I realize it's done much more than it was designed for, and we got more bang for our buck, but when I first read TFS, I thought this:

...meant, "If the rover can travel just 26.2 MORE miles THAN IT ALREADY HAS TRAVELED, then..."

It's been on Mars for over 10 years. It's not a very fast little bugger, is it?

They had their own goals and all that, but my first goal, if I was sending something millions of miles away (I don't know how far it traveled when it went to Mars, but the closest approach between earth and mars has been 34.8 million miles), I'd certainly want the ability to move it more than XXX feet per day. 25 miles is REALLY short compared to it's 35 million+ mile trip to get there!

What's so horrible about The Hobbit?

The book? Nothing. It's a decent story. I like it.

But if you're talking about the movie trilogy then there's a problem. It isn't "The Hobbit". It's a movie that wants to be "tolkienesque" and uses names and scenes that Tolkien had used in his stories. The same as the "I, Robot" movie was with Asimov's stories.

Look at the page count in The Lord of the Rings. Then compare it to the page count in The Hobbit.

Now compare the run time of the movies. Either LoTR got butchered or The Hobbit was puffed up with standard Hollywood hero crap.

I'm skipping it because I do not want ANOTHER generic Hollywood cliche driven green-screen-spectacle-fest.

After the travesty of the first two films, I'm not looking forward to the third movie.

While far from perfect, I felt that Peter Jackson at least made an attempt to stay true to the original story in Lord of the Rings. For the Hobbit he didn't hold anything back as sold out to the suits at Warner Brothers. Both he and the Tolkien family should be ashamed they agreed to this abortion screenplay.

Using a high percentage of your credit limit is definitely a negative.

I haven't heard the one about carrying a balance. I'm suspicious about that line because it is self-serving.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E...

it's a relevant language to the conversation

we can get pedantic about the difference between "coding" and "programming" languages...but others have gone down that road & it's never-ending

we need a consistent paradigm

HTML & CSS are coding languages...they are a defined set of symbols that contain commands run on a computer (specifically by a browser)...yes they are not "original gangster" coding languages that you can brag about..but they are a unique set of code that commands a machine...it's "code"

not all people who use HTML/CSS are "coders"

it's like back before facebook.com came online, one of the only options was Myspace...kids would get into the HTML & CSS via an interface and just randomly change color numbers and hack it up

**that's not coding**

whoever made the CSS for a site like...well facebook.com....is surely a coder

keep your bragging rights, bro...you're more of a 'real' coder...but it's reductive and pedantic to say "CSS is not a programming language"

You suggest that I don't understand how computers work because I call pointers an implementation detail, then you go and cite examples where pointers are supposed to be getting used under the hood, and yet those very examples only illustrate the point that it is an implementation detail, and not actually foundational to programming.

One of the definitive works with which I am familiar on the subject of computer science as it pertains to programming, by Knuth doesn't even dedicate a whole chapter to a concept that you seem to think is so fundamental to knowing how to program. Of course, I know that an argument from authority doesn't make one right.

But then neither does an argument from ignorance.

it's a semantic argument, IMHO...but you totally missed the joke

if the defining criteria is your code language can do something another cannot, then have C++ render a hypertext document with linked photos & text into a browser

still it's *semantics*...it's all machines following code pounded by a monkey

It's not absolutely safe (is anything), but it meets the criterion of being a little safer than password/key alone.

Money is quantifiable,

So is time spent doing what you enjoy. And the only correlation between the two that can be made is by people who can't see past the notion that you need to have a lot of money to be happy.

Plus of course, if you excel at what you enjoy doing, you can probably find people that will pay you for it.

Or the waste disposal from factory output, giga-grams of hazardous waste.

What does 'eco-friendly marketing' mean? That the brochures are printed on recycled paper?

When this factory is pumping out metric tons of batteries that a decade later are metric tons of hazardous waste, is there a plan in place for the batteries disposal?