There is in fact a real "timothy", if you go to the video section (or just take my word for it) is in some of them doing interviews.

Upon further looking, the part of the Falcon9 that came back didn't make it into orbit, either. But delivering a payload of 10 satellites into orbit and making it back in one piece is still astounding for one rocket to do. Splitting hairs at this point...

Okay, "recovered" (ejected then deployed parachutes, to be picked up in the ocean by a crew later), but didn't make it up into orbit. Making it into orbit is the key for what makes this rocket different than anything in the past.

No, both of those are re-entry vehicles that used first stage and second stage rockets to get into space (which they later ditched). This was a first stage rocket returning to Earth by itself after delivering its payload. Massive difference. This is unprecedented.
If you can't wrap your head around that...I don't even know how to explain it down to your level.

Yes, and if you read about that, you'd see some of Blue Origin's personnel came from that project. So Bezos only just did the same thing his people were capable of 20 years ago.

Musk's SpaceX just put a rocket into orbit, delivered a payload, and brought it back down safely. That's never been done before. That's an order of magnitude more difficult than what we've been discussing. This is the biggest advancement in space flight since the first shuttle landed.

Actually SpaceX's Grasshopper accomplished what Blue Origin only just did back in 2013. Try again.

I wonder how much of this was due to learning from the past misses and updating to version 1.1, and how much was from deciding to land on the ground and not on a barge at sea. Hell, learning from past misses and deciding not to land on a barge might be the same thing.

Right, so because everyone who buys or sells drugs is an enemy, and every citizen has the potential to buy/sell drugs, then we should spy on all citizens. It's basic logic, citizen, the NSA, FBI, DEA, and ATF are all spying on you, because that's what a responsible government does to protect itself from its enemies. You do like having a government, don't you, citizen? Citizen...?

You should probably read this article, from America's Finest News Source. It explains everything.

From your link:

How does that refute GP or even show anything of substantial value to the debate of whether or not there's scientific evidence for a creator? Go ahead, twist the findings of that study to say what you want them to. Do it for all to see.

Ahh, they've taken his complaint to heart, and now moved the second link to the words "Android 6.0". Was "need to have full-disk encryption enabled" before.

True, the second link that you call out doesn't mention encryption at all. It's another story about the technical details (specifically app permissions and how that might influence the security of the new OS) of Android 6.0, but not entirely relevant to the encryption issue brought up in TFS. It belongs up there, just maybe should have gotten its own sentence introducing it. But, that might be being a little nitpicky for a site that runs on user-generated summaries for the articles it posts.

Seriously, this is done all the time, especially by energy/oil corporations. Exxon has one similar right now: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrH19H-J4pU. What's the point? That both Apple and Microsoft used tired advertising techniques? Oh! But M$FT used them last, when they were more tired!

If we're just talking shipping from a Chinese port to a U.S. port, sure. That will take less energy per pound than 100 miles in a truck. What I (mis?)understood was the claim that shipping a product from just within a state or county would still be less efficient than ordering the product all the way from China. That's clearly not the case as when the product arrives in the U.S. it would have to undergo those inefficient miles in a truck (unless you lived in a port city), possibly across multiple state lines. So, I don't see why DamonHD's comment is deemed so Insightful when replying to fustakrakich's point that local is less miles.

Sorry, sir but I'm gonna have to issue you a [citation needed].