Oh, I guess the fact that the unborn life can't consent to its murder makes it OK?

Call me when a fetus can pass a Turing test then we'll talk. We don't have differing moralities on this, just different definitions, and you treating it the other way like there is no alternative is, at best, an argument in bad faith.

My point being, once you've made pleasure the only guide

Once again, as an actual hedonist, I'm offended that you think any of this has anything to do with it. Maybe in your world, where a glimpsed bare ankle immediately fills your shorts with splooge, anything more daring than that might seem like some sort of overcoloured insanity.

There's a reason they're called other people: They are literally not you.

The are a good modern alternative (and cheaper than a BBC was, back in the day!). The LPC1768 has the same amount of RAM as the BBC and a bit more flash than the BBC had space on a floppy disk, and has analogue and digital I/O pins, as well as serial (which the BBC had with RS-423), and a few things the BBC lacked (Ethernet and USB).

I also use Safari, though I'm still pissed off with them for combining the URL bar and search box (which means that I keep typing one-word search terms and having it try to resolve them as domains, which then go in my history and so become the subject of autocomplete. The only way to avoid it is to get into the habit of hitting space at the end of a search, which is no saving on hitting tab at the start to jump to the search box). Chrome doesn't properly integrate with the keychain. I use Firefox on Android (self destructing cookies makes it the first browser I've used with a sane cookie management policy), but overall the UI for Safari does exactly what I want from a browser: stay out of the way.

TFS is nonsense though. Developers don't know what's going to be in the next version of Safari? Why don't they download the nightly build and see?

Someone needed to talk to Boeing's crew that handles the designs of the AH-1 and UH-1. Lots of parts commonality, increasing as time goes on, and good at their roles, but different shapes for different missions.

The Harrier can't meaningfully hover with a full weapons load, either, and it really only takes off vertically at air shows. STOVL is short for "short takeoff, vertical landing". They've been planning ramped takeoffs and vertical landings at sea from the beginning, just like the Harrier uses.

I'm not fond of the F-35, but don't ascribe features to its (at least as problematic) predecessor that aren't there.

No, because the F-16 was designed as a multi-role fighter and it did extremely well. When it was announced that both the Air Force and Navy would use it, there was concern because of memories of the F-4 (a good plane for its time, but certainly not without its problems) and the compromises it had. When it was announced that it would also replace the Harrier and was planned to become the most common plane in the military, that's when people started fearing the worst.

The main problem is the Marines wanting a replacement for the Harrier, something that can do STOL/STOVL operations, and that is completely under their control. The JSF was already under development, and the contractors said they could figure out how to make it fit the Marine requirements. What we got was a fighter that can't dogfight, a strike aircraft with a pitifully small payload, and the political impossibility of starting over from scratch.

One of the lessons that came out of this and the Zumwalt-class destroyer programs is that the military should stop trying to cram every feature into a program. While the proliferation of designs led to unwieldy logistics in the 60s, 70s, and 80s, the attempts to simplify everything have resulted in a reduced overall capability and the need to extend the lifetimes of planes the new projects were meant to replace. The F-15 and F-16 will still be around for decades, and may form a larger part of the tactical strike platforms than the USAF would like to admit. The same will probably be the case with the F/A-18E against the Navy's F-35C.

Dedicated designs are the most efficient. Some of them turn out to be spectacular at other jobs. The F-15 was designed with the adage "not a pound for air-to-ground" and yet from it was developed the F-15E Strike Eagle, an extremely effective air-to-ground platform. Hopefully the military is listening when it goes trying to build its next platform, a replacement for the B-1, B-2, and B-52 expected to come online between 2035 and 2045.

Weddings are social occasions that may demand that even the most wanted people come out of hiding to participate. That doesn't excuse them being used as targets. It's just the reason they're chosen.

I'm neither a kid nor have I forgotten the space race and the political squabbling that accompanied it. I want SpaceX to succeed, but I also want Orbital Sciences and Blue Origin to succeed, and anyone else that can reshape the space launch industry.

But there are people who desperately want to see Elon Musk fail. For that to happen, Tesla and/or SpaceX must fail. These people will hunt for any little indicator that Musk has bitten off more than he could chew and gleefully let everyone know about it.

I'm well aware that there are those who wanted (and still want) NASA to fail. They see NASA as the embodiment of government bureaucracy, slow and inefficient especially when compared to companies like SpaceX, and so they want to get rid of it. NASA is that, but mostly because the missions that they work on tend to be those difficult to replace: some extremely expensive satellites, interplanetary probes, and manned missions. A telecomm satellite lost on launch will be replaced by insurance and the contracted company will build another one. A failed satellite or probe may never be rebuilt (had New Horizons been lost, the atmosphere would have frozen and precipitated out before another probe could reach it). A failed manned mission may result in loss of life. Mission success therefore has higher priority than are the case with most commercial missions.

Meh. When I was an undergrad, you really needed to understand netmasks if you wanted to set up a network for multiplayer games. Now, it's much easier (although Windows makes it stupidly hard to create an ad-hoc WiFi network. No idea how people think it's ready for the desktop), and you can do a lot without caring. I can't remember the last time I needed to know about them.

Dammit, beat me to to it. I cannot wait for the day when conservatives understand the concept of consent.

The point of this is not to enforce it, it's so that you can justify doing the right thing to management in the name of standards compliance.

Your statistics suck. Nothing talking about what caused the traffic-related death. Drunk fucks? Inattentive idiots on cell phones? Intentional suicide? Too busy focusing on the radio dial than the road? None of your point has any relevance without that additional information.

"So your night vision isn't getting fucked with by the head lights of oncoming cars?"

Less so than when you go throwing more photons at your eyes from inside the windshield, taking detail away from what's outside the windshield, and blocking your vision because you're trying to see shit outside your windshield through a damned reflected projection coming from inside your windshield.

"but that's probably because sodium vapor lights are efficient and reliable"

*LAAAAAUGH* Efficient in ONE COLOR with horrible color and detail reproduction.

" The move to LED street lighting is going to see a lot more blue light at night (white LED's being a blue LED with yellow phosphor)"

You're trying to talk to someone that does LEDs for a living about LEDs?

We've got new junction tech that allows a single substrate to produce all wavelengths, and is tunable in-manufacturing. Blue with a shit phosphor isn't going to be around much longer.

"No, there is substantial debate on this subject still."

From IDIOTS. The USAF has already conducted test after test after test. For night conditions, a red HUD causes the least amount of interference. We also know exactly why this is, it is a simple matter of chemistry.

"Get a car with good headlights, use them."

That won't make a difference if your green or blue HUD is overcoming the average levels of light coming through your windshield - it will effectively wash out anything past the HUD. Similar to a dirty windshield in application.