 | | Re: English phrase
|
|
(...) I *love* vanilla. The stonger the better. The way I understand it, the term just means just "plain", and whether it's boring or not is derived from its context. For example, for most males a "plain vanilla Hugh Grant movie" would probably be a (...) (26 years ago, 11-Nov-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | English phrase
|
|
Here's a *really* off-topic question for native English speakers: What does the buzz phrase 'plain vanilla computer' exactly mean? A very good (everybody *likes* vanilla) computer or a very boring (*everybody* likes vanilla) computer? Eric (26 years ago, 11-Nov-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Non-"Leading Brand"s here?
|
|
(...) Probably the easiest and sure-fire method would be for all sides to agree to detonate their weapons in-situ. No need to worry about launch failures, etc. (26 years ago, 7-Nov-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Question for anyone in the UK
|
|
The article only mentioned Universities, so maybe it doesn't include (...) (26 years ago, 7-Nov-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Question for anyone in the UK
|
|
Same here. However, and maybe there is confusion on that side...... There is pending European legislation with regards to software sales, and privacy issues......... Huw Millington wrote in message ... (...) (26 years ago, 5-Nov-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Non-"Leading Brand"s here?
|
|
Moz (Chris Moseley) wrote in message ... (...) Just War Games, AFAIK. Although I do know that they ran test firings a lot to make sure that people would actually turn the keys when they needed to. Jesse ___...___ Jesse The Jolly Jingoist Looking for (...) (26 years ago, 5-Nov-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Non-"Leading Brand"s here?
|
|
Actually thee design if I recall cost lest to run than our does. I'm willing to bet that china(scary thought) could do it, or Japan but I think that it was more of safety thing because they auctioned off around the time those capsules didn't slow (...) (26 years ago, 4-Nov-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Non-"Leading Brand"s here?
|
|
Well the actual figures aren't available but I'd guess somewhere to 80% 90% would launch. I mean these guys had several backups in case one did decide to cop out right? Also if it's not authorized to launch fairly quickly isn't there a call to the (...) (26 years ago, 4-Nov-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Non-"Leading Brand"s here?
|
|
(...) I think that's because theirs was built after America's. US shuttle design was firmed up using mid-70's technology, as well as some stuff left over from the 60's. I'm not saying theirs isn't good, but it takes quite a bit of cash to finance (...) (26 years ago, 4-Nov-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Non-"Leading Brand"s here?
|
|
Steve Bliss <blisses@worldnet.att.net> wrote (...) Was it just "war games" or didn't they have a sub 50% launch rate from manned sites in trials? Like, half the time the boys would choose not to set the thing off? So there was some incentive to have (...) (26 years ago, 4-Nov-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
