This is the truth. There's lots of things I would happily pay for, if it weren't for the fact that they're tied to some horrendous system.

1) Stop spending money on server based DRM. Stop spending money on anti piracy advocates. Stop spending money on prosecuting pirates.

Now you product is more affordable.

2) Cut that price in half. (Publishers with games on Steam know all about the impact of this. You can get a lot of impulse buys like this.)

You might end up with the same amount of profits in the end with the money saved and increased sales.

Look at sites like emusic. I have spent more money there in a matter of months than I have in 30 years of my life.

I feel ya brother. I use a XPS model P09E at work with a 17" screen and it has a full size numpad, which was one of the reasons I got this laptop.

The only downside is it is missing the "proper" arrangement of the Ins/Home/PgUp/Del... etc. the 6 navigation keys. I use these a whole lot and the fact that most laptop keyboards have them spread all over the place drives me nuts.

Good luck.

What are they referring to here? This seems like a quote pulled out of context and now it makes no sense.

"It's only 40 lines, but every line carried some careful thought. "

No I haven't missed out on 30 years of history. You have intentionally misread what I'm saying just to grasp an opportunity to be a dick to someone you don't know on the internet. WTF is with people and their incapability to have a civilized discussion without insulting people? WTF is wrong with you that you have such a insecurity complex that you have to come here and troll people? If you had 1st grade reading comprehension skills, then you would see that I acknowledged in the first words of my post that "McCain might be right". I'm only citing a previous example of similar shortsightedness as a caution. McCain's statement is narrowly based on current enemy's capabilities, which is not something that will remain static. Who our enemies are and what their capabilities are can both change. I'm not arguing for or against the F-22. I would be all for well thought out elimination of excessive military expenditures. I simply think trying to justify eliminating it based on the fact that right at this moment we are fighting enemies where it isn't needed, is pretty short sighted. There are potential enemies out there with much more advanced air capabilities than what we are currently fighting, and if someone like McCain was going to make a case against developing fighter craft then the future scenarios involving those enemies should be considered. Along the lines of what McCain is saying, based on our current enemies, there probably isn't a great need to build a bunch of any advanced fighter, rather simply refine/test for now, and should an enemy come to light where they are needed, then ramp up production. I am less receptive to an argument that seems to say they are not and never will be needed.

I am in favor of careful reduction in military expenditures (and for those "OMG you want to rob the men who defend our country" hyper-patriots... no, that's not what I want. There's a huge amount of spending that could be reduced and instead flow into pathways that would produce jobs so that when soldiers finish their duty with the military, they can come home and be able to find a job instead of facing high unemployment rates. The hyper-patriots can't be bothered to think that far ahead about the well being of soldiers. The same way the hyper-patriots accused those who were opposed to the Iraq war as being anti-American soldier-haters, and the hyper-patriots were the ones who were ready to rush those soldiers off into harms way and then did an about face and said we needed to bring them home when they realized the consequences of war and the fact that Iraq was not the source of terrorist attacks on America. All they really wanted, which many of them stated openly without shame, is that we needed to go over there and indiscriminately kill 3,000 Muslims.).

As far as decades of supremacy, I don't think citing military expenditures is a legitimate measure of supremacy anyhow, as it is probably a diminishing return. I would bet that the relationship between $ expended and effective military capability is logarithmic. By that same logarithmic relationship, probably a large amount of our expenditures could be eliminated without significantly reducing our military power. I've worked for contractors, where at the end of the year they are basically scrambling to come up with proposals of how to burn up the money that commanders have left to spend, because they want to ensure that there budgets are not reduced based on the previous year's reduced spending.

Was writing this post that much easier then trying to use Google? Fucking troll.

Regardless of what the Mustangs intended role was, they did have to engage in dogfights with the MiG. The only advantage the Mustang had was a sharper turning, which was used to turn into the MiG for head on passes.

McCain might be right, but his statement sounds frighteningly a lot like when they believed in wars after WW2 that dogfighting aircraft were no longer needed, and then had to make an about-face when the MiG fighters had no American competition in Korea. For a short time in Korea, we had WW2 propeller driven Mustangs fighting against MiG jets. There were even some pilots from WW2 flying, and supposedly helped advise the design of modern jet fighters and dogfighting techniques to counter the MiG.

I wouldn't necessarily require that you be able to refurbish for less than it'd cost to build+launch new.

Instead, you should set the bar at "less than it would cost to (build+launch a new satellite)+(cost to remove debris used in refurbishing)".

If it costs $4 mil. for a new satellite, and $2 mil. to cleanup one satellite's worth of debris, but you can instead have a solution that uses that debris to create a satellite in orbit at a cost of $5 mil. then you've saved $1 mil. even though you did it at a costs greater than building a new satellite.

If you consistently poison it so that it never has leaves, then it will die, and if it dies, it will come down. The fun part is guessing when and in which direction.

IDK if you are serious and stupid or just joking? Chopping a tree down is usually fatal... the poison is redundant. Maybe a few sprouts may come back, but are easily handled with hand clippers.