicles and bicycles. According to my reasoning, that would necessarily increase demand for traditional modes of transportation, primarily the 4 stroke ICE automobile. Do you really think that's a good idea?

The Washington DC Metro is also pretty nice. I find that it's better than Philly's SEPTA.

There is not a fixed amount of wealth in the world, but there is a finite amount. If someone is rich, that does necessarily mean that someone else is poor. Ideas like yours usually come from people that have a delusional "infinite wealth" view of economics. The idea that the wealthy are entitled to hoarde their money is the reason there are still poor people in a society that has $257,000 of wealth per citizen.

Keep right, pass left. It's the law.

Question: Can the sentence "Obama is the finest nigga this country has seen in ages, and I pray that my children grow up to be just like him" be uttered by a non-black person without being (being, not seeming) racist? It's evident from the context that the statement expresses positive sentiments regarding Obama, and that the mention of race isn't really relevant to the sentiment being expressed. However, it's evident that there are those among us that claim outrage over any mention of race (positive, negative, or neutral), and I'm not talking about them. I'm not talking about whether or not it is possible to be offended by that statement (as it's evident that people can get offended by anything), but whether or not the statement is itself inherently bigoted or offensive in any concrete way. Is the use of a racially-charged word, even in an entirely positive context, still "racist"? If so, why?

Disclaimer: Please don't turn this into a referendum on Obama. I don't vote for republicrats and can name countless black people that I think are better people than Obama.

No, of course. That's why we did away with all those slur-based team names (ethnic or otherwise). We no longer have the Philadelphia Niggers, the New York Kykes, the Boston Cocksuckers, or the Baltimore Imbeciles.

Wait, what's that? Team names don't generally carry negative connotations? Nobody names their team after something undesirable? The term Redskin is intended to be virtuous, not a slur? How can this be?!

So you're a Mohawk and you think it would be a good gesture for the European aggressors to make up for the centuries of genocide by... not calling a football team the Redskins?

Really? You don't feel that this is a bit of an empty gesture? Too little, too late? You don't feel that an effort this tiny actually trivializes the debt owed to the aboriginal inhabitants of the Americas? Would you say paying out reparations to the tune of $24 (total) would be a "good gesture" as well? At what point do increasingly meaningless "good gestures" become insults?

According to Lieutenant Colonel Warner D. Farr in a report to the USAF Counterproliferation Center much lateral proliferation happened between pre-nuclear Israel and France stating "the French nuclear test in 1960 made two nuclear powers not one—such was the depth of collaboration" and "the Israelis had unrestricted access to French nuclear test explosion data." minimizing the need for early Israeli testing though this cooperation cooled following the success of the French tests.

Citation.

Additionally, there's the suspected tests in 1963, 1966, and 1979.

Interesting information about horrifying human experimentation from WW2 committed by Germany.
Interesting information about horrifying human experimentation from WW2 committed by Japan.
Interesting information about horrifying human experimentation from WW2 committed by the USA. (Strangely missing from Wikipedia...)

Japan's actions during WW2 were abhorent. Unfortunately, they weren't alone in that respect.

Regarding the Pearl Harbor conspiracy theory, well, that has nothing to do with how militaristic Japan actually was. There is significant evidence that it was a goal of many of those in power in the USA to lure Japan into war. To what extent the actions undertaken by these people actually helped bring about war is also irrelevant. The intent is well-documented. The US did want Japan to bomb Pearl Harbor in order to manufacture a pretext for ending isolationism and justifing US intervention. The conspiracy theory focuses on the extent to which various individuals acted to enable that, which is the only issue that's still in question. Perhaps you're right, and maybe nobody in the US actually acted to make sure the attack on Pearl Harbor would lead to our involvement in the war. However, this would still not have any bearing on the fact that the US did want Japan to bomb Pearl Harbor nonetheless.

Touché.

I got my BSEE in 2007, seven years ago. I know how to solder, and made extensive use of scopes (both digital/storage and analog) through the course of my education. I can say the same of all my classmates. I went to a mediocre public university. I think you're out of touch with reality.

All that despite the fact that I focused predominantly on digital electronics and even computer science. Several semesters of analog circuits (with lab, obviously) were required.