Possibly, but it's not like it was how they were caught, so does it matter?
From TFA:

I've been on Facebook too long... my first instinct was to hit 'like'.

I didn't even read the title...

This is what I came here to say. even $0.99 would be better than nothing. My bet is most of the 446 people that got it free would have been happy to pay some small sum.

If you're not trying to make a joke, then you're mixing up numbers...

Ignoring the rest of your post - there is no more government cheese... it stopped in the 90's.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_cheese

When under way, I'd have to agree with your doubts. Did a little reading, and from what I can tell maintaining 20 knots (at least for the ships I read about) would get somewhere between 15 and 24 feet per gallon. That said, these carriers don't shut their engines off, and the efficiency is obviously going to drop to zero if they are stationary... http://www.envirosagainstwar.org/know/read.php?itemid=593 http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA231847&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf

Totally agree that some are fake and some are typos, but there is some comedy gold in there, regardless. Check out the 'best-of-dyac' button.

I work for a large (global) web hosting company, and I'd just like to counter the 'low cost of RAM' idea... Yes, most RAM is cheap, but when you start looking at 'large data sets', cheap is a relative term.

For example, the HP DL580 G7 can hold a Terabyte of RAM, but to do so it uses 16GB DIMMs, at $1000 each. http://h30094.www3.hp.com/product/sku/5100299/mfg_partno/500666-B21

When you add that up, it's $64,000 just for RAM in ONE server. And we don't sell it to you, (in fact we only lease it from HP ourselves) we add a ridiculous additional monthly charge to your bill, well above what it costs us. Also keep in mind, anybody spending that kind of money has a multiple times redundant system... So, no, I would not call it 'low cost'.

Fresh install of Win7 yesterday. Chrome (browser) gets 100/100 on Acid3, while IE8 gets 20/100. I'm missing the point I'm sure?

"The problem with America is stupidity. I'm not saying there should be a capital punishment for stupidity, but why don't we just take the safety labels off of everything and let the problem solve itself?"

Well, like I said, places like /. are the only times I hear complaints about them... I don't search for games, so I've never had that particular result. Every time I test google against the competition, I'm happier with google... and that is just the results, the appearance of some of them makes me want to puke. Take Yahoo.com for example - bunch of flashy crap and ads that make me feel like I'm surfing in 1995.

As always YMMV, and I really don't care if the whole world does not see things the same way I do, it'd be pretty boring if they did I guess...

+1. Seriously, I've never even heard ^anyone^ (in person, this excludes places like /.) complain about the quality of results returned by Google (and I live in Silicon Valley, the conversation in the bar turns to tech all the time).

I'm a huge fan, but only because it is the best I've seen. Hell, I used to be a huge fan of hotmail - at one time (way, way long time ago) it was the best free email available...

Pardon me, but I think you are oversimplifying things here by only focusing on one aspect of rocket technology you are familiar with. Don't forget the GP did also say "and travel across the interstellar void" - I think his intention was to imply that the technology involved (as it would have to be) is sufficiently advanced beyond anything we have even come close to employing.

Not to mention the fact that we have quite terrestrial aircraft already that can outsmart and/or maneuver SAMs.

You sir, failed geology 101, I'm guessing.