Considering the junk the British Military are still using, the old junk they're selling to you must be bad! You probably want to look for holes filled in with newspaper and Polyfiller.
That doesn't make sense given that Facebook Home is a purely Android thing.
Yep, you got the Abbot and Costello reference.
The reference for the Profit! meme though is South Park. That's where Slashdotters got it from.
You may work with light for a living, but your English comprehension is shit. No one here is wrong, and yet you are trying to correct them.
And by emitted, we're talking about from the earth.
Of course we are you idiot. Which is not the same as "that hit's it" in the post you replied to. You look really stupid trying to patronise people when you don't understand the posts you are replying to. Is English not your first language?
They still are the reasons. It's information that's been brought up in current affairs programmes here over the years. I'm certainly not going to spend 20 minutes digging on the internet for the sake of convincing you. You're not worth that to me.
Agreed. However, going with the example, I'd just require a flying car test and license for any user that gets one.
I wouldn't allow flying cars until the technology was up to self-driving. People often have accidents whilst driving ordinary cars. With flying cars the possibilities for having them are greater, because of the extra dimension to keep track of. And the consequences of having them are far more serious, for them, the other flying car, and for the people below them on the ground.
Whilst I'm not saying that I have complete trust in a theoretical future self-driving system, I have far more trust than I do in the ability of ordinary people to manage it.
Note for those thinking ordinary people already fly planes: That's true, but only because the volume is low. Anything within 3 nautical miles, at the same altitude is classed as a near miss for current planes. Flying cars would be a whole different kettle of fish.
But all this is irrelevant to the TFS question, which is unanswerable without a better analogy.
It's absolutely far too ambiguous. If he has to do it by analogy because of NDA concerns he could have at least done it with an imaginary software feature that we could consider properly. But to compare it with the existence of a physical machine. Pointless.
I've unliked plenty of things. It never occurred to me that it was anything other than obvious.
For post or a comment, the "Like" text turns to "Unlike". A simple toggle for something that doesn't matter.
For a page like, The "Like" button turns to "Liked" with a checkmark. Hover or click that and "Unlike" is on the drop down-menu. Unliking a page is a rarer and bigger significance of event than a comment like, so it's good design to make it so that it can't be done with a single click.
There's lots of things to complain about in the Facebook UI, but I don't see this as one of them.
I don't like Google. I can't remember the last time they made a move I liked. But this one is good.
I suspect they do have a profit motive though. We just don't know what it is yet.
I suspect the stuff they make has a certain longevity about it.
Tell that to Google Reader users. And Google Code downloaders. And users of all the other projects they scrapped in the last few months.
Faking a video by photoshopping it together from other video sources would indeed be rather hard to do convincingly.
The technology is way beyond the need to fake video frame by frame with photoshop. Apps like Apple Motion are available for $50!
Wait a minute... what? The fairies aren't real? Are you sure? Conan Doyle was pretty convinced. And he had Sherlock Holmes to consult with.
" A retroreflector reflects light right back at where it came from no matter what angle it hits it at."
Wrong. Out of 10^17 photons emitted, only one will make it back to the original source.
How is that wrong? He said "that hits it", you are talking about "emitted". For sure when you aim a laser at the moon, one a proportion of the photons will hit it. Because unlike popular opinion lasers do produce light that diverges. And of course some will be deflected or stopped by matter in the earths atmosphere.
Likewise, not all the photons that are reflected will get back to the telescope, for the same reasons.
None of which contradicts the statement that retroreflectors reflect light right back at where it came from. They do.
The second retroreflector installed had to be hand-aimed.
The whole point of a retroreflector is that it bounces light back to it's source from whatever angle it comes. OK, not from behind, but over near to 180 degrees.
But leaving that aside, what would be the point of "hand-aiming" one, given that the moon and the earth are constantly in motion with respect to each other? It would only be aimed at something for the moment it was aimed.
If you're saying it was aimed at somewhere on the moon itself, then it still provides no evidence that man was ever on the moon, as we can't test it from here.
Looking forward to your more detailed explanation of what you are referring to.