SpaceX has been very forthcoming with their telemetry data and analysis

Huh? The most they've ever released is standard PR fluff/stuff - "we ran out of hydraulic fluid", "the valve failed", etc... No data, no analysis.

That sound you heard was my point zooming over your head.

I am going by what SpaceX themselves have estimated.

Estimates are not reality - even if you do have the experience to base your estimate on. Experience SpaceX lacks.

They plan to inspect, refuel and relaunch in a matter of days so those costs will be minimal.

Plans are not reality. See above about experience.

Remember the boosters are not going into space nor the stress of reentry.

You say that as if it's relevant. It's not. The structure is still highly stressed and the engines still run at full power. These things matter.

SpaceX has stated that in order to achieve the full economic benefit of the reusable technology, it is necessary that the reuse be both rapid and complete

That falls under the category of "no shit Sherlock". Anyone who has actually studied the issue knows this. That's why NASA was trying for a week turnaround back in the 1970's.

Saving 9 engines from a Falcon 9 is a considerable savings but saving all 27 engines from a Falcon Heavy launch would bring the cost per kg down to perhaps $100.

Slashdot is filled (at least theoretically) with smart people... so why do I have to keep explaining this?

It's virtually impossible to determine how much recovery will bring down the costs of launch because we don't know how much it will cost to refurbish the recovered vehicle. Certainly it will be cheaper than building a new one, but how much cheaper is impossible to predict... especially in the beginning with zero experience.

The case with the Shuttle is instructive... it took dozens of flights to go from removing and dismantling the SSME's after every flight to only removing them for inspection every third to fifth flight and only dismantling them for cause. (And they were on the second or third block of engines by the time they reached that point.)

Falcon has the additional problem of figuring out how to inspect and re-certify the tank.

though why they're not buying soyuz launches directly from the Russians is unclear

Maybe because the Russians have none to sell. (They can only produce so many vehicles a year, and they're committed years in advance.) Maybe because the Russians can't reach low latitude orbits. (An inescapable consequence of the location of their launch site and the need to avoid dropping spent stages on other people's territory.) Or maybe they couldn't reach a deal. Or maybe there are tax and/or regulatory advantages to dealing with an EU company.

Etc... etc... Lots of potential reasons.

I'll have some of whatever you're smoking.

Remember when they bought DejaNews, and proceeded to break every single URL on the web that lead to news-postings?

That's not the worst of it - they've also repeatedly (and pointlessly) molested the corpse, and broken the links leading to GoogleNews (or whateverthehell it's called nowadays) postings of Usenet content.

This redirecting of an existing URL is just more of a disturbingly familiar pattern, Google knows better than us. Just ask them.

Women now have more freedoms in employment than they did back then.

Than they did in the early 80's? No, not significantly, not enough to account for the massive drop (especially given the orders-of-magnitude increase in the size of the field).

You're exactly the kind of sexist of moron I referred to. When all else fails, you'll stoop to making shit up to justify your nonsense.

Nope, if the contract runs it's full length it works out to $270/machine over the next two years.

Every day is some man hate article in the local rag, and there's never any counter argument exposing the holes in the logic (ie women on average earn less, because women on average choose lower paying careers AND take more time off, not because they are paid less for identical jobs).

Before bitching about someone not "pointing out the holes in the logic" - you need to to be able to discern those holes. Given your circular logic based on a groundless assumption, you lack the qualifications to do so.

Obviously, you can say that the amount of interest by the two sexes is not the same, but apparently there was more interest by girls back in the 1980s. Why is it different now? That seems to be the question that no one is asking.

If you read the highly moderated posts by the sexist morons that seem to make up the majority of Slashdot posters and moderators - the problem isn't that they're not asking or interested in asking that question. It's that even when confronted with the evidence, they're denying that its a valid question in the first place - the sociological equivalent of dividing by zero.

Yet the same crowd shouts for blood whenever a climate change denier or young earth creationist pops up.

Completely agree [with the grandparent] in the case of books. A new review is absolutely worth more, especially e.g. haiku translations or biographies. What was once a classic is now sliding into deserved obscurity as we now know the translator was wrong in his assumptions. Or new information has come to light on the subject.

Doubly so since non-Amazon reviews tend to review a book on publication and except in egregious cases forget it's existence thereafter.

In the case of books of the type you cite, I suspect the same is true - new reviews confirm their continuing status as a classic and valuable to the new reader or researcher as opposed to being a classic only in golden memory.

I think most reasonable people would say that the citizens of the country that kills them the most often are the most heavily oppressed.

Only by comparison. In reality, the oppression is hardly noticeable to the vast majority of the populace. In reality, the "oppression" is largely the creation of hype and tinfoil hat nuttery.

Not saying we couldn't do better, we certainly can. But the general population of the US can in no reasonable way be described as being oppressed. (I specify general population and the majority because if you're a minority in the US, the situation is quite different indeed - they can be reasonably described as being oppressed.)

"in recent years we've also seen a return to the racers of old with checkpoints, a ticking countdown, little in the way of AI and banging chiptune soundtracks."

As much as people bitch about Hollywood and it's endless sequels, remakes, reboots, and re-imagings... the reality is, that's what sells.

First they have to have enough bodies - which is actually a more complicated problem than you might think. First you have to have the manpower, which is both a recruiting problem and an allocation problem (Congress only authorizes the services to have so many personnel). You've also increased the load on your training and support facilities, the latter includes everything from barracks to the gym to the clerks over in Personnel (if the base is big enough, it may be able to absorb this load without undue stress though). Etc... etc...

I'm not saying it's impossible (after all, the SSBN force and prairie dogs have been doing it for fifty plus years) mind you, just that it's not a "just add water" solution.

Next, they need to hire GAMERS who are used to strapping on a war face for 10 hours at a time every day.

They think they are. They aren't.