Or 10 cents worth of EEPROM.

Boss: Let's see, 10c * 1,000,000 production run = $100,000 to replace a web interface that costs us nothing because we can sell customers usage patterns to advertisers?

Boss: You're fired.

If they can turn a profit on selling Falcon 9 launches anywhere near the price points they claim to be able to achieve, then it will change the universe.

Indeed, the Walmart of space. People like the GP like to sneer at the lowest-cost vendor but lowering the cost of access to space into a whole new range like SpaceX is doing is damn hard, and the payoff is going to be incredible.

Can you say Telecom explosion? Clinton prospered because our ability communicate went supernova.

I don't buy that argument at all. While Clinton did a LOT better than Bush (both 41 and 43), GDP growth in the 50's and 60's beats the pants off Clinton's numbers. And they did it while paying off the debt from WWII and rebuilding Europe with the Marshall plan and building the interstate system and fighting the commies in Korea and Vietnam and going to the moon.

And most importantly, they did it without a "telecom explosion". They also did it without artificially low interest rates and easy credit fueling a housing bubble. Telecommunications is certainly a significant part of the economy but it just doesn't hold a candle to housing, and housing is where Clinton got a lot of his pop.

Romney would have won if we didn't have the electoral college (according to the popular vote), sooo...

Nope, Obama got the popular vote too:
http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/results/race/president?hpt=elec_racenav

An hour ago when you posted Obama was behind but he's ahead now. The only states still counting votes are the ones that Obama is winning so he'll stay in front.

Which is too bad in the sense that if the electoral vote and popular vote were split maybe there would be some momentum to get rid of the electoral college.

Please, let's stop pretending that Bush started anything. His predecessors were hardly any better.

Yeah, Clinton with his 3.5% unemployment, 3 years of balanced budgets and 8 years averaging 3.7% GDP growth really sucked. I'm glad those days are gone.

[/sarcasm]

But come on, the reality is there will always be some kind of subsidy for the poorest - even if that comes in the form of charity admissions or groups that pay for admission through charity.

You cannot imagine how it is possible to have such a system; when it's possible and very very likely lead to a much lower rate of children falling into crime, which is a huge problem today where we in theory give free schooling to everyone.

There is nothing preventing the system you describe from arising right now. But it hasn't, not even close. Where is it? We've had a modern industrial society for more than 100 years. If something like that was possible it would have happened by now. A lot of charity that happens now only happens because it's tax deductable. With no government the part of charity prompted by tax deductions would disappear.

Libertarians and Anarchists make the same mistake that communists do: they think that once people see "the light" they will snap around to the right way of thinking and abandon self-interest. Not gonna happen. People will stay people regardless of the system of government. Under any of those systems the power-hungry sociopaths quickly find a way to game the system and take over for their own benefit. And with no government, gaming the system is trivial. And very quickly your sunshine-and-butterflies utopia turns into a totalitarian dictatorship.

No thanks, you can keep your libertarian "utopia".

How much rocket propellant would it take to put an astronaut into a good entry path and at a speed of maybe 1,000 mph?

Orbital velocity is 17,500 mph so you'd need enough delta-V to decelerate 16,500 mph. A capsule with a heatshield is lighter and easier to launch than the amount of fuel you would need to get that much delta-V.

This is the Official Statement of the Open Source Community: The Open Source community is amorphous, and follows no leader. Thus, nobody is capable of making an Official Statement for the Open Source Community. This has been an Official Statement of the Open Source Comunity.

The Open Source Community may know and understand that, but I don't think you can count on the outside world to give a damn how the Open Source Community is or is not organized.

Splash damage accrues to those with even the most tenuous relationship. When you bring subjects like politics or religion into it people react with emotion, not rational thought. The trailer to a badly produced, obnoxious movie is released and Americans who clearly had nothing to do with it are killed.

Like it or not, what Linus said will splash onto all of us in The Open Source Community (typing this on my Fedora box).

Nervous system for my friend Who suffers from MS.

Since MS is believed to be an autoimmune disease most likely you want to print out a new immune system.

what you bought actually only has a 2 year shelf life, I don't care what their marketing department tells you.

The other day I opened a 14-year old can of tuna. It was just fine, tasted great. As a youngster I remember my grandmother serving me peaches her brother had canned 40 years earlier during the Great Depression. They'd lost color and turned grey but tasted good.

Food can keep for a long time if prepared properly. I also remember my grandmother saying she had lost about half of that batch of peaches over the years to spoilage. Over long periods there will be losses from spoilage and rodents and such, but some food will survive.

"Good artists copy, great artists steal" - Steve Jobs, 1994

This is a misattributed quote. It should more correctly be attributed to either Pablo Picasso (an overrated artist) or Igor Stravinsky (an excellent composer).

Both of you are correct, pretty much. Pablo Picasso said "Good artists borrow, great artists steal" in 1934. And here is a link of Steve Jobs saying "Good artists copy, great artists steal" in 1996.

Funny how the profit motive so strongly affects the moral belief system.

..the US population is still well fed, watered, and sheltered.

You're either being ironic or are more sheltered than most:

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/more-americans-chinese-t-put-food-table-132752601.html

By current definitions, Reagan was a tax and Spend liberal.

True, Republicans today would accuse Reagan of being a RINO, but the data do not support your statement. Reagan spent money like a drunk sailor, but that money was borrowed, not taxed. He was the first of the Borrow and Spend Republicans.

At least when you Tax and Spend you have a balanced budget (see Clinton's last few years). That simple concept seems to escape the current crop of Republicans.

Because people selling "things of interest" anonymously on the net using an untraceable monetary system might have reason to avoid attention from the authorities?

There's a difference between opposing the actions of your country, playing corporate tax games, trying to change things, and a whole range of other activity, and--- explicitly renouncing your nation. Bill Gates has never held up his right hand and under oath renounced America. Most Americans wouldn't either, not even very wealthy, very libertarian ones.

I certainly agree with this, but you also have to account for the fact that it's an incredibly, incredibly bad idea to renounce citizenship when you only have citizenship in one country. If you run afoul of the law in a country you're not a citizen of, even for trivial things, you can easily end up in jail in permanent limbo when they try to deport you to your native country.

In most countries it's very difficult to obtain citizenship for a foreigner. Other countries simply forbid dual citizenships, and treat an oath of citizenship in a second country as a de facto renunciation of citizenship in the first country.

Saverin held dual citizenships, one U.S. and one Brazilian. Now he only has Brazilian citizenship. I believe Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, and Mark Zuckerberg only have (had) U.S. citizenships. It's simply not an option for most "wealthy libertarians" to renounce citizenship.