Given that most of the people I know on FB don't use their real names, I think FB is just being super-silly.

The cost of the human life is quite small compared to the value of the IP being disclosed here. Sad but true...

That's true, and that's why unfettered maneuverability in an orbit is a pipe dream at the moment. As you say, there'd not even be a "main" engine, the entire RCS would consist of big engine - little engine pairs.

You usually read about success stories in advertisements: "$our_service helped $client take its service online and save $big_bucks. [See How]" If you block ads, you don't see them.

Not everyone uses the legal identity on the day job, especially in entertainment. Consider Caryn Johnson, whose day job identity is Whoopi Goldberg. Or Paul Levesque, who goes by Hunter Hearst Helmsley professionally (or Triple H for short). Or Stefani Germanotta, who took the name Lady Gaga from a Queen song, possibly to escape No Doubt-related jokes. On the other hand, RuPaul Charles's drag name is just that: RuPaul.

Fucking reddit. *shakes fist*

Since none of the victims would have been carrying a gun prior to the ban either, your interpretation of events is spurious and bullshit.

You've also glibly disregarded the changes in rate and nature of rape crime reporting - by rate mean the percentage of incidents that get reported.

So sorry if your abuse of statistics shows you to be a bigoted twat with an agenda but that's what happened.

From one of the reviews:

So to avoid finding bondage sites I should search for "shaft collars"? Feels counterintuitive to me. But I'm british. .

Many applications install the startup widget without asking, and often without informing the user at all. It could be solved through the use of a proper package manager and standard package format so that the package manager rather than an arbitrary installer program actually controls the installation and always gives the user the choice.

This talk of double standards has another point. Talk of AGW and if it is or isn't man made, if it is or isn't happening centers around a key distraction because it is the main externality of modern man. Cast doubt on carbon as an externality then you cast doubt on every other of the plethora of externalities that we just expect nature to deal with.

So put aside AGW for a while and ponder if all the industrial products and processes we have actually produce pollution as an externality and, for how long has it been creating an impact?

How much garbage does it take for a gyre to form in both our largest oceans kilometres deep, just how much trees can we cut down - all of them? How many factory ships and by-catch does it take to empty the ocean ecosystems? All of these and thousands of other human externalities exist and every single one of them has an impact. So yeah, it may not be AGW related, however it is more than likely related to some form of human externality. My point is, does it matter which human externality it belongs to if we are so mired down with inaction and analysis-paralysis to do anything about them.

Pick *any* large scale human industrial activity and ask yourself what the impact is? You don't need science to tell you that if you burst a cyanide dam (used for gold mining) and it flows into a river - everything in its path is going to die. That if you choke rivers with fertilizers and on and on and on.

Does it matter which human externality is to blame anymore?

But you are pushing it and no one is attacking you because the denialist/skeptic position is politics, not science. It's forbidding anyone questioning the orthodoxy of the coal/oil industry by positioning them in an argument to render the actual science of AGW a moot point. It's genius really, a skeptic absolves them selves of any need to present proof of their argument and can deny an proof presented - no proof is possible.

And what's the point of denialist/skeptic being right? Right about what? What alternate thesis is being presented to the thousands of articles of science presented?

The oil/coal industry is an entity that has control over the media outlets that shape our opinions and has trillions of dollars for lobbying, you think you are questioning the orthodoxy however in reality, you are just towing the line. Prove to me you aren't towing the line, show me the science to back up an alternate claim.

The only claim made is that this is what was noticed in the NOAA survey of animal migration. This is a fact that contributes to science which denialist/skeptics won't accept anyway. What is your alternate claim, show me your evidence that this isn't caused by AGW, where is your evidence to support your alternate claim?

The science of AGW challenges oil and coal industry hegemony and the science was reported right here on /. even before Al Gore got up and made it trendy to talk about. I've read so much science about AGW I can't even remember just how many overwhelming arguments there are. The science is in, most people talk about their doubts about AGW and they don't even try to understand the science. The talk of double standards from denialist/skeptics is actually a double standard - what facts, based in science and research, have denialist/skeptics ever presented?

The only fact denialist/skeptics need to assess is if it's in the coal and oil industry's interest to cast enough doubt in everyone's minds to promote inaction, which is so much cheaper than actually doing something.

If AGW is a complete figment of our imagination, then we are in a lot of trouble because if the denialist/skeptics are right then we cannot do a thing to stop the inevitable collapse of the ecosystem, our food production systems and the inevitable billions of deaths that will follow.

However, the science I've examined rationally demonstrates AGW is a human externality caused by the irresponsible use of natural resources and dogmatic skepticism is just a way of dodging responsibility for mending our ways. We don't want to do because we are just so comfortable. Anything that makes us uncomfortable must be bad so it's easier to stick with apathy because inaction is just what the oil and coal companies want so they don't have to change.

Your position of political over-analysing is like asking "Are we sure this truck heading toward us", getting hit by it and then asking the doctor to say you "died from internal injuries" instead of "got hit by a truck" because you have a problem with double standards.

There is no science in your problem, only politics.

It's not that unix is magical, but there are several very important differences that make unix systems far less susceptible to these problems than windows...

1, The biggest difference is probably the use of package management on unix vs arbitrary binary installers on windows... with a package manager, every install, update and uninstall is controlled by the same process which keeps track of what got installed and is able to cleanly remove it again, with windows an "installer" is just a binary program that you are trusting to write files all over the place but you have no real idea what its doing or if its working correctly. With the package manager its very easy to identify what package installed any given file etc. If you go outside of the package manager on unix and try to overwrite system packages by hand you can have serious problems too.

2, Transparency - Unix systems are much simpler and better understood, the boot process is usually just a series of scripts for instance, the filesystem is laid out in a mostly logical hierarchy and most configuration is stored in individual human readable text files, its much easier to understand exactly whats going on and much more difficult for poorly written programs to hide performance crippling cruft in unexpected places.

3, Lack of third party drivers - on most unix systems, drivers typically ship with the OS, get updated when the OS does and get tested together... Windows systems typically have a random collection of disparate drivers which sometimes don't play well together or with updates to other parts of the system. The other problems mentioned above also apply to drivers as well as userland.

The real problem is that the install and/or uninstall is handled by the program itself, and not by a centralised package manager... So every installer is different, there is no consistency, not always a list of what exactly got installed or where, and no guarantee that the uninstall will actually remove everything.
You can also encounter really stupid problems, like the one you describe where you cant uninstall because the uninstall program is damaged. Sometimes you can reinstall over the top and then uninstall, but again due to inconsistency that doesnt always work.