Does this set of statistics have any bearing on that 2011 soundbyte that "an estimated 250,000 bullets fired for every [Iraqi] insurgent killed"?

Other than a single "fix all the bugs" patch I don't think Ricochet was ever supported by Valve except as a contractual agreement to keep selling it indefinitely.

You need a job scheduler to centralize the tasks and knowledge of the processes, so you can bring someone in to run all the automated tasks. Sure you still have a human in the equasion, but now you're down to 1 person, instead of a room of 20.

Depends on how much you trust your email client

Like Apple... meet OSX

This is the first time I've seen (and hopefully the last) BBT discussed on /.

Cape Canaveral has lots of delays due to millitary launches (Which always have precedence) and perhaps more importantly, thunderstorms 6/7 afternoons a week. You can't launch in a thunderstorm.
 
Thunderstorms exist in Texas, but in Brownsville, are rare in comparison to Florida. Having absolute control over the launch facility and launch schedule is Very Important.

Fertilizer is a lot cheaper to replace than bespoke Satellites that can't be repaired and are expected to survive for a minimum of 15 years. Fertilizer lasts for 8 weeks and can be manufactured by any farm.
 
You're literally comparing bleeding edge space technology to shit.

I agree, Jody is a great name, instantly recognizable and difficult to confuse with another name. It's not as ubiquitous as XBMC, nor does it imply the decade-plus heritage, but it'll become memorable over time, I'm sure...

Both Russia and China have reaffirmed their plans to go to Mars. Just this week Russia announced that they were building a new super heavy lift rocket for such a purpose. Since those are the only two countries with human spaceflight programs currently, they're the most likely to accomplish these goals. I would no longer count on the United States to lead the way here.

Sure, but it I said, "hey, I found a spare trillion USD in the budget, let's setup a moon base and rotate the crew every 3 months", you would say "ok great, we've proven getting men to the moon and back is a realistic goal". And so it goes. The Russians and the Chinese are both looking at this as something they want to achieve in the next 20 years. It's a proven thing, there's no ifs ands or buts, you can put a man on the moon and bring him home safely.
 
If something goes horribly wrong on the moon, you can send them back in 4 days express mail style. No big deal.
 
It's six+ months to get someone home from Mars, and if something happens en route to mars, you just have to wait, there's no early return. If you find out you have terminal brain cancer three days after you leave earth, you have a full year before you can come home for treatment.
 
But some day we're going to send a man to Mars. Or I will weep for humanity. Hopefully in my lifetime.
 
At some point you have to prove out that it's possible to sustain human life for 6 months, a year, two years on the surface. That needs to happen sooner rather than later. Would you rather send a man to Mars with a system that has 6 months of flight heritage, or one with 12 years flight heritage? Your astronaut has to live for 2 years on the surface. Do you trust the design with 6 months or 12 years testing without failure? There's very little to no free oxygen on Mars. You have to send an oxygen generator there early on. You couldn't sail very far from shore without a reliable way to carry drinking water for 12 hours, 2, 3 days trip. If you can't provide drinking water for a 6 month trip across the atlantic, you're going to be stuck in Europe. You have to prove out the technology at some point.
 
If you don't understand the concept of "flight heritage", don't bother replying.

Nobody's landed a MOXIE on Mars before, not one broken or working. Until that happens you can't definitively say "yes you can produce rocket fuel to go back home to Earth with". Once you can say this, the logistics for putting a human on Mars and returning him safely become a realistic goal. Right now it's just a theory.

to maintain your correctness. You are wrong

 
I'm glad I could make your day by making a broad statement that you could nit-pick to feel better about yourself. Congratulations on your tiny win! You deserve it.

"Normal use" for my grandparents is "Off"

Yes, this is idea. The google play store is completely useless for finding top notch apps. As with the PC market, there's usually 2-3 applications that have all the features and aren't buggy and don't have a terrible user interface, and then 1-2 open source options that are very similar, and then 10,000 one-off single feature applets which are mostly useless and ancient.
 
I don't even use the google play store search function. I just google for lists of top versions of the type of app I need (with this year's year in the search results), then go download/buy that one and hope it stays updated.
 
I used to wonder why people use brand names when product names are so important. This is why. Complete chaos. In 10-15 years there will probably be an umbrella of 20-30 companies that offer suites of good programs that all work together well. Right now I'm going to avoid a new program by a new developer unless it does proper magic like Word Lens (which is now owned by Google), and just stick with curated lists on %RandomAndroidApprRviewSite%.