Cap'n Refsmmat

/me installs the Java MRI client for vBulletin

Yep. It didn't have much purpose, but you can still get to it.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4137990.stm

Yes. However, each point in the circle has the same number of rotations per minute. Go stare at an old record for a while and you'll figure it out

Indeed it will be.

Unfortunately, the signal-to-noise ratio is pretty pathetic.

I've wanted this for a long time. Without critical thinking, you're restricted to just quoting what the textbook said - and that's not much use in a career. It's when you can draw the connections and make inferences based on what the textbook says that you can really consider yourself educated. Frankly, though, I think the biggest obstacle in American schools is that nobody gives a crap. I've had personal experience in this. The philosophy is "I won't need this to be a _____," meaning that students only care about the few things they believe are relevant to their future careers. Of course, they'll probably end up changing their career (a number I've heard tossed around suggests that people will change career choices 5 times in their life), meaning they'll actually need that knowledge. Makes good business for community colleges offering remedial classes, I suppose.

I would assume that everybody received the email. Try asking one of them.

Just a hint, I don't have a telescope myself: Try to find one with an attachment point for some sort of camera. Sometimes you can buy a cheap adapter as well. Being able to take pictures means you can do long-exposure shots of things to get even more detail, or just one of those nice shots with the swirling stars. I'd love to do it myself, but I'm near a large city and I get light pollution.

This might be a bit late, but by the way... you can just surround the tag in [noparse][/noparse] tags.

Just don't make it "VISIT MY WEBSITE OR I'LL GIVE YOU A VIRUS!!1!!1!!" and we'll be happy.

Traditional word-of-mouth communications and search engines. SFN was not advertised on a traffic exchange, it was advertised in an AOL chatroom (and one of the people there decided to go and advertise SFN as having been started by "scientists from Yale" or something, but that's a different story). The only advertising scheme with another site was a system with PhysicsForums for a while.

I think the average site owner's goal should be to create unique content that is interesting to users. Once that is achieved, visitors come by themselves.

Closed. Try again at theologyforums.

What matters is their content. Read them and determine which explanation makes more sense. I happen to own the books Failure is Not an Option, by Gene Kranz, flight controller during the Apollo 11 landings, Flight, written by Chris Kraft, chief flight controller, and The Last Man on the Moon, by Eugene Cernan. I am not making this stuff up. (You will say they are, but you will have to prove it.) Just like there "just happen to be" no stars at noon. It's the same phenomenon. Not "physical contact," it had a wire in it to hold it up straight, which made for a nice oscillation. If you had read my links (or my posts), you would see that is not the entire case. You are misrepresenting my arguments. Read the links I gave you and get back to me. I tend to prefer doubts based on evidence. "It probably couldn't have happened, maybe, because I really don't think it's likely," is not an answer.

There may be a scorch, but the descent engine was used all the way until the contact light (which was controlled by a 9ft wire trailing from the bottom of the module) came on.

Actually, no. The descent engine that took the astronauts out of lunar orbit was used until they landed. It was, however, throttled down significantly. The ascent engine (a separate engine) did not create a crater because the descent stage of the module, which stayed behind, shielded the surface.

What were the odds that computers would be developed? What are the odds that I'll spontaneously combust in the next te The Egyptians built pyramids with minimal technology. We don't need warp drive to get to the Moon. Prove that there was something fishy involved. Probability != truth. Also, flying T-38 trainers with an overinflated ego is always dangerous. See also: Astronaut Gene Cernan crashes H-13 into river while ogling at women on the beach. Go back in time and suggest it to NASA. Seriously, though, there's something simple you're overlooking: Russia. The Soviet Union had radar technology capable of watching (and listening to) our lunar landing attempts. If they thought we hoaxed it, it would be the ultimate PR coup. But they didn't say anything. I daresay I am nowhere near brainwashed. This topic has been discussed before on this site, and numerous others, and has been beaten to death. Google is your friend; BadAstronomy is not X-Files. Some more justifiably than others. Reference? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Moon_Landing_hoax_accusations#Ionizing_radiation_and_heat They don't need to. The evidence speaks for itself. I like how sure of yourself you are. If you want me to allow this discussion to continue, please start substantiating your claims and giving verifiable evidence to prove my statements wrong. You will get nowhere saying "you're wrong, it's a fact."

Simple. There's no atmosphere on the Moon, so the pressure from the rocket spread out far more than it would on Earth. http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html#crater How do you know how the dust will act? It's dust from another celestial body. http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html#flag http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html#parallel Remind yourself that it's daytime on the Moon. http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html#stars So? The pressure inside NASA suits is around 4 PSI, and the suits had specially designed joints to allow flexibility. They still were fairly inflexible; many astronauts had hemorrhaging under their fingernails from the strain of bending the gloves. Remember that the suits were specially designed. That doesn't mean anything. No it couldn't. The moon is 250,000 miles away. However, a mirrored reflector was left on the moon, and it's still used to measure the distance to the Moon from Earth. Do your research, please.

The question is: is getting more traffic the same as having more people interested in your content? Frankly, all you need to have a successful website is interesting content and time to dedicate, and a traffic exchange will mostly bring people who aren't interested. I'm betting the visitor->loyal visitor conversion rate is pretty bad. http://secunia.com/product/12366/?task=statistics http://secunia.com/product/12434/?task=statistics

Ask Microsoft. Mozilla is trying to follow the set standards (the reflow branch just made it into Firefox 3, finally allowing it to pass Acid2) and Microsoft isn't. If everybody followed the standards, it would be much simpler. Anecdotes don't make evidence. You're a fairly high-risk person (traffic exchanges aren't exactly the best thing to do), so I suppose an antivirus software is in order anyways. However, statistics suggest Firefox is the lead here (well, really, Opera is, but this is between Firefox and IE). That's quite true, but that's not what I said. Microsoft introduced a new interface into Vista, and then it came up with a totally different one for Internet Explorer. Consistency is a good thing. There's an open bug in Firefox to get the New Tab button in by default, somewhere visible. As a sidenote: seen FireBug?

Still bad standards support. It's gotten better, but it still sucks. Security. IE7 only runs in the "sandbox" in Vista, but the upgrade is being offered to XP users as well. Bad interface. It's shiny, sure, but it's totally different compared to all previous applications in Windows (and many others in Vista as well). Sticking to one interface standard is a good thing. It makes things easier to figure out for everybody. That's just a start.

That's the same formula, simplified a tad.

Drug-sniffing cats would drive their handlers insane. The suspect's pantry would be ripped apart until the tuna is located.

alan2here: I might agree that IE is bad, but I think you're just going off the deep end there.