I may be mistaken but, this may be the first time the booster landed on the drone ship and the camera didn't black out.

Really enlightening.

Glad this is explained so well. I've seen many people mistakenly claiming certain masks won't work against the virus because the fiber gaps are too wide.

Don't forget, his whole plan is based on the mistaken assumption that it's only dangerous to old people.

This from the same group that lost their minds over the fallacy that universal health care would include creating "death panels" that would decide if grandma was worth giving medical care.

If you think I get my only news from FOX, Farrell etc you are sadly mistaken.

I watch FOX, CNN, MSNBC CBS,ABC All shade facts. All told each maybe 5 -10 min each through the day.

FOX just happens to be the least bias.

Kind of you, thanks.

The best you can do for me is be grateful for those that offer you help or kindness and express it, and not develop a sense of entitlement and expectations that others owe you favors and handouts, or an obligation to put themselves at risk. The more people that do that, the better.

Unfortunately, I have all too often gotten the opposite from those I've offered assistance, kindness, trust, or even familial benefits/ treatments. More often than not, my kindness is mistaken for weakness, and met with demands for more rather than thanks for what I gave/did, and abusive anger when I balked. My faith in humanity has been ground into the dirt and peed on consistently enough, even by family, that it's maybe not completely dead, but is on life support and declining. To keep it alive, I must now be extremely selective about who I put myself out for and how.

I sincerely hope you don't have the same experience.

Did I say HE is a MAGA moron?
No, I did not, you inferred it, although it would be a relatively safe assumption based on his ignorant racist interruption and self centered disrespect paired with the inane irrationality of his question and blatantly racist comments.
Now who's making slanderous assumptions?

Your messiah slanders without (it's one word, Bob, not two) knowing daily. A bit hypocritical to denounce that when you so often applaud it, don't you think?

And my what is no better than the guy?
Your: possessive- belonging to you- "Your assumption is based in ignorance."
You're: conjunction- You are- "You're in desperate need of a better education because your English would fail a 3rd grade English class."

I might just WHAT another douchebag? You forgot the verb. You get an F for the day, Bobski. Nigerian princes have better English skills, and terrible English is an intentional part of their scam. (Or were you channeling Yoda but forgot the punctuation? As in "Look in the mirror, you might. Just another douchebag looking back.")

You need to watch some more school house rock and learn English better, then you might understand complex statements better and not jump to mistaken conclusions so often. Might I suggest starting with conjunction junction?

Also, I wrote MAGA, not MEGA, aside from MEGA making zero sense, I wouldn't ever insult MegaMan by conflating him with idiots like this guy. Besides an education, you seem to need glasses. Maybe that's why you can't see any of Trump's infinite character flaws?
Sad.

I think you've mistaken my attempt at making polite conversation in the last post for hostility and accusations. I thought we could both share the humour in how people react to new ideas.....

You've clearly got a lot to unload given the amount of hyperbole you're spouting yourself, so I hope 2020 is a better year for you.

My mistake. That line was vil not you. Apologies.

But I have not ignored anything you said, I only mistakenly attributed one extra statement to you.

That said, I tried to end this back and forth yesterday as it was already unproductive.

Really? Can you offer a comparative American/Russian timeline of computer telecommunication innovations, or are you just assuming? Be sure to focus on pre '68 era, before American socialism was applied in large part (public funding/monopoly busting).

And for some unknown to you reason China is beating the ever loving pants off America lately....so what's your point? Certainly not that Capitalism always beats socialism, I hope you aren't that deluded. Both have strengths and weaknesses, both ebb and flow. Neither are the sole determining factor for inventiveness, neither has a monopoly on invention.

Russia beat America into space even with their near poverty level economy at the time, and despite the fact that their scientists definitely didn't personally profit from their myriad of inventions required to make it happen.
I'm not arguing which is better, that's like arguing over which color is better....better in what way? I'm arguing against your contention that ONLY personal profit drives invention or innovation. That's clearly a mistaken assumption imo.

Got me on the ice one. I knew salt water would be more dense, but I mistakenly assumed that would mean a faster heat exchange. I didn't consider it might create a halocline strong enough to create an inverted thermocline.

