I don't see any claim that they "need" to bring it back, just that they "are" bringing it back. Considering that its stated mission is to test various technologies, maybe they want to change the payload out. Maybe the mission ended. Apparently the other two missions did not end because of a lack of fuel.

It's around 200,000 pictures, actually. No need to figure out how many pictures are in 13GB when they say, right there, how many pictures there are.

Today on Slashdot I learned that the only purpose of the constitution is to allow sex slaves in South Carolina and make it possible to steal Ohio from the Indians.

Thanks for that valuable analysis. No, no, don't bother with any citations, they aren't even remotely necessary. I'll just assume that Article V is all about sex slaves in South Carolina. Or the Ohio thing, whatever. I'm sure it's one of the two, anyway. I'll teach this to any child I can find. Now, if you'll excuse me, I need to go educate Facebook.

If I was bored, and wanted to do something for teh lulz, I would organize an ongoing campaign to run a DDoS against heartbeat.belkin.com. If I was that type of person, anyway.

I don't know how much traffic Microsoft really sees (I assume it's quite a bit), or BofA would put out (probably a fair bit as well), but if I was running a network and saw a range of IPs pinging me all day every day I would be pretty hard pressed to not block them. I mean, why is Microsoft paying for BofA's internet connectivity testing?

No one has been able to come up with a solution to have it create text logs?

I'm missing part (ok, the vast majority) of this story, but if his software is such shit, then why are so many distros, who presumably enjoy when their operating systems run correctly, using his software? Is there actually a consensus on his software being shit, and if so, why do people use it? If not, why do people act like it's a foregone conclusion that his software is shit? To an outside observer this kind of looks like a shouting match amongst a huge group of egotistical assholes.

The vast majority of those names are descriptive though, not offensive. For example, Seminoles - (anglicized) name of a tribe; Blackhwaks - name of a chief; Indians, Braves, Chiefs - just describing an entire group or class (although "Indian" is a pretty stupid way to refer to them). A lot of high school or college teams use the names of tribes from the area (Chippewas, Choctaws, Apaches, Cherokees, Mohawks, etc). I don't think any of those are offensive. "Redskins" is completely different. If you think that term is not offensive, walk into a meeting of the National Congress of Native Americans and say "hey, how are you all you redskins doing today?" See how they react. It doesn't really matter if *you* find the name offensive or not. I wouldn't be offended if someone called me a redskin either, I would just sort of look at them kind of funny. It's clearly offensive to a large group of people, and they should change the name. Most colleges and high schools I think are fine using tribal names for their schools.

Although, maybe the Agawam High School Brownies might consider a name change. And the Aniak High School Halfbreeds might think about it also.

I dated a girl for 6 years who I met while playing Doom and Descent on a BBS. Pretty cool story, I know.

What exactly does gender equality have to do with dating? There is nothing remotely equal about the experiences of single men and women. Look at some of the statistics in the article - on one site the most attractive woman got 17 times as many messages as the most attractive man. There is nothing equal about the way that men and women approach each other when dating and, frankly, most women will not pay to date. They don't have to. OKCupid may send you an email saying that you are in the top 10% of attractive people on the site. If you're a man, this means that your picture is shown to more attractive people, and also that you'll see more attractive people. If you're a woman, you get those same perks plus you also are automatically on the "A-list", which gives you more searching options, lets you browse profiles undetected, and other things. Men have to pay for the A-list, attractive women do not, because the site knows that many men will pay for better access. This is the exact same idea behind "ladies' night" at a bar or nightclub. If the women are there (and they are more likely to be there if its free), then the men will follow (and pay).

There is nothing equal about dating. The business model described above could definitely work, and in fact the women who use it would probably be thankful for the lack of crap messages that they get. Meet some women on dating sites and take them out some time, ask them about the messages they receive. Ask them about the number of messages and the content. Ask them to send you a few examples of what they get. It is nothing like the messages that men get from women. Any woman who has sent me a message has just asked a casual question (what's my favorite band, movie, etc), asked about something in my profile, went for light humor, etc, and they've done it with good grammar and spelling. Ask some girls to send you examples of some of the messages they receive and feel free to compare and contrast. Come back and tell everyone how equal it is out there.

Personally, I would be fine with something similar to the above (although seeing a person's message history to everyone would not be a feature I would add). I would feel confident that I could use that site, send the messages I want to send, that they would get delivered, and that women could look at my message acceptance levels and figure out that I'm a respectful person. If that makes it harder for the guys sending messages about tits and ass using some misspelled version of txt-speak, good.

The important question we need to ask is if we want to live in a world of single quotes or double quotes.

That's one of the best things about science, though. Not only does it not have all of the answers (in fact, not even a very small percentage of them), but this fact is ingrained into the entire scientific process with the knowledge that if we try hard enough, we can find the answers.

For one, because first world countries tend not to have mobs go after health workers and scientists based on belief in things like witchcraft and sorcery, and they also tend not to break people out of isolation in a hospital when the person has a deadly contagious disease. Sometimes a little epidemic is just what you need to get the population on board with modern medicine.

The concept was a good one, but the major thing that kept bugging me was that I would log in after several weeks or months and my playlists kept shrinking. I don't even know which songs it was removing, but in a lot of cases it would remove some songs by an artist and leave others by the same one (or even the same album).

The SR vendor you're looking for is Geoffrey Giraffe.

The therapeutic dose is 125mg, with an optional 62.5mg an hour or so in. Note that the additional dose doesn't typically cause any increase in intensity, it just makes it last a little longer. The first dose usually determines the intensity.