I'm guessing you missed the big DARPA logo that appears on the info screen at 0:56? DARPA = Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency.

"They wanted me to build them a bomb, so I took their plutonium and, in turn, gave them a shoddy bomb casing full of old used pinball machine parts!"

Based on freely available specifications (http://www.spaceandtech.com/spacedata/elvs/atlas5_specs.shtml) for the Atlas V-551 launch vehicle, the density of aluminum you stated and a best case estimation of the payload weight (just over 18,000 lbs based on the above site), I calculated $6084/lb, which comes out to $1789 to launch these little guys. HOWEVER, with the dimensions of a minifig from here (http://snively.blogspot.com/2009/04/lego-minifig-dimensions.html) and here (http://snively.blogspot.com/2009/04/lego-minifig-dimensions.html) the volume of a minifig is closer to 0.59 in^3 so the total works out to just about $1054. And by the way, you had a typo in your result up above, though your answer is correct.

$250M additional expenditure and a two year delay is hardly a "major disaster" in the scheme of things. They still got the system, and it will eventually meet requirements. It could be a hell of a lot worse. For example, the A-12 debacle. Canceled in 1991 and STILL working its way through the court system. Multi-billion dollars of expenditures for zero useful product. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_A-12_Avenger_II

What you fail to understand however is the economic impact of cutting that budget. Yes, let's reduce defense spending. Which will lead to fewer contracts. Which will lead to fewer contractors. Which will lead to higher unemployment. Which will lead to greater entitlement spending. Which will lead to...suffering. HA! Take that, Yoda. It's a very delicate balance.

Sorry but that's absolutely not the same thing. Not even on the same planet.

I know this is /. so you obviously didn't RTFA, but the articles pointed out that these were older D-series trains that only travel around 100 mph (the articles said they top out just shy of 100 mph).

But it isn't "what you want". It's "what's available" between the deals the MPAA allows Netflix to make and the movies/shows Netflix decides to try to obtain. More often than not "what *I* want(ed)" was not available; thus, I dropped Netflix.

"The part of the story aardwolf64's not explaining: The reason he got the promotion was so that he wouldn't blow the whistle and they could go on with the status quo..." FTFY.

Terry Pratchett is 63 years old. In 50 years he'll be dead either way. I've seen Alzheimer's effects up close and personal - don't blame him one bit.

ENHANCE! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vxq9yj2pVWk

"Of course, torpedoes themselves have issues - basically it boils down to: fast, long range, cheap, smart - pick at most three, and "cheap" counts as two." The generally acknowledged "pick any" in engineering is "Cost, Schedule, Performance" within which you pick any two to be as originally desired. Choose three of four though, that's, charming, lol.

"Torpedoes present a tougher problem, and would probably be the most effective weapon against a laser-armed ship, since making a laser that can counter a torpedo is hard. Of course, torpedoes themselves have issues - basically it boils down to: fast, long range, cheap, smart - pick at most three, and "cheap" counts as two." And why do yo make this supposition? There are wavelengths of light that easily penetrate to the depths torpedoes travel at, which isn't very deep, especially in the terminal phase. It's again just a question of energy on target.

We've been frying pigeons since the inception of radar. Nothing new to be concerned about.

I'm going to go ahead and give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you meant sea SKIMMING, not sea SKIPPING. The idea of a weapon bouncing along the surface of the ocean at 0.92 Mach is...well, hilarious. To say nothing of the fact that the Exocet doesn't go that fast.