I'm saying you're mistaken.
If you repeat it with the same certitude, now knowing you may be wrong, then you're a liar.
Lies are intentional misrepresentation, not just being incorrect.

No sir.
I even mentioned one group in America that never adopted petroleum...Amish...and I would counter your assertion with the fact that most people on earth don't live using oil, they're too poor, not too fortunate. 20-30 years ago, most Chinese had never been in a car or a commercial store bigger than a local vegetable stand.

Both customers and non customers are the victims.
Using (or selling) a product that clearly pollutes the air, land, and sea is immoral.

Yes, it's like our business is predicated on rebuilding wrecked cars overnight which we do by using massive amounts of meth. Sure, our products are death traps, sure, we lied about both our business practices and the safety of our product, sure, our teeth and brains are mush....but our business has been successful and allowed us to have 10 kids (8 on welfare, two adopted out), and if we quit using meth they'll starve and fight over scraps. That's proof meth is good and moral and you're mistaken to think otherwise. Duh.

Yes, we overpopulated, outpacing the planet's ability to support us by far...but instead of coming to terms with that and changing, many think we should just wring the juice out of the planet harder and have more kids. I think those people are narcissistic morons, we don't need more little yous. Sadly, we are well beyond the tipping point, even if no more people are ever born, those alive are enough to finish the biosphere's destruction. Guaranteed if they think like you seem to.

Um, really? Complete collapse of the food web isn't catastrophic?
Wars over hundreds of millions or billions of refugees aren't catastrophic? (odd because the same people who think that are incensed over thousands of Syrians, Africans, and or South and Central American refugees migrating)
Massive food shortage isn't catastrophic?
Loss of most farm land and hundreds of major cities to the sea isn't catastrophic?
Loss of corals, where >25% of ocean species live, and other miniscule organisms that are the base of the ocean food web isn't catastrophic?
Loss of well over 1/2 the producers of O2, and organisms that capture carbon, isn't catastrophic?
Eventual clouds of hydrogen sulfide from the ocean covering the land, poisoning 99%+ of all life isn't catastrophic?
Runaway greenhouse cycles making the planet uninhabitable for thousands if not hundreds of thousands or even millions of years isn't catastrophic?
Loss of access to water for billions of people isn't catastrophic?
I think you aren't paying attention to the outcomes here, and may be thinking only of the scenarios estimated for 2030-2050 which themselves are pretty scary, not the unavoidable planetary disaster that comes after the feedback loops are all fully in play. Try looking more long term....and note that every estimate of how fast the cycles collapse/reverse has been vastly under estimated....as two out of hundreds of examples, Greenland is melting faster than it was estimated to melt in 2075....far worse, frozen methane too.

You can reject the science, that doesn't make it wrong. It only makes you the ass who knowingly gambles with the planet's ability to support humans or other higher life forms based on nothing more than denial.

Edit: We are at approximately 1C rise from pre industrial records today, expected to be 1.5C in as little as 11 years. Even the IPCC (typically extremely conservative in their estimates) states that a 2C rise will trigger feedbacks that could exceed 12C. Many are already in full effect, like glacial melting, methane hydrate melting, peat burning, diatom collapse, coral collapse, forest fires, etc. It takes an average of 25 years for what we emit today to be absorbed (assuming the historical absorption cycles remain intact, which they aren't). That means we are likely well past the tipping point where natural cycles take over no matter what we do, and what we're doing is increasing emissions.

If I am not mistaken that looks like a power plan in the background (nuclear possibly?). Makes sense, these railguns take a huge amount of energy to prime.

I feel no need to lambast (criticize harshly) anyone just for getting something wrong.

It's those who are wrong but refuse to examine evidence or even consider they might be mistaken that deserve a hearty scourging (whipping).

Saved you some googling

No...the origin of octopus is Greek, not Latin....therefore octopodes is technically correct, and as the word is now considered English, octopuses (or octopusses) is also considered proper...octopi is a mistake based on the mistaken belief that octopus was Latin.
Double checked through Webster