Sayonara

Not tried it yet because restarting FF is not convenient at the minute. I'll let you know!

Afaik it still does.

Yes, it is. Well most of it is. Those are the upper and lower estimates, obviously, so it's probably going to be somewhere in the middle. My money is on about 2050. Non-renewable fuel of any kind will be verrrry expensive before then.

It's faster at rendering pages (as is Opera). It's not as fast loading (well, by default) because IE loads into memory when Windows starts up.

Best estimates say the age of fossil fuels will end in somewhere between 20 and 80 years.

Is any of the RAM really old, and are all sticks (if you have more than one) of the same speed?

Good luck and etc.

Wasn't he arrested earlier today? And if so, why?

Of course, there is the view that he was considering the viability of god and not dice.

Bacteria break down their food (whatever it may be for that particular species) to produce useful energy, just like we do, but they also produce what are known as secondary metabolites (the waste products). Some of these fulfill a function as antibiotics, to kill off other species and therefore make the microbe more competitively advantaged. We harvest many of these in biotechnology to create medicines and drugs. Many of these secondary metabolites are not harmful to us - in fact they can be beneficial. Some good examples can be found here: http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/sci/A0856810.html

I really ought to get rid of mine too.

You do have the advantage of living in NZ though, damn your socks. Cars? Cars are for sissies.

We're not really fickle - about 70% of us opposed that particular story line. The writers were told not to listen by the production assistant though. When he escapes his prison and embarks on a perilous journey through enemy territory in the nail-biting season finalé ratings will probably pick up a bit.

Indeed.

"Taking an active role in determining your fate is just like taking an active role in determining your fate!"

But it will happen, and we have to realise that it is an intermediary step that will contribute massively to the future of the species. I don't really need to prove it - it's not a part of any argument, and I only said I personally wouldn't like to think that we'd ruin other planets. My reasons could be anything. Well yes, sub-orbital. I think we can safely assume it will lead on to more challenging activities. If you think it's an extravagant waste of resources I hope you don't own a car. Oh god don't get me started on cars.

It's funny because it's true

Wel you say that, but America's foreign and economic policies haven't changed that significantly over the years as far as most countries are concerned. Maybe you need to bring in some new characters, or have it turn out that a celebrated couple are directly related.

In the soap opera sense, yes.

The site was down for a couple of days this week, but not all week. You possibly had the "DB problems - check back later" page cached.

No, because it's forcing two variables into one question. They are completely different debates, and whether or not humanity deserves to survive as a race is not related to whether or not we will or should try. Personally I could go either way on humanity from an objective standpoint. I'd hate to think we could ruin other planets like we ruined this one (for a start) Weight wasn't really the issue, it was more to do with the fact that it was retreading what had just been discussed. I think you were right, and I was overly harsh. It's frustrating when people make pointless comparisons and don't explain what their reason for posting it is. I didn't say they seek death - adventurers are all different, obviously, but generally they seek thrills, excitement and defiable risks. My over-riding point here is that while many people have no interest in experiencing an orbital flight, or don't have the money, those who do have the money and want to go into space are hardly going to instead opt for some other activity for no apparent reason, because it simply is not the same experience (despite sharing attributes such as risk, or cost). The X-prize flights took ballast because when you are competing in a time-based competition the last thing you need is the added complication of random person's life insurance. I would imagine a good deal of the $200k Vigin are going to be charging will be insurance, although it's a safe bet you'll have to sign various waivers too.

I might be thinking of aluminium. It's been a while since I did metals chemistry.

Wouldn't the oxide layer on the outside protect the chewy goodness on the inside?

What exactly is it that makes you think pointing out the subjectivity of an argument constitutes another argument in itself? I'm was not making the argument "for" space trips - I was simply refuting yours by providing counter-examples to your unilateralisms. The only actual argument I have made is that humanity needs to spread between the stars in order to survive, and that the availability of such space flights to the public will help acclimatise the average Joe to this idea. If you are seriously considering arguing that this is subjective purely because humanity's right or need to survive is subjective, then I don't see that there's much point debating with you. I did not say "subjective arguments add no weight", did I? Don't strawman me.I said that the type of subjectivity he was using had already been shown to be unhelpful in this thread, and that he did not answer the question. Those are the reasons I said it added nothing, not because of some vague accusation of subjectivity that you can twist around however you need to. Then I can only suggest you read over the thread again. Bungee jumping does however carry a risk - you are mistaking "bungee death without the cord" as being complementary to "no bungee death with cord". Diving, sailing, flying, gliding, parasailing, hydroplaning, rock climbing, mountaineering, buggy driving, skiing, jet-skiing, trekking, surfing, parachuting, base jumping, motorcycle sports, gorge walking, shooting, safari, even fishing, and many many more adventure sports and activities all have dangers and risks associated with them, as well as the potential for freak occurences. The phrase "the danger is fake in adventure tourism" is laughable.

If they called the Home Front "everyone", then yes.