 | | 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)
|
| |
| | Re: Question for anyone in the UK
|
|
Its the first I have heard of it... Jeff Stembel wrote in message ... (...) CNET's (...) it (...) (26 years ago, 4-Nov-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Non-"Leading Brand"s here?
|
|
Steve Bliss wrote in message <363efd9e.2257101@lu...et.com>... (...) To the best of my knowledge they decommissioned the auto-launch missile right before they declassified it (about five years ago), so it's not in use anymore. As for the rest of the (...) (26 years ago, 3-Nov-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Question for anyone in the UK
|
|
Hi, I'm having a debate with a classmate about a news article I read on CNET's News.com website. The article was about a new policy that charges for trans-atlantic data flow. The article didn't mention comercial ISPs, just Universities. Were ISPs (...) (26 years ago, 3-Nov-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Non-"Leading Brand"s here?
|
|
(...) I'm not sure if this makes me feel better or worse about America's nuclear capabilities. Technically, it sounds 'cool', assuming it would actually work right under field conditions. But any discussion of making it easier to launch nukes gives (...) (26 years ago, 3-Nov-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Non-"Leading Brand"s here?
|
|
Jeff Stembel wrote in message <363E8913.DB8CDBE4@aol.com>... (...) Soyuz. Jesse ___...___ Jesse The Jolly Jingoist Looking for answers? Read the rec.toys.lego FAQ! (URL) in Deja News! (URL) (26 years ago, 3-Nov-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Non-"Leading Brand"s here?
|
|
But the first launch of the shuttle Buran (Blizzard) launched during a blizzard! Jeff p.s. - What Capsule do they use? Soyuz? Or a new one I haven't heard of? (...) (26 years ago, 3-Nov-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Non-"Leading Brand"s here?
|
|
It's uhh frozen, literally. They keep it in Siberia I think. Personally I think the Russian who decided that had a wee bit too much vodka(1). They did have it up for sale once and it is technically superior to our own shuttle. Jesse Long wrote in (...) (26 years ago, 2-Nov-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Non-"Leading Brand"s here?
|
|
Steve Bliss wrote in message <363e0fa2.9016510@lu...et.com>... (...) Local is a very relative term. Local can be a hundred miles away, in terms of what the Air Force was capable of doing. Actually, they had a lot of redundant systems, and could (...) (26 years ago, 2-Nov-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Non-"Leading Brand"s here?
|
|
(...) My understanding (consider me the opposite of an expert) is that the silos require local human initiation of launches. So an attack doesn't have to destroy the missile in the silo, it just has to cook the operators in the bunker. Seems like if (...) (26 years ago, 2-Nov-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Non-"Leading Brand"s here?
|
|
Jeff Stembel wrote in message <363CEBED.B9E133F9@aol.com>... (...) A ground impact would destroy it, if it landed close enough. Not all atomic weapons are programmed to be air bursts. Jesse ___...___ Jesse The Jolly Jingoist Looking for answers? (...) (26 years ago, 2-Nov-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
