That is awesome! :) Clearly she's a job creator! She created -30,000 jobs at HP, just think what she could do for America!

The GOP's primary tactic for reducing the size of government is completely in line with Ms. Fiorina's techniques used to reduce HP's size. Starve it of income and cut funding for developing future sources of income. This is exactly the GOP strategy. All the while they give the "base" what they want to keep getting re-elected. They keep sending out the social security checks, because not doing so is political suicide. They cut taxes, borrow money from social security and run up the deficit. It's intentional. When the whole system collapses under the weight of financial mismanagement, you "have to" cut programs and you get to blame it on the fiscal irresponsibility of the Democrats.

Like I said, Carly is the perfect GOP candidate.

P.S. Yes, the Democrats suck too. But not in ways compatible with Ms. Fiorina's skill set.

No, but the Internet is still populated by angry trolls that blame others for their miserable lives.

Excellent point. Many people that are not religious have trouble understanding that someone can be religious and intelligent (I suffered this blind spot for a long time.) Actually, I think the blind spot goes further, I think that intelligent person of religion X frequently fails to understand that a follower of religion Y can also be intelligent. But the truth is that the more intelligent someone is, the better they are at rationalizing their own beliefs. Regardless of how rational the beliefs actually are.

Well, played. Now excuse me while I clean the coffee off my screen...

So Jeff Bezos isn't following Musk, he's doing his own thing. Musk isn't following Bezos either. Bezos wasn't trying to solve the specific problem that Musk wants to solve, so he started a company to do it. Both generally want to bring down the price of spaceflight, both believe reusable VTVL rockets are the way to do it, but they have very different philosophies on how to get there.

1. SpaceX is a profitable company and has been for years.
2. The US had completely lost the commercial launch market. Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and their bastard child ULA could not compete with the Russians nor ESA. And now SpaceX is regularly winning contracts and launching payloads and using the profits to develop a reusable first stage and a Saturn V class rocket. If that's not "worth a shit," then I don't know what it.
3. Musk is heavily involved in not only the day to day operations of SpaceX and Tesla, but does also get involved in strategic technical decisions.
4. Sour grapes taste sour.

No, it's the same party (Republicans) that want a return to the bronze age. No regulations, might makes right, women are chattel, etc... Though truthfully, the Republicans prefer the Middle Ages. Yes, many extreme liberals dream of a fantasy "Age of Gia" just as extreme conservatives dream of a fantasy "Randian" period. Neither period existed. Life used to be much more brutal, and the human species survived largely by banding together (rarely in some communist equalitarian fantasy, but first as tribes, later as city states, etc.) Nature never made it easy to go it alone. The reactionaries on both sides of the aisle or full of shit, wanting to return to a time that never existed.

Oddly enough, some people want to spend all weekend customizing their desktop while simultaneously resenting the fact that they "have to."

Maybe it's mostly an ego thing. Building oneself up by looking down on people with different strengths and interests. Or now that I think about it, I bet it's mostly that people need something or someone to blame for their own frustrations. "I'm not happy, it must be your fault!"

And I stand by my response, it's better to reduce the likelihood of shit happening. There are ways to reduce sticton and there are ways to handle it better when it happens. Trying to fight an oscillation induced by a lag/overcorrection of a main engine with a thruster is a losing battle. If the thruster is up top it will just rotate the stage around the center of mass (which is really what a thrusters job is, to orient the stage. Not move it through space laterally.) If you look at the thruster firing during the failed landing attempt, it's trying to stop the rotation of the stage. It is not trying to stop the stage's "lateral motion." The direction it's firing, a crazy powerful thruster that could have made a difference would have added to it's lateral motion right off the barge. And it would have driven the opposite leg into the deck by using the already collapsing leg as a pivot point.

To some situations the correct response is to do less, not more.

You, like many people, are trying to solve the wrong problem. Fix the over-correction and there is no need for rocket powered thrusters in place of the cold gas thrusters. Fix the root cause, don't mask it with a heavy/expensive kludge that will come with a host of it's own failure modes.

He's tech savvy enough to know it's not scrubbed from the internets nor the collective consciousness. This just seems to be how he uses twitter. He regularly tweets things he leaves up, but he also uses twitter to have conversations with people and then he deletes those tweets after the conversation is over. One theory is that he likes a "clean" twitter history. But who the hell knows?

It did not come down way too fast. It just overcorrected at the end. It's called a hover slam (unfortunately) and it's all about using the minimum amount of fuel and dealing with the reality that even a single engine throttled down to 40% has a T/W > 1. They are extremely close to successful landing a first stage booster used to deliver a payload to orbit. Only experimental rockets have done this before (landers don't count, they are tiny in comparison. Amazing feets but a different kettle of fish.) This is a big deal. This is going to make spaceflight cheaper.