Firstly, it was considerably easier to do it on the moon. Low orbital speed, 1/6 the gravity, no air resistance on descent, very light lander (as it wasn't pushing 40+tons of second stage to orbit).

Secondly, this stage was doing Mach 8 to 10 at about 80km altitude when it separated from the second stage. They did an extra burn that briefly popped it out of the atmosphere, reversed its course, then did a hypersonic re-entry tail first and (nearly) landed on a 50x60m barge.

Nobody has done that before. Not the guys with the shuttle SRB's, they just fell back to earth (and were strong enough to withstand the tumbling in the atmosphere, being SRBs). Not Boeing with it's dinky little hops of 10,000 feet in a continuously-stable attitude at subsonic speeds. Nobody has gotten this far before with the return of the first stage of a liquid-fuelled booster. Seeing as those things are enormously complex and very expensive, it'd be great to get one back in one piece to use again.

I used to have a systray app for this, you could set it to flip your adaptor between DHCP and a bunch of other ip addresses of your choosing.

I say 'used to' because I ditched win7 and went with Linux Mint on my laptop and the default networkmanager tray app does this automatically.

18 year graph, yes temperatures have risen over the last 18 years.

What you were trying to cite was the was this. If you look at that graph you'll see that the earth has been on a cooling trend line (the straight lines), every year since 1965. Obviously the graph is rising, and obviously all of the cooling trend-lines are completely fictional. That's exactly how denialist websites try to quote that warming has "stopped", when it obviously hasn't. The genuine long term warming trend always breaks the fictional short-term trend lines after a few years.

-

Atheism is what you call someone with no belief in a higher power,god. etc

By definition atheism is not a belief. Stop trying to turn it into one.

"Science is self correcting, meaning it is flawed. "
no. that's why it isn't flawed. Science is self correcting based on new data. A scientific field isn't complete, but science as a field and method isn't flawed. It would be flawed if it didn't change based on new information.

haha. no, read the references. They are pretty much excuse making and cheery picking to confirm their belief.

" And wouldn't the existence, and even the sometimes contradictory accounts of the Gnostic gospels, provide a more evidence of an actual historic figure whose image was "stomped over", rather than one made up out of whole cloth?"
No, why would you think that?

Nope. In fact it looks like 'Jesus' is an combination of at least three people. Based on dates of events, location, from different letters.
Of course the bible was written by men how said 'These 12 people are honest, wouldn't lie or make things up, and never checked them.
If you look at cults* and their behavior, you see striking similarity with the apostles, and other religion older the Christianity.

Then it gain political power and the rest is bloody history

Which is why it's alarming that the religious right is gaining so much power.

*for brevity, cult will be short hand for small start up religion

But we do not have anything similar when it comes to what caused the Big Bang, ranting about 14D planes colliding and creating ripples like on a pond, without any idea how those planes existed in the first place does not really strike me as a particularly sane argument

If you walked out an say the side of your car smashed in, would it not be reasonable to conclude you had been hit by a car even if you can't 'prove' a car did it?

It's like that, but with math. The fact that you can not understand it, doesn't make it insane. It makes you ignorant in that area.

Another excuse for people who can't actual base there idea on informed information.

So you attack him personally, because you got noting else except the incorrect idea that anyone gives a crap about you, and that you won't be anything but a whisper in a few decades. SO that leads you to post ad homs in what is a basic debate, that adult do.

Just because a bunch of morons had the expectation meant, doesn't make it an attack, or an insult.

News to Christian: YOU DON'T FUCKING OWN DECEMBER 25th.

You can stick you fake outrage your your ass.
It was not an attack. He used wording that made people expect one statement, then through an surprise ending.
That is not a fucking attack, and you can take you fucking outrage and shove it back up your ass.
I do note that every mouth breathing stupid ass xtian used it as an excuse to verbally attack atheist.

To be clear, I am not calling Christians mouth breathing stupid ass's. just ones like you.

That you don't know what the word 'newsworthy' means.

. A scientist's argument when dealing within their scientific expertise is more likely to be valid, yes.

It's an an appeal to authority when it's a direct refutation withing ones expertise. It's a appeal to authority if I say, he said it, he is an scientist, therefor I am right.

Thomas Aquinas? seriously? have you read his works?

Do you also thing he levitated?

The god aspect is unprovable, uuntestable so you have to ignore it. Just like a child learns to ignore the monster in the closet.