The Rover's were not designed for only 90 day missions... they were designed to guarantee 90 days. That's a different story. (I am not saying that what they have achieved is not a huge thing... it is. But it is incorrect to say that they have been designed to last 90 days.)

Why not? What is wrong with the numbers? A statistically significant result (and I guess this one from a 52-million sample is significant) can be of any size... even if the difference was only 0,0001 %, it could be a valid result. And of course they would choose such a scale for the charts that makes the trends visible.

No... the effect can be statistically significant without being large. Of course the charts look more dramatic if you "zoom in", but the fact that the difference is only 0,5 % does not make it insignificant. And with the sample size of 52 million children, the results are probably very significant (too bad the article seems to omit the p-value for the tests).

I see the explanation in the fact that married and educated women have sex with their man only once a year during their holiday in July/August. :)

No, it is not the final product - you have to factor in how much money/effort was needed. How the product changes thru time. You cannot equate the product and the development method. Yes, the development method influences how the product will be successful. But it is not the only influence.

Jackalope

No, the point is - if you maximise your profit, that already includes any debt obligations. So if I say "maximise (net) profit" it also includes optimise cost including cost of debt. Minimising debt may not be the optimum strategy. It is easy to minimise debt - just don't have any. But that may not lead to maximum profit. You may also want to talk about risk but then again - if you talk about middle or long term profit optimisation that includes risk optimisation - again, not minimalisation. World of business is not black and white, debt and cost are not bad things per se. It is the balance of these things that needs to be taken into account.

You definition of "do the best" seems strange to me. Of course companies need to maximise the profit. Why should they minimise debt is beyond me (if you are talking about maximising net profit and not turn-over, debt is not an issue). You don't even have to say "maximise profit and minimise costs" becase costs are already factored into profit. So you are saying that companies that are doing best are those, that maximise profit. That calls for a Nobel prize in economics. Furthermore you are saying that the coolness of the product does not have impact on profit - your prize is long overdue, man.

No, I am afraid you are not right. It specifically says that you cannot be awarded the prize posthumously... Effective from 1974, the prize may only go to a deceased person to whom it was already awarded (usually in October) but who had died before he/she could receive the Prize on December 10.

No, it cannot. See Nobelprize FAQ