I bet you're that guy at the front of the line who misremebers the price of what you bought and makes them send the bagger sauntering to the back of the store for a price check, and then doesn't even start to open his 19th century checkbook until the final tally is rung up, and then fills the whole check out glacially topped off by a pointlessly legible signature, then finally hands the check over so that the cashier can slowly scribble the entire contents of your drivers license over it.

And you wonder why I'm so thankful for self checkouts, even though I'm not even nearly a "millenial".

Unlicensed doc: "The police called about a murderous drug-fueled rampage. Who did you say that test subject #37 was?"

Assistant: "Abby someone."

Doc: "Abby who?"

Assistant: "Abby... Normal."

It's because the fundamental equation that relates a rocket's performance and the mass fuel it requires to orbital velocities is exponential. This makes it work out so that any chemical rocket leaving earth has to have the vast majority of its weight as fuel, where as a rocket leaving the moon only about half of its weight as fuel.

What's more, the entire lunar module and its fuel supply is dead weight as far as the earth launch is concerned, which makes the earth rocket and its fuel multiple all the bigger. Then there's the issue of bringing along enough fuel to slow down the craft into lunar orbit, and escaping lunar orbit back to earth. The lunar lander didn't need to handle any of that, either.

You might want to look in the mirror.

Scripting languages usually feature dynamic, strong typing. (The runtime always knows exactly what type its dealing with.)

Most compiled languages have static, strong typing. C is somewhat of an exception, being relatively weakly typed. (It's easy to make all sorts of bizarre type casts, sometimes implicitely.)

A few languages are very weakly typed, such as Forth.

That will have to wait.

The HURD developers have just noticed that their code would be more elegant if it were implemented using the new features of a modern programming language, so they're now starting a ground up rewrite of the HURD kernel in Perl 6.

That's probably a non-starter.

I've noticed that the yards in my area that look the most like putting greens tend to be the most likely to have political signs on them around election time.

Since you've already made up your mind to be 100% wrong about your analysis of global warming, its threats, and its monumental external costs, there's no point in discussing it with you.

So, other than spewing the single largest existing threat to the welfare of human civilization, coal is just fine.

Meanwhile, by your arguments, the problem of setting up a recycling center for solar panels appears to be an intractible dilemma.

Now I'm picturing Nigel in front of a rack of Unisys machines:

"These go to nine bits."

This "Star within a star" thing has been a phenomenon commonly known in Hollywood since the days Mary Pickford and Douglas Fairbanks.

By not getting vaccinated, you're choosing to allow harmful microbes into your body. You choose to become a factory that create billions more of them and then spread them into to to the bodies of your unwilling victims.

It can be. If people like you were around when they started vaccinating for smallpox, you would have been responsible for countless millions of deaths by now. It would have made all of the drunk driving deaths in history look like a drop in the bucket.

This is the same as: Sober driver kills someone in an auto wreck: Liability limited to an increase in future insurance rates. Drunk driver kills someone: locck em up and throw away the key.

Do you advocate legalization of all irresponsible behaviors, including drunk driving?

Because CO2 is present in parts per million, whereas oxygen is around 20%. If amount of CO2 increases by a few hundred percent, the amount of oxygen drops by a small fraction of 1%. It is much easier and more accurate to measure the difference in CO2 concentrations than that of O2.

Perhaps you shouldn't be throwing barbs about global warming if this middle-school-level science wasn't already obvious to you.

You do realize that they're talking about indoor CO2 levels that are far in excess of the overall atmospheric levels related to global warming?

Moreover, they do not imply that the CO2 itself causes poor performance. It's clear that they're using it as a *measure* of poor ventilation, which is correlated with bad grades.

Maybe it was a little stuffy in the school where you were learning analytic reading skills.

42