And it also mean every step in the chain need 50 available as well.
On plus plus side, you have invented a way to post to the future.:)
sorry, 1.5/.75 just reminded of 1997. I we were glad to have it!
so how would "loaning" a digital copy multiple times be treated?
at the same time? illegal distribution.
If it can't be stolen, it can't be lent.
check a couple forums
look at ebay for junk
updates to software/OS
Nossir, I don't need it.
And please don't ASSume that we live in some sort of binary world where criticizing Obama means I think Bush 2 was any less of a piece of crap. However, I don't recall Bush 2's election(s) being accompanied with the sort of priapic panegyrics about how "everything was going to be different" and the administration was going to be "lobbyist-free", either.
Is quitting something you do whenever things get tough? hard project? quit. Takes effort to change? quit! Painting the house is hard? Quit and sell the house!
Maybe it you generation of whiners and quitters that's the problem?
You nee to compare that to the cost of research and discovery. You would need to send 100s of robots to even come close to what 1 human could do in a day.
Frankly, it s a silly argument. It's not Human v Robots. It's humans and robots.
TI's funny when someone uses an irrational and flawed argument but has Sagan and randi.org in their sig.
are you high? try 55+ million per launch.
not no it's dangerously hot. as in put you in the hospital for a week hot.
Seriously if you order a coffee would it be a reason expectation that it would be so hot that if yo dropped it in your lap you would be in the hospital for a week(may have been 10 days)
Ironically, you posting that is more of an example of what you are trying to show.
Nerd smack down!
We have laser guns, but more importantly they didn't use LASER guns in Star Wars.
I sit next to a person who LITERALLY has a droid in his pocket that can act as a translator.
I have one, but it's nexus and not a droid. So it would only figuratively be one.
All out nuclear war will kill everyone on the planet. The math is pretty simple.
ALso, there would eb a lot of glowing embers for a while; which is what the poster was eluding to.
"Hiroshima took a direct hit by a nuclear weapon."
no. atomic weapon, not nuclear.
"How long did it take before it was perfectly save to live in Hiroshima after the nuke hit?Answer: a couple of months. "
years before it was safe, not months. Of course, you are comparing a tiny air burst atomic weapon to modern nuclear weapons. Amateur mistake.
Will we literally destroy the earth? as in a hunk of rock floating around a star? no, not literally. Can we figuratively destroy the earth? yes.
Run away greenhouse can kill everything on this planet eventually. I'd call that destroyed earth. Just like if you took a Lego building and destroyed it. sure, you still have all the pieces, but it sure as hell isn't the building you had made.
The bandwidth was apparently pretty good but grandpa says the latency sucked.
Absolutely we know that.
There was no driving factor for private interest.
NASA never lost it's way. NASA lost it's budget. IN spite of budget reductions, NASA has done amazing things, just without humans sitting in a flight deck.
"-NASA is a Government agency,"
ug, that bogey man.
While pork is an issue, the biggest reason is the NASA does a shit done more stuff.
NASA is not bloated. Most government agencies are not bloated.
Disagree? site some actuals, budgetary, and long term reports and studies, then we can talk.
What's that? you haven't read any and done comparative analysis? well I have.
so STFU until you educate yourself.
Because NASA did all the heavy lifting.
SpaceX build on what NASA did.
SpaceX does 1 thing.
SpaceX still doesn't have a viable way to make a profit.
SpaceX is still at least a decade from getting someone to ISS.
It's like asking why Ford doesn't have the same operating costs as a mechanic shop.