Thanks for the link, Salem
Thanks for the link, Salem
Prelude's the debating queen!! I'd love to hear a future ... discussion with you and your child
Anyone can debate with a moron and look good. But yes, Prelude, I bow to your debating queendom. I'd love to get those genes!
manutd? can i ask you something?
Originally Posted by brewbuck:
Reimplementing a large system in another language to get a 25% performance boost is nonsense. It would be cheaper to just get a computer which is 25% faster.
Yes...
You know what? Forget it.
Originally Posted by brewbuck:
Reimplementing a large system in another language to get a 25% performance boost is nonsense. It would be cheaper to just get a computer which is 25% faster.
OK.
Seen the effects of quality debates and thought better?Originally Posted by Mario F.
you read my mind
Originally Posted by brewbuck:
Reimplementing a large system in another language to get a 25% performance boost is nonsense. It would be cheaper to just get a computer which is 25% faster.
Apparently. A good debate is always fun, although that wasn't really a debate. It was all one-sided debunnking of stupid theories
There were three sides actually. The Theory is Good side, the Theory is Bad Side and the Yes Mam Side
Originally Posted by brewbuck:
Reimplementing a large system in another language to get a 25% performance boost is nonsense. It would be cheaper to just get a computer which is 25% faster.
Three sides, only one actually debating well...
Honest to God... Mood landings are fake, 9/11 is a conspiracy, Y2k would end the world, oh, and Bush didn't win in 2000. But back to moon landings...
Phil Plait's Bad Astronomy is awesome. Go there, and be enlighted.
Now, for the original link posted... first, I refuse to believe a site that cannot spell skeptic - if you're going to take on NASA, at least spellcheck and neatly format your site. (Horzontal scrollbar of annoyance...)
If you take film and a glass of water from your house at 70F, to a cold winter day at 0F, does the film instantly get cold? Does the water freeze over instantly? No. The heat still has to dissapate/be absorbed. On the moon, the film wasn't in direct sunlight, and the moonwalks lasted only a few hours. (Much less than a lunar day.)An important factor to take into consideration is the great variations in temperature that the film would have had to endure whilst on the lunar surface. The temperature during the Apollo missions were recorded as being between -180F in the shade to an incredible +200F in full Sunshine. How could the film emulsion have withstood such temperature differences?
Some other questions:
If you were in Mission control, would you want your astronauts jumping ten feet?13) Instead of being able to jump at least ten feet high in "one sixth" gravity, the highest jump was about nineteen inches.
The width of an object doesn't affect it's ability to turn - friction between the wheels and the dirt would. Friction, however, depends on material and weight.15) If the Rover buggy had actually been moving in one-sixth gravity, then it would have required a twenty foot width in order not to have flipped over on nearly every turn. The Rover had the same width as ordinary small cars.
While they were moving it, adjusting it, attaching it? Of course it'll move.21) During the Apollo 14 flag setup ceremony, the flag would not stop fluttering.
If you're unconvinced: First, make sure you know what happens to ballons filled with H, He, or O that have a candle held up to them. Then take a trip down to Alabama, and see the Saturn V. Just look at a Saturn V, and you can see - those astronauts didn't go anywhere but the moon.
long time; /* know C? */
Unprecedented performance: Nothing ever ran this slow before.
Any sufficiently advanced bug is indistinguishable from a feature.
Real Programmers confuse Halloween and Christmas, because dec 25 == oct 31.
The best way to accelerate an IBM is at 9.8 m/s/s.
recursion (re - cur' - zhun) n. 1. (see recursion)
Queatrix you are a fool. Plain and simple.
You conspiracy theorists embrace every thing but the truth even when it stares you right in the face.
We could even take you to the moon, throw you out and snap a photo, come back and post on the net and millions of idiots just like you would say it was a hoax and would find some way to dismiss it.
Usually the most obvious answer is the correct one.
To say you 'know' this or that when you don't have anything to do with the space program (thank god) is far beyond arrogant and rude. It really dips more into stupidity.
I think that a better name for "conspiracy theorists" would be "superstitionists". No seriously, we've been believing it for all these years, why would we "find out" now? And like has been previously mentioned, where did they land the rocket? They launched it... and then what? They couldn't have just been orbiting the earth the whole time. Especially when there's video footage to prove it.Originally Posted by Bubba
Also, I think this thread is nearing its end . . .