In fact, why hasn't anybody already implemented a system like this?

You ignored google's options for this. If you have a google account, you can configure your preferences so that ads are better targetted.

I present to you, exhibit A: Google Ad Preferences

Mod parent and grandparent down. They have no understanding of life behind Websense or similar filters that receive automatic updates. They block anything easily found on Google and you'd be wasting your time. That is the core of the Websense business model - find and block content quickly and efficiently - and this is the exact circumvention focus of users on Tor, Haselton-proxies-r-us, etc.

robots.txt - well behaved robot spiders like Google's adhere to it. If configured properly, this would keep Google from indexing the site.

I don't have to RTFA to be able to judge from the summary that the study's questions were leading. If the questions were asked the right way, I'm sure people would respond that they'd prefer to see ads that are relevant as opposed to punch the monkey and black market viagra ads. From the summary, it sounds like all the study really says is that people don't want more advertising.

What you said actually makes sense upon further thought. I wouldn't call myself certain in either line of thought currently.

My original thought was that after going through an area of increased gravitational pull, then hitting an area of lower gravitational pull, the satellite's trajectory would be altered in such a way over time that it could break free from the gravitational effect of the moon if it hits a lower gravitational field at a necessary point within its altered orbital path.

Now what I'm curious about is if we'd know if the satellite impacted the moon. With the minimal moon atmosphere, I'd expect the satellite to create a pretty good impact/crater when it crashes down. With other satellites orbiting and creating imagery of the moon's surface, would we know if it crashed down, or even where it would have impacted?

If not actively corrected for, these mass concentrations will make a satellite's orbit go through increasingly violent gyrations until it eventually intersects with the surface.

While that sounds pretty good, I'm fairly certain from a logical standpoint the odds of impacting the moon are as good or worse than the odds of leaving orbit and flying out into space. (Especially with the low gravity levels of the moon.)

Even worse news for Microsoft is that only 3.8% said they would buy another Xbox (due to failures) and the survey found they had rather shoddy customer service."

EldavoJohn - the summary Slashdot posted here states 4% wouldn't buy a new Xbox due to failure rates.

Your summary states that only 4% would buy a new Xbox due to the failure rates

I think the posted summary is correct. What gives?

There are a variety of kernel issues (think wireless drivers and other hardware support) that have a major impact on the userland experience. I'm not about to say where Canonical should invest their time -- there are more than enough issues to go around, and it isn't shameful for them to concentrate elsewhere as the GP implied -- but what happens with kernel development certainly impacts the Ubuntu userland.

While your premise is true, the implication that Canonical should contribute in a greater way towards direct kernel development is misplaced.

In classic Slashdot fashion, I present a car analogy:

Goodyear has built a company out of making tires. While the quality of the roads those tires run on effect the performance of their tires, contributing directly to the development of improved road surfaces is outside of Goodyear's core competencies. A tire company should focus on making better tires.

In a similar vein, Canonical is doing the right thing by focusing on their core competency - improving the userland experience. They should continue with that focus where they've already established competency.

I'd also suggest that Canonical is contributing greatly to kernel development thru secondary channels - broadening the desktop-centric Linux userbase. With a more broad userbase, everything get tested and improved at a faster pace. Canonical is doing this for the desktop where Linux has normally struggled in comparison to server deployments.

A culture that shuns subject matter experts and at the same time pretends to inform me about said subjects may be entertaining, but never trustworthy.

This implies wikipedia shuns subject matter experts. This is a popularly circulated stance which has no grounding in fact. They happily accept material from subject matter experts, they just require that the subject matter experts reference their published material which shows them as subject matter experts.

If someone speaks as an authority on a topic in wikipedia, I should be able to refer to the sources they cite in order to determine how much weight I place in the statements I read. I do not want to go to Wikipedia and read un-cited "expert testimony" from the internet. It is both reasonable and wise to expect that any subject matter expert should be able to provide reference of published work.

They've already done this for air travel. Unfortunately it's called "luggage". I don't think their plan was thought out very well.

Lol! Well played!

This assumes a sufficiently advanced civilization could survive itself for a sufficient span. Taking the only advanced civilizations we know into account - the human race - I don't see how its realistic to expect survival into the "millions of years" range.

I'd put forth that any civilization advanced enough to develop such technological advances, would kill itself long before such technology develops. Our current modus operandi is not sustainable millions of years out, and using the human race as a basis, I think it laughable to consider the possibility of survival for millions of years. The oldest human remains are what, about 160,000 years old? Might we be getting ahead of ourselves speaking about intelligent life colonizing the galaxy?

Crocodiles on the other hand - those bastards are believed to be around 200 million years old. They've exhibited a much better understanding for what it takes to survive long term (of course we're doing a pretty good job of killing them too - you can say people are bad at somethings, but everyone has to admit we're really good at killing other stuff). If crocs could somehow work space travel into their lifestyle, this could lead to something...