The major Perl conference is coming up. If you want to network with people and companies that are still active with Perl, that would be a great place for you to be.

http://www.yapcna.org/yn2015/

I'd argue you are going to need a heck of a lot more rocket fuel for deceleration than the mass a parachute system would require.

I'm not so sure of that. But I'm not an expert. Most of what I (think I) know about space I learned by reading through long discussions on the Internet.

In this case I am thinking back to discussions of SSTO craft and whether or not wings make sense; the experts all agreed that it would be better to land as a rocket than add extra mass to the system. And the key is that the thing lands almost empty... when it's taking off it's boosting itself full of fuel plus whatever upper stage(s) are in use; when it's landing it's just decelerating its own empty weight.

Which of these strategies do you choose:
a) Attach a parachute to the nose and let basic physics work.
b) Try to balance it atop rocket engines firing from the bottom.

I realize you were going for humor (and got it; congratulations on being moderated +5 Funny). But here's a serious answer.

It depends on what you are trying to accomplish:

If your top priority is to save the rocket stage, then you pursue an engineering strategy that has the best chance of saving the rocket booster. Maybe that means a parachute system; I don't know.

But a parachute system adds mass and complexity. It becomes another critical system ("if the parachute fails, we lose the rocket stage"). The rocket stage needs functioning rocket engines, so landing on the rocket engines is another use for those engines rather than a new system with a single purpose. All else being equal, the simpler design with fewer systems is more likely to succeed in its tasks.

If you add a few hundred kilograms of parachute system mass, that's going to mean the booster can push less mass to orbit. I'd guess that the loss factor is higher than 1... that each additional kilogram of non-fuel mass on the booster reduces the to-orbit capacity by more than one kilogram. But ask a physics expert for the actual numbers.

Note that new software to make the booster land on its engines does not add mass to the booster.

So I'd say that if your top priority is to efficiently deliver stuff to orbit, the parachute system is right out and the clear engineering decision is (b).

Rich people are richer because they, overwhelmingly, inherited capital from their parents.

It was tried for a while, the 0 dollar wage. It was called slavery, and it DID work. The plantation owners were the wealthiest humans to ever walk the planet. Still might have been, adjusted for inflation. A great success. Those owners would have bought the world up with their wealth, bit by bit, had slavery not been sort-of stopped. Of course, normal non-slave humans were competing against free labor, and so barely got by, with lousy schools and dirt roads and abysmal ignorance that lasts to this day. We paid a lot for that free labor, didn't we? A truly "free" market - once side got their goods for free.

And that is only if they weren't forced to take it out of the their net profits, instead of the customers' pockets. They've made a KILLING in profits.

People were paid 18/hour in 1966 to work like a dog at McDonald's (you've never worked a restaurant chain job, I see). And the corporation grew into fantastically profitable giant. Seemed to work.

And people who get paid minimum wage don't get forty hour work weeks. They usually are capped at 18-29 hours, to avoid full-time employee status. And the work hours are jangled weekly so they can't get second jobs. Fun!

You're not everyone. And you've no imagination when it comes to life's little snafus. I take it life has treated you well. You've never really been too ill, or blacklisted, or locked into a bad situation because of family issues, or been unable to find employment because of past accusations or convictions, or had a nervous breakdown, or been hit by a car and been unable to function, or been employed in an industry that was gutted for profits.

And no, you've not seen the minimum wage jacked over the years. It was down to 40% of its original value even after all the "jacks", until finally someone performed arithmetic and found it started life at $18 an hour.

Worth, to whom? People who work 7 buck an hour burn a hell more calories than you do, probably. Your version of their worth has a lot with your perception of yourself. Who gets what is a rigged game.

Perhaps they would be happier being employees, then. I await their conversion to the wage earner world. I will be waiting a long, long time, won't I?

Even with a poverty minimum wage, corporations were getting workers for no pay whatsoever - interns - with the promise that if they slave now, someone would smile on them someday and hire them. This is what happens when there are no real laws. After a time, people will be paying businesses to hire them for nothing - logical, same reason. And it is happening overseas - H1B and other workers are paying for the priviledge of not being paid much, or at all, when they bribe recruiting companies.

Your words are marked. It may be possible, but only if other states don't raise the MW. But they will. So, when all is done and you are wrong, will you admit it?

Said cramming is illegal in most American cities, even in private homes. They like to have it both ways - a reliable pool of impoverished people, and no impoverished people living anywhere in their town.

don't you people ever get tired of being wrong?