What the hell? You keep replying to me in a manner as if you are countering my point, when you are saying the exact same thing I am saying. Are you NOT comprehending what I am posting? Diac asked why they didn't save some of it's fuel to have it leave mercury. My post was saying, even if they could do that, there's nothing to be gained by having it leave mercury...it's better to have it spend it's time and fuel remaining at mercury as long as it can, gathering as much data as it can.

Before you reply to me again, please read the entire chain of posts, back to Diac's original post.

Yes, I know this was the bitter end. That was kind of my point. The person I replied to asked why they didn't just have it break orbit and "blast it away from mercury". I was saying, even if they could have done so (which I'm not sure they ever could have), how would that have been better than what they actually did (ie: leave it there to the bitter end)

I assume it would take a lot of fuel for it to break orbit, but even so...what is to be gained by doing so vs just leaving it there as long as possible to collect whatever data it can until the bitter end?

Yes, that was the same thing I thought when I read it. I went to look it up because I thought maybe I had remembered incorrectly. According to wikipedia, Mercury has a max tempurature of 700K, while Venus has a mean of 737 K

You've posted several reasons why it might be acceptable to choose jquery. However, I think there's an even more compelling reason for why you probably SHOULD use jquery (unless you can come up with a really compelling reason otherwise). I posted about it nearly a year ago: http://mobile.slashdot.org/com...

Here is the most relevant part from my previous post:

You know what I like to actually optimize? Getting things working correctly. Think jquery is a waste? Well, lets look at that fading example above. Pretty darn simple, isn't it? Surely nothing tricky there. So lets see. jQuery seems to work fine. How about that more monstrous vanilla.js version they posted. ok, it's working fine in firefox. How about chromium. Oh interesting. Look at that. It fades out almost all the way, but never totally disappears and gets hidden. Why is that? The code LOOKS to be correct (though perhaps that < 0 should be <= 0 ...nope, that wasn't it). Ok lets do some debugging of the opacity value on each iteration:

1
0.9
0.8
0.7000000000000001 (uh oh, I see where this is going)
0.6000000000000001
0.5000000000000001
0.40000000000000013
0.30000000000000016
0.20000000000000015
0.10000000000000014
0.10000000000000014
0.10000000000000014

oh, hey. look at that. chromium never lets the value get below 0, so that function keeps getting called forever, but never actually finishes and hides it. OK, so that's one stike against it.

Here's another thought...what happens if the element with id 'thing' doesn't actually exist? Oops, he forgot to check for null, so anything after his .style in the first line of code line will never get executed because the javascript will abort with an error at that line. OK, 2 strikes.

OK, now what about when it is time to reshow the block we just hid. Hmmmm...now was that #thing object set to block or inline display? Oops, he forgot to save the state. We can set it to blank to go back to the default, but what if it was already overridden before we got to the value? Ooops. Strike 3.

Yes, his example could be adjusted to fix all of these issues, but that's the point. The code looks horrendous and it has at least 3 bugs in that simple example so you are going to have to make it even more complex. Meanwhile my jquery example simply worked and I'm already on to the next thing.

No, I don't think he is, but I think maybe you don't understand the relation between boiling point and easily achievable temperature. You put water in a pot and apply heat. That heat then makes its way to the water, heating the water. Once the water reaches it's boiling point, it vaporizes, leaving the pot. Once it's outside of the pot, it's EXTREMELY difficult for you to add more heat to it. Thus if your boiling point is X, it's pretty much impossible to get the water to a temperature greater than X under typical circumstances.

Thus, in him asking "Can you get to 208 degrees F at the internal pressure at which the space station is maintained", the implied question is "does the space station have an atmospheric pressure that results in a water boiling point of 208 degrees F or greater?"

I'd guess that most potential employees would not be happy if it were the latter, but if you have a strong preference for that, I'm sure you are still welcome to state your salary demand in the cover letter.

Anyone who thinks cruise control is the solution to prevent speeding in non-highway situations (where the speed limit is 35-45mph, and there are traffic lights every half mile) shouldn't be driving.

According to wikipedia:

So I think that would explain why they want the sample. He says he didn't, she says he did. If they find a match, then that answers the question. Or it least it could rule out his guilt. It can't prove his guilt for the same reason why the pull-out method of contraception doesn't work.

Yep, your mind prefers what you already know and like. Another example...120 hz TV's with the motion smoothing feature. You would think a smoother motion video would be preferred by your mind...after all, it's used to seeing reality most of the time, which has an infinite frame rate (or whatever the biological limits are...close enough to infinite). Yet, a good number of people (myself included) prefer the choppiness of 24Hz or 30Hz video. I don't see anything technically wrong with the higher frame rate playback (it's not blurry, distorted, or anything like that) , but I just don't like the look of it. It just looks too fake.

Yep, same here. We converted our whole house to daylight bulbs. Initially it felt a little weird...when you entered the room, it just seemed strange. After weeks you get accustomed to it, and then it actually starts looking a lot better then the crappy yellow lights.

The weird part about the whole process, though (at least for me), is that you don't just get accustomed to the color of the light...you get accustomed to the color of the light in that particular space. We'd convert one room, and after we adjusted we thought it looked so much better, but then we'd convert the next room and it looked strange at first. Then we'd get adjusted to it, and then the next room we did seemed strange again. Your brain gets used to a certain space looking a certain way and just doesn't like it to change, even for the better.

That's why you don't make them "by hand"...you use the right tool for the right job.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

I own that one, and it's really not all that difficult or time consuming. And that's just a home quality tool. I'd have to imagine a professional chef in a restaurant would have to have an even better tool at his/her disposal.

If you paid $50k for 2 years of community college, then I suspect you failed the math course, so no....you don't get it free.

legislative branch creates the laws, executive branch enforces the laws, but as always there is discretion involved in enforcing the law. It happens every day. Have you ever been (or known anyone who was) pulled over for speeding but then let off with just a warning, or given a ticket for a less severe infraction instead? That's discretion in enforcement.

PLEASE tell me you meant that sarcastically, and that you don't actually think "community organizer" can't get you very far in life. Because if you did mean it seriously, in this context it's just hilarious.