they're handicapped by a management structure that's too fat and doesn't have an aggressive vision for the future. NASA depends too much on contractors that can't produce anything on budget and there's no penalty for not performing.

NASA is not supposed to have vision - they're a branch of the Executive Department and carry out the policies of the Executive as funded by Congress. Ditto for contractors, NASA has always relied on contractors.
 

If we're going to explore space then we have to face the fact that it's unlikely we're going to get there with NASA as it exists today.

NASA is an engineering and scientific agency (with an overlay of flags-and-footprints) and always has been, not an exploratory agency. They do not exist to feed the wet dreams and masturbation fantasies of the space fanboys.
 

And we have to find a way to fund that exploration so it's more insulated from politics. Otherwise we're stuck on this rock until a giant comet, asteroid or neutron star wanders by or we get fried by our own sun or a gamma ray burst.

Exploration has always been about money, not as in funding, but as in making it by the bucketload. Space exploration pretty much no chance of doing so, and thus is unlikely to ever be funded. (See the above about wet dreams.) As far as using space to avoid some planetary disaster... you're hallucinating. We know so little about what will be required we can barely describe the known unknowns. Even with significant investment, that's unlikely to change for decades, maybe centuries.
 
Seriously, the problem isn't NASA. The problem is clueless space fanboys who have somehow decided the world should provide them with and endless supply of willing supermodels and free supercars - and who blame reality for failing to live up to their fantasies.

The only possible way for someone to think I'm confusing the two is to be even more ignorant and clueless than the poster I was replying to. Not an easy feat, I salute you!

I love it. Very easy to route cables, great cooling, and it is shorter than a normal case (wider, but shorter). It is a great, great choice in my opinion.

It's nonsense because most users, when they think about how a web app responds to an event, they're thinking of their "clicks" (or touches) rather than changing viewports. Changing viewports is a rare event (and therefore relatively unimportant) compared to pretty much anything else.

Saying a page is "responsive" when someone tilts their tablet, is like saying a car has "great handling" because the door handles feel nice whenever you stroke them. It's not that either is a bad thing; they're simply labeled stupidly and also imply things which might be false. And for whatever reason, some people resent terminology that is simultaneously stupid and deceitful. (Weirdos!)

I'm having a hard time understanding comparisons to web servers and a trams. Could you use a car analogy instead?

A year or so ago an article on this very thing was discussed here on /. -- the upshot was that when you watch how kids behave, girls pack up as a dominant female, her immediate crony, and a bunch of hangers-on who are treated as underlings, while boys pack up as an amorphous group where all are more or less equal in status, despite one perhaps being the leader.

BTW it's pretty much the same with dogs, if you have enough to observe pack behavior.

And imagine the users setting drinks on top of it! At least with a box, if you knock your drink over, it's on the floor. HERE.... it can drain your entire soda into the mobo ports (back) or fan intake. (front) I think that will be the biggest problem this case has, getting users out of the habbit of setting things on top of their case.

What kind of moron gets in the habit of putting liquids on top of their case in the first place?

Right now Walmart has 16GB Sandisk flash drives for $9 (look in the School Supplies section, same damn thing as in Electronics but in a garish case for half the money). Last year they had 64GB Sandisk flash drives for $8. Costco has 64GB drives right now for $24. This sort of pricing is tempting me away from DVDs as my backup medium, because flash is more reliable in long-term storage and takes up a lot less space. Yeah, DVDs are cheaper and faster to make, but reliability in storage isn't the best.

If you want to buy in real quantity, go to alibaba.com and you'll see what they really cost at wholesale.

As to old tech, I still have a machine with a 5" floppy and a QIC-80 tape drive. It often goes years unused, but when I need it, I'm glad to have it.

Not only that, but modern Americans don't generally live in flea-infested houses anymore. Bubonic plague is endemic in the squirrel population in Los Angeles, yet everyone who goes to a park doesn't come down with it. We just don't have enough exposure to fleabites.

*sigh* Not only are you ignorant, you seem doggedly determined to remain that way.
 

So those documents are based on first hand knowledge and tested results and people who read them are likely to succeed at building the bombs, right?

Those documents are on science, physics, chemistry, and engineering. They aren't bomb making instructions, they're the science behind the instructions - and thus it doesn't matter what the bomb making experience of the writers are. It's a critical difference and one you seem determined to remain blind to.
 

Because my point is that there's a ton of "howto" stuff out there

There's also a ton of solid science out there - and so long as you insist on not even trying to grasp the difference between actual science and handwaving how-to's you haven't the requisite intellectual equipment to have a point. You're just a parrot repeating phrases you have no grasp of the meaning of.

This allow to change the img source according to media queries, which is not possible using CSS and/or the img tag.

Yes. Whenever people talk about "games" you know that's really just a secret code word for Dwarf Fortress.

Yup. I own a powerful desktop, an iPhone, and a low end tablet... but when I start a project of any significance, the first thing I reach for is my trusty steno pad. (A habit learned at my mother's knee forty years ago.)

I can do a write up for how to build a nuclear bomb for my terrorist brothers based on my rudimentary undergraduate physics education, but there's no way in hell those instructions would actually produce anything useful.

Just because you're ignorant - that doesn't mean everyone else is. There's a lot of stuff openly available for the use of those that aren't [ignorant].

In computer technology, there is ALWAYS something new next year. Yes, there'll be a 14nm shrink next year (or maybe later this year)... but then just a year away will be a technology update, a new core design that is more capable, and of course they'll have more experience on the 14nm process and it'll be better... however only like a year after that 10nm will be online and that'll be more efficient.

And so on and so forth.

With computers, you buy what you need when you need it. Playing the "Oh something better is coming," game is stupid because it is always happening, generally very quickly.

So if you want a 6 or 8 core system, this is what to buy (it's cheaper than their Xeon setups). Will there be a better ones later? For sure. However sitting in neutral waiting for "the next big thing" is silly. Get a system, keep it as long as it is useful, get a new one when you need a new one.

Also hating on this for being enthusiast is silly. Ya it is expensive. So don't get it if you don't need it. However for what it does, it isn't bad. Maybe you need that kind of power. Maybe you need more. Not long ago we had a faculty member purchase workstation with 2x 12 core CPUs. These things cost about $2600 PER CPU, never mind the other hardware to support it. System was over $10,000. However, for the simulations he was doing, it was worth it. I'd never buy that for home, my workloads are much lighter, but I'm not going to hate on him needing it.

Same shit here. Do most users need this? No. Heck most users don't need a quad core. But there are uses for it.