In 1974 kids walked to school in the morning... uphill, in the snow. Then in the evenings they walked home, uphill again, and in the snow again.
How do I know? Because I was one of those kids. So you can take my word as gospel.
The real problem with blankets is how, in the middle of the night, they somehow magically move completely over to the woman's side of the bed without her being responsible for it at all.
It's quite possible; OTOH having drones flying over our nuclear plants isn't something we should feel blase about. Maybe a drone swarm can't do much actual damage to a nuclear plant, but the fact that people are flying drones (deliberately or accidentally) in a restricted area is bad news all by itself; it suggests either complete ignorance of the law, or bad intentions.
While I'd love imaginary propulsion tech to be our saviour here, you know that Hubble exists outside a lab, right?
"Peer Review and Scrutiny: While showcased at venues like the Electrostatics Society of America, APEC, and technical discussions, the claims sit well outside conventional physics consensus, and full peer-reviewed validation is pending"
Yeah, why would you post something as ridiculous at "computer tech put in orbit" on Slashdot? Absurd.
It's not like this is a TECH site anymore. This is a "we fucking hate MUSK" site.
Get with the program.
I was unaware organic molecules had developed protective gear and spaceships. Thanks for the info!
Why not boost the ISS instead of de-orbiting it? Is it because it's just too old to keep safe for human habitation, regardless of what orbit it's in?
It'd be a sneaky way to learn more about their grappler satellite too. https://www.twz.com/44054/a-ch...
Man, now I want to re-watch Outlaw Star...
And (I didn't remember this) the date is very to the point for us as well!
Illegal doesnâ(TM)t mean I donâ(TM)t have the right to record, tho. Government doesnâ(TM)t give rights.
That story was already written 70-odd years ago: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
It seems like any band that ever got out of somebody's garage gets or any professional athlete, however minor, gets a detailed article, while people arguably of greater significance in areas that don't attract as much popular interest do not.
Porn stars. At least back when I quit WP, one of the things that sent me over the top was that every minor porn star (especially female) apparently deserved their own page, while scientists didn't even if they had numerous published articles and citation and done important work - but their field was nothing famous.
Although people who haven't read the instructions tend to misinterpret the term notability, it's used on Wikipedia to refer to the quantity and quality of sources available to write an article.
In theory.
If you follow actual notability discussions, they are largely about "this isn't important".
The deletionists are one of the reasons I stopped contributing to Wikipedia. It's not like you need to fit into a 20-volume print edition, idiots. You can give every damn porn star who's been in one clip you liked their own page, why not everyone else? For all I care, every human on the planet could have their own page, and every house with a story, and every dog and cat.
Just imagine if the amount of time and energy spent on the deletion discussions alone would go into improving WP instead.
Or, you know, you could use the time to do something about the people hogging their favorite page and considering it their property and reverting everyone else's edits just because it wasn't made by them. Or one of the other dozen issues the site has. But no, whether or not Xav deserves a page, that's what needs discussion. Fuck off.
Let me clarify - yes I was attempting to make a very sarcastic joke.
Gosh that takes me back... or is it forward? That's the trouble with time travel, you never can tell." -- Doctor Who, "Androids of Tara"
