The one with Pauly Shore was not bad. Also the one with Lucy Liu was pretty funny. But maybe it is just me, I must admit I have robot fever.

You know I have been considering a business idea of making something that would respond to this query.

It would be a box (similar to a an eggshell tower box, I suppose) with a bunch of drives in a RAID configuration, with an GBit Ethernet or SCSI (if short distance) connection to a PC. It would have an affordable CPU and open source OS.

So basically it is an off the shelf plug-in mass storage solution. You can just plug it into your PC and then mount it as an external drive. And then you have your multiple TB redundant storage, right under your desk.

Something like this is being sold to enterprises for 10s of thousands of dollars, but if I can get one done for the consumer lever that is $500-1000 (based on the number and type of hard drives in it), do you think it will work? Would you buy something like this?

When will we grow beyond these terrible false negative stereotypes of the fine ancient tradition tentacle porn?

In the more refined examples of tentacle art (as this is its proper name), the school girls are graduate school girls and the tentacle monsters take the girls to dinner and drinks and spend many hours making clever observational comments in trendy downtown winebars before they even brave to invite them to their lair. And even then they fumble nervously around with their tentacles for at least an hour before the exasperated girl finally says that she is really tired from writing her thesis and if she could be brutally violated simultaneously in all possible ways with enormous tentacles, that would really be a change of pace.

Why would you think that? The distance between the moon and LEO is absolutely nothing on the astrological scale. And the moon has some atmosphere that will affect the telescope. Also the Moon's gravity will make building the telescope more difficult.

So a giant telescope in low earth orbit would be better than a giant telescope on the moon and much cheaper too.

Dude you do not know what you are talking about.

The moon is not a stepping stone, it is a hole. More specifically, it is a gravity hole that will require more fuel to get out of. It would be much easier to completely bypass the moon.

If one could make fuel on the moon, then it would be a good idea to build a base over there and use it as a stepping stone. But although this has been researched to death, nobody has figured out a practical way to make fuel on the moon. So as things stand currently, there is nothing on the moon that is at all useful for a Mars mission.

So the logical thing is to go straight to mars. Or if assembly is required, to assemble everything in earth orbit and go straight to mars.

You should read some Wikipedia articles on uncertainty and how to take account of uncertainty when doing arithmetic.

To summarize it, you do math with numbers with high uncertainty which means your results will have even higher uncertainty, which means that the Ubuntu estimates are probably much more realistic than your results.

Well, I dual boot too but I think I am bringing up the Windows stats.

I log into windows maybe two to five times a year (usually accompanied by a lot of loud cursing).

But of course I paid for my copy of windows so MS counts me as a loyal customer.

Anyways, my point is that that dual booting argument can go both ways.

I see your point that this does not seem like the ordinary concept of targeting. But in pharmacology that is exactly what targeting is.

He may have been self declared legend, but he was declared a legend by many other people as well.

You don't use IE actively??? Do you ever browse for files? You are using IE.

Actually you need learn some reading comprehension. And you need to be careful about calling people much smarter than you "idiot", because that only makes you look like an idiot.

So here is a quick lesson in advanced reading comprehension. It will probably be way over your head, but hey lets give it a try.

Human language is usually structured as to convey information efficiently. Thus, proper use of language usually avoids providing redundant information. Thus, if a properly formed sentence has multiple meanings and one of them would result in it having redundant information, and one would result in it not having redundant information, then the meaning without redundant information is usually correct. If the OP meant that he had a single degree from MIT, Harvard and Oxford each, then the word "multiple" would be completely redundant. Therefore that interpretation is incorrect. The correct interpretation is that he had multiple degrees from each school.

Of course he could have worded the sentence incorrectly, but he would not have done that if he had any degree from Oxford. They are very pedantic about their English there.

ROFL multiple degrees from MIT Harvard and Oxford, really. Not one from each place but multiple.

I think you should reconsider the value of a good education. For example, if you had a good education, even at a half decent state school, you would know how to lie more convincingly.

There are no melt down proof reactors, although there are a lot of people that say certain designs they have are meltdown proof. That of course all depends on a bunch of convenient but untrue assumptions they make.

The only reactor concept that can be called melt down proof is fusion. Most environmentalists do not oppose fusion experiments, but we have not gotten fusion to work yet.

How did you figure out it is not hazardous at all? Last time it was tested it was at less than threshold levels, but the concentration is increasing, nobody knows where the leak is and if radioactive materials are notoriously corrosive so a small leak that is not addressed can easily become a much bigger leak.

None of the articles linked used the word crumbling. They mentioned that the reactors were old (which they are) and leaking (which they also are).

And I do not know what is all that evil anti-radiation spin that you complain about. Is it that little fact that radiation causes cancer? Because that is true you know.

No it is not the greenpeace "sight" it is not even the greenpeace site. It is the website of a Vermont newspaper that is local to the situation. How does that sound? Can you use that information to hurl a random ill-informed insult?