Which is still the truth, in general. Photography on a cell phone does not equate to photography with a digital camera -- knowing what f-stop is, or shutter speed, or focal length, or a LOT of the other of the fine-grain minutiae that comes from a lot of time spent with film and digital cameras taking hundreds, if not thousands, of photographs.

No, photography on a cell phone does not equate to photography that deals with fine grained minutiae. But, so what? Technical minutiae isn't art. It's what geeks and wannabees toss around in order to puff themselves up and make themselves feel important.

All that experience can be accumulated hundreds of times faster in digital where you can see immediate results.

I'm gonna have to go ahead and disagree with you on that for the vast majority. Why worry about composition, aperture, exposure, and white balance when one can burn through dozens upon dozens of photos, previewing the results immediately waiting for something worthwhile to show up, and sort/crop/align later.

You aren't disagreeing with the grandparent, you're talking about apples while he's talking oranges. And in reality, you're both correct.
 
He's correct in that by speeding up the loop (from taking the picture to reviewing the finished product) it's possible to learn photography much faster today than in the film era. You're correct that it's possible to produce a good image by sheer luck and Photoshop.
 

I've seen this first hand with my daughters and their friends. The shotgun approach may produce the occasional interesting photos but does not lead to refined skills required to produce stunning images.

But here's where you go off the rails into apple territory - your daughter and her friends are not all photographers. And just because they aren't interested in actually learning photography, that doesn't preclude those that are interested from taking advantage of the faster loop to learn from doing so.

Looking at Bezos's New Shepherd Vertical Takeoff Vertical Landing vehicle you might think that somewhere along the line Jeff caught a glimpse of Boeing's old design.

Maybe, maybe not. The same basic design was proposed as a reusable first stage for the Space Shuttle (in it's first incarnation as a crew taxi) by (IIRC) McDonnell Douglas back in the early/mid 1960's.

The two do tend to contradict when religious teachings make incorrect claims about natural phenomena.

I don't even think it's just the Kurds. The Sunni and Shia populations don't have a great record of getting along either. It sounds like each of them need their own country, instead of the European-drawn borders of Iraq and Syria. Those borders need to be re-drawn along religious lines instead of some arbitrary border. Break up the two countries and replace them with a Shia state, a Sunni state, and a Kurdish state and things might quiet down for a while. Sadly, countries like Iran and Turkey would not be happy about that, because their Kurdish populations would want some Iranian and Turkish territory to become Kurdish. There are a lot of different aspects to this thing, and everyone is looking out for number 1.

You sure about that? To me, it sounds a whole lot like Jesus is quoting God's law.

That looks a whole lot to me like Jesus, the literal Son of God and Savior of all humanity, is quoting God, his father, the creator of everything, as saying "Anyone who speaks disrespectfully of father or mother must be put to death." Are you reading that differently than I am? You're pretty quick to dismiss the criticism, so what do you know that I don't?

I think that both religions go a pretty long way to make sure their followers understand that the holy book is the literal word of God. The book itself says so, after all. That's fundamentalism right there. The bible doesn't say that you're allowed to follow the rules you want and ignore the others, they are all supposed to be followed.

By favorite part of the bible is how Eve got everyone evicted from paradise for eating forbidden fruit from the Tree Of Knowledge. It looks like ISIS is right on board with that. God doesn't want people to have knowledge, and ISIS is happy to lead the charge.

Congratulations, you thought of the same strategy as them.

He's a physicist.

Charlie Stross recently posted a very good take on this: This is a permanent change. Whatever happens during the first few years is basically irrelevant, compared to the long-term results. Did Norway separating from Sweden cause short-term economic upheaval? Does that matter at all a century later?

Yes it matters a century later - because what happens in those first few years sets the stage for what happens a century later. Historical events don't 'just happen' and then toddle off into the history books without leaving long term effects, real and "imaginary" (psychological).

I didn't say it was better - or worse. I merely pointed out that the two bids were not identical, and thus comparisons drawn on the basis (assumption) that they were identical were deeply flawed.

I did not think SpaceX even with its excellent track record would have convinced the bureaucrats to give them a solid chance instead of just give everything to Boeing as usual.

SpaceX's excellent track record? Ship me some of what you're smoking, as it must be good stuff. (Seriously, where do you guys get this stuff?)
 
SpaceX's track record is far from excellent. The first flight of the Falcon 9 was six months late, the first flight of the Falcon/Dragon COTS was two years late. (And that's pretty much been the pattern to date - they've been unable to demonstrate a consistent ability to meet launch schedules or to maintain a significant flight rate.) They've had a steady series of technical problems with both the Falcon booster and the Dragon CRS capsules. Granted, they're getting better, but their track record overall is spotty at best.
 
That is why SpaceX was given a solid chance rather than the whole enchilada.

Spend your money more wisely.

Get your facts more straight. Dragon V2 is in fact derived from the Dragon CRS, but it's not the same vehicle and emphatically has not been flying for two years.

Dude, step back and understand the conversation.

We are talking about the TECHNOLOGY, not the user.

Boeing got nearly twice the funding for a conservative, unimaginative Apollo capsule

What's wrong with a "conservative unimaginative" design? This wasn't intended to be a beauty contest or to provide geek stroke material, it's a contract for workaday vehicles and services. And as for costs, you've got to remember the difference between the vehicles - SpaceX bid a derivative of an existing craft (I.E. with a lot of the development already paid for), while Boeing bid a new design. Comparing straight up dollars is not comparing like-to-like.