That's how a properly executed paragliding flare looks like, I'm afraid. Paragliding is like flying, and certification exams use a lot of terms that would apply in flying a sailplane or a helicopter, although the distances and altitudes involved are of course scaled differently.

For any given car, under certain conditions (pavement type, presence of water on the pavement, head and sidewind speed, fuel octane rating, intake air temperature), there's one speed that gives you maximum gas mileage. This speed is not infinitesimally close to 0 mph. On a clear Californian day with little wind and about 75F IAT, such speed is roughly 48mph on my car. Go any slower, and you are in fact wasting fuel. It's especially bad under 30mph. So, on my car if you were to accelerate to 56mph over 10 miles you'd burn more fuel than simply accelerating to 56mph and covering those 10 miles at 56mph. So, um, you're the idiot.

Oh, so insurance companies short petroleum stocks? Well, thanks for the inside info, then.

On older laptops - those that reasonably work well only with XP, I not only install Chrome as the best performing browser, but I also advise people to use it to view PDFs. Note that viewing a PDFs is very different than filling it out etc. A viewer needs to be simple and well performing, and in my experience, even on 10+ year old hardware, Chrome shines there. So, for one, I do welcome this change.

What the fuck is wrong with rapid acceleration?! People repeat this stupid mantra over and over like it was a law of nature or something.

I think I can't but agree :(

Supposedly she posted verbatim emails. Even without headers, it's not that hard for kleargear to paste a couple lines into their email search box and find exactly who the complainer was...

Good for you to have enough savings to buy a house, or even a car.

Yep. So you have some lunar dust on a spacesuit glove, and then you attempt to wipe any transparent surface. Poof, your transparent surface is now a milky surface that you can't see through. That stuff is nasty and will eat through elastomeric seals on, say, rotating shafts, like there was no tomorrow. Lunar dust is the mother of all dusts. It is the reason anyone with any brains should be shorting any lunar colonization/hotel stocks if such become publicly traded. It'll be a sure bet for at least the first decade of permanent Moon inhabitation, if any company can survive that long, that is.

LOLWUT? Any collection effort is an instant drop from say 800 to 750. If it drags on, you'll easily go below 700. For much less than $3500.

Reminds me of the Oops RadioLab episode where they talk with a guy that killed the oldest thus-far-known tree on Earth (4000+ years old, and yes, that's thousands).

So, you agree with my conclusion, then - I mean, the only nitpick you have is a typo. Um, thanks?

Just read The Apollo Experience Lessons Learned for Constellation Lunar Dust Management. Summary: Moon is a rather impractical place to be, unless: you have a way of washing everything on your way in and all of the exterior equipment is designed to be dust tight in vacuum environment (a nigh impossible feat). The dust will grind everything to a halt. It's that bad. And you better not got any into the shuttles subject to microgravity - both the people and the equipment will be in bad shape after a trip.

At least in the U.S., the case law disagrees with you.

Move it fucking *where*, pretty please? Once you do the engineering on it, you realize there's nowhere else for it to go. Now shut up, mmkay?