AC could have forewent with the "illegal wars" part, but he does have a point. These aren't very large number in terms relative to other infrastructure projects and certainly not relative to military actions. Given that much of the history of war has a foundation built upon the disenfranchised seeking a correction their usage of "war" as a comparison has merit. Feeding the world's hungry can be solved for $30B/year according to UN estimates. The Iraq war is estimated to cost $1.7T with a projected cost (that includes veterans benefits to $6T within the next four decades.

NASA negotiated the terms. There was no reason they could not have included an insurance requirement as commercial customers do. NASA should have. I'm not sure why they didn't but this isn't a SpaceX problem, nor a problem with commercial launch. If NASA was using their own vehicle (assuming they had one), not only would it have cost more for the launch, but the tax payer would have still been on the hook.

These shameless attempts to discredit commercial launch providers and go back to status-quo, where the traditional MIC players provided everything are really getting wearisome.

Not sure it has anything to do with divinely controlled "cosmic justice". There are consequences for every action, some good, some bad. Certain actions earn wages differently from others. Their shenanigans earned them some immediate good, but along with that, were dividends that gradually filled the chamber pot that just fell on their heads.

Who says it has to be anything of the sort. How many female characters in {pick your MMO} are played by males for {fill in reason}?

You didn't read what I wrote did you? I never made any declaration that organic has superior nutrition, nor did I for wholesomeness--which BTW is the characteristic of promoting health and well being. However there are plenty of studies that show evidence that the pesticides/herbicides and even some hints that certain of the genetic modifications are indeed produce food with harmful characteristics.

Well look at it this way, if the growing of food crops migrated inward, you would still be reducing the load on rural land even if animal based production were kept where it was. I recall reading a few years back that Japan was experimented with vertical farming of cattle. I don't think even large animals production in an urban environment is entirely far fetched. Vertical farming whether plant, animal, or both has the potential to create a huge reduction in the footprint of agriculture. Waste, runoff, etc. can be capture and re-purposed/recycled. These massive dead zones at the foot of waterways would be a thing of the past, as would the need for things such as pesticides and herbicides.

I don't know what all the inputs are, such as fertilizer, nor how they'd match up to prevailing organic specifications. However, "organic" isn't a baseless marketing concept. The goal is to produce wholesome, nutritious, food without destroying the environment. Adherents believe that modern agriculture--with Monsanto style pesticides/herbicides, GMOs, petroleum derived fertilizers, etc.--is destructive, unsustainable, and ultimately produces lower quality food. On face value this project sounds like it's in keeping with the goals of organic farming even if certain details would need to be modified to be pedantically adherent.

BTW: there is such a thing as organic hydroponics

Crazy thought. If the project is risky and requires a higher bid then would that not capture the inevitable rise in development cost we are currently experiencing with these projects? Perhaps different decisions would be made in light of more realistic bids? Bidding $100 on a job that you know full well is unlikely to come in under $1000 when completed would never be accepted in the private sector. Why do we allow it for these government contracts?

This is the real reason why CCP had it's funding reduced.

On the plus side, the F-35 has an impressive GAU-12 25mm gun. It boasts a plentiful 180 rounds (F-35A internal gun), or 250 rounds (F-35B external mission pod). Given a rate of fire around 3600/min they ought to last even protracted battles.

I would rather like to know why the tax payer is on the hook for a failed project from a contractor? The US government needs to stop negotiating these one-sided contracts where we the buyer take all the liability. If the contractor fails, we don't pay, period.

The difference is that a fighter pilot has been selected for their skills, esp. with multi-tasking and processing a rapidly evolving environment. Few candidates actually make it past the starting gate. Drivers on the other hand are only weeded down to those that can stay in a lane, use a turn signal, and apply the brakes at an intersection. You can be an almost entirely incompetent driver and pass your exam. If you fail you can generally can continue to retake the test until you pass. Eventually the dice will land just right.

HUD who cares about the HUD. I want a robotic arm that slaps the damn mobile phone out of the drivers hand then comes back across their face for good measure. I don't get it. Most of the cars whose driver's have a hand glued to their ear have bluetooth hands free integrated into them. Yet nobody uses it. Even if the car is old/cheap, nobody seems to have heard of "speakerphone".

I appreciate cynicism as much as the next person but in this case given present demand, Elon Musk, as well as China's willingness to undercut others that's actually highly unlikely. Within the next few years I think it very likely that we'll see a considerable expansion of manufacturing capacity for batteries.

Elon is managing to change the climate within the auto industry by a sufficient degree that EVs are going to enter the mainstream in the west. China's polution problems mean it has no other choice but to adopt EVs. If the establishment doesn't supply them, then they'll make them themselves--which they're already doing.

Do you have a source for that assertion? I was under the impression that raw materials for the lith-ion batteries was negligible.