Where? I didn't see him claiming at any point to have single-handedly developed it. Are you claiming he didn't play any part at all in it? If not, then you're just plain wrong and you know it.

Or perhaps the reports here have a bigger clue than you. Yes, jet fuel is kerosene, but not all kerosene is jet fuel. If they were, in fact, using jet fuel, using the more specific term would be more accurate. Do you have some reason for thinking they got their facts wrong here?

Jet fuel is liquid, too. They could have reported that they used liquid, which would be equally true... but even less specific and thus less informative. The more specific you can be, the better.

That's "cubic" feet. You're going really old school when you start talking about cubits.

Actually, that's not what they said. They said that the probe would not have been able to power itself even with solar panels the size of a basketball court. It's a hypothetical statement. My car would not be able to lift itself, even if it was filled with hydrogen. This is true, but in saying this, I'm not saying my car is actually filled with hydrogen, just pointing out that it wouldn't have enough lift even if it was.

Granted the way they said it unfortunately implied what you said. But it's not what they actually said.

...and if it's not written in assembler, it's probably not three lines. I think the entirety of the code in memcpy looks something like:

while ( n-- ) *d++ = *s++;

You are either overestimating the environmental impact of a rocket, or way, way, way underestimating the environmental impact of mining on Earth. Also, "far enough into space to reach an asteroid"? The fact that you thought this worth mentioning, rather than simply saying "launch tons of stuff into space", makes it sound like you mistakenly believe it takes a lot more effort to send something to an asteroid than it does to get it into orbit, which is pretty much the exact opposite of the case. Get to orbit, and you're nearly done. The amount of fuel you'll expend getting to an asteroid is just a few extra percent on top of what it took to get to orbit. In any case, you'd have a near impossible task to design a rocket that had as much environmental impact as a mine.

And if you succeed, it will be worth something.

Absolutely. You should ask for your money back.

"Most mammals normally cease to produce lactase, becoming lactose intolerant, after weaning,[4] but some human populations have developed lactase persistence, in which lactase production continues into adulthood. It is estimated that 75% of adults worldwide show some decrease in lactase activity during adulthood.[5] The frequency of decreased lactase activity ranges from 5% in northern Europe through 71% for Sicily to more than 90% in some African and Asian countries.[6]"

Do not try to generalize from personal experience: you are not the center of the universe. (You are, in fact, a moron.) The human mutation that allows some adult humans to continue to tolerate lactose into adulthood, an extremely abnormal trait for mammals, is only common among those of northern European descent, becoming an increasing smaller minority the further afield you get from northern Europe or its colonies.

There ought to be an eco benefit, given that you can achieve the same result with 30% less.

Are you saying other businesses are charities, or are you misunderstanding what people mean when they talk about "paying for the brand" (i.e. paying more for a machine with the "Apple" logo than you would for an equivalent machine from someone else)?

They have a point. It's often claimed that you're paying extra just for that little Apple logo on the computer, but whenever anyone attempts to justify this, they point to a barebones machine missing half the features and note it's half the price. Well, yes, comparing Apples and oranges... when you actually compare equivalent machines, you get roughly equivalent prices. You're not paying extra for the Apple sticker, you're paying for that particular collection of components, the same as you would if you bought them from someone else. Sure, you could buy something cheaper, but that's not the same thing. You could buy a pen and paper for much cheaper, but also not the same, and equally utterly beside the point.

Precisely. My Nokia is a much better phone by virtue of the fact that it doesn't try to be anything but a phone. It has one job to do, and it does it well with a much more compact and energy efficient package than a "smartphone" that is neither as good a phone as my Nokia nor as good a computer as my PC, compromising its ability to do either well by trying to be both at once.

More than an upper limit. Unless the planet is a captured rogue, knowing the age of the star gives you the age of the planet, pretty much. If you know the age of someone's heart, you know the age of their head, too (transplant patients excepted).