Oh come on, every knows Orcs an global warming denialists don't read!

Well, then it's an even *more* pointless comment since you are comparing two completely unrelated things.

And, 1995, when you were what, about 4? :) Ruby didn't even hit 1.0 until almost 1997, and until about 2005 (when Rails was released) almost no one had even heard of it anyway (at which point is still sucked ass in terms of performance and memory usage).

And no need for misconceptions about Ruby - I have seen a minimally interesting (but clearly poorly designed) Rails app use several GB of RAM just because the garbage collector is so bad (if you have to insert manual calls to the GC in a scripting language, it's NOT GOOD AT MEMORY MANAGEMENT).

Wait, you do realize "websites" don't run on your PC, they are just HTML and Javascript loaded into a web browser written in wait for it C++!

Then again, your login is "rubycodez". There are few languages I have seen that are worse for memory usage than Ruby. Combine that with Rails and it's legendarily bad.

Did you even read the link you posted? The BLS specifically states that their index most useful for inflation does include them...

"Again, while we publish many indexes, our broadest measure of inflation includes all items consumers purchase, including food and energy."

Also incorrect. CPI != inflation. CPI is a statistic, inflation is an economic concept. Useful for estimating inflation but not the same thing. And again this is fully explained in the link you provided!

No, no, it's not. The most bloated crap on the planet can be seen every day on many of your favorite web sites.

Why do in 20,000 lines of C++ linked efficiently into a binary and shared libraries what you can do in 50,000+ lines of Javascript, most of which are included without any knowledge of what's in them and that just bloat your browser without actually being executed.

Not that Microsoft should be absolved of blame there. WinJS is an abomination.

Or someone actually comes up with something *new* in computing and changes the game again. For example, quantum computing has seemed like a bit of a pipe dream so far, but a major breakthrough there would kickstart a whole new era of development.

Or maybe it will come from another direction - if we can only improve 2 of (speed, power consumption, cost), what if someone came up with an exponentially improved battery technology? And/or drastically reduced the power consumption for the same cost? Those could easily result in some very interesting new technologies spurring new industries we haven't even thought of yet.

...for about five desktop computers.

Hey, wise men have said dumber things...

Just because the increase in transistor count slows down, that doesn't mean *inflation* will increase. It just means technological gains will be slower. You think somehow the average computer is just going to jump to $10,000 because Intel just needs to charge $8000 for some absurd chip no one wants? If that were true the Itaniam would have been popular.

Or to use the usual "car analogy" ;) - cars just haven't changed that drastically year over year for many decades - they have had slow, incremental improvements while still keeping them affordable to the masses, and have not in themselves had a major impact on "inflation" (gasoline, on the other hand. . .) Sure, you can go buy a Tesla if you want, but that doesn't change the INFLATION RATE, it's a different product!

You're both wrong, of course. The last controlled US lunar landing was in December, 1974 by the Apollo 18 module. It just never returned.

this would be testing a lander and a number of other systems.

And China would be right to do it.
Do note that America sent humans to the moon 3 years after the stage that China is in today. And China does not have original work. They are simply copying others, which makes it MUCH faster and easier to get there.

wrong. They have LM5 (25 tonnes to LEO) coming in 2014, and they have already started work on a 100+ tonne to LEO LV.

note that next year, they will have the LM5, which will do 25 tonnes to LEO. SatV was 120 tonnes, so only 5x.
However, at the same time that LM5 comes, SpaceX will launch FH which will do 53 tonnes to LEO. Throw in a raptor engine as a tug, hooked to a BA-330, and we can send 5-7 ppl to the moon easily. And this is doable by 2020. All that is needed are crafts that can land on the moon and take off again. Thankfully, NASA and others (including SpaceX) are working on this.

and the republicans for the last 40+ years have spoken of balancing the budget, while running up massive deficits under ever republican president for just about every year (save the last year of Poppa Bush), while both dem presidents dropped the deficit each of their years.

This is why historians look at their actions and not their words. That is also why historians and MOST political scientists regard NAZI's as far right, and only in a few obscure American republican political scientists do they say otherwise.

W's policy was a direct extension of reagan's since he was a "neo-con" like him. There was NOTHING liberal about either of these two. You neo-cons hated W because he was not able to BS as well as reagan even though both were just about as destructive to America and the world. Both of these 2 had more in common with hoover, harding and coolidge. And BTW, when Harding finished office, he was considered a decent president, until great depression started and then ppl realized that their policies were total disasters. Coolidge is regarded as worse for having continued the hoover/harding policies. reagan and W are of the same ilk. W is considered bad, but in about another 20 years, reagan will be considered similar to W.
OTOH, POPPA Bush was a real republican in the same vein as Lincoln, Teddy, and somewhat eisenhower.