For the same price, NASA could have SpaceX build and launch ten rockets.
Alternatively, they could spend the same money to have SpaceX build ten rockets, then throw nine away and launch one.

That's what they've done, spent resources that can build ten rockets and ending up with one. That's PRECISELY equal to building ten rockets, then destroying nine of them.

Alternatively, they could have paid SpaceX to build the one rocket, then burned a few billion dollars in cash. They'd end up in the exact same position - billions of dollars gone, and one new rocket. It ends up precisely the same as just burning the cash.

I'll go through this with you one step at a time.

For the same price, NASA could have SpaceX build and launch ten rockets.
That would be ten times as many scientific experiments launched or whatever good thing the rocket is doing.
Alternatively, they could spend the same money to have SpaceX build ten rockets, then throw nine away and launch one.
That's virtually exactly the same as what they're doing - taking billions of dollars from taxpayers and ending up with one rocket.
It ends up exactly the same as throwing away nine rockets, removing from the economy whatever value those nine rockets have.

They could also spend the same amount of money having SpaceX build one rocket, then spending a few billion dollars sending kids to college. So, for the same price you can have either a) one rocket built by NASA or b) one rocket built by SpaceX plus provide a college education for a thousand people.
So what's the difference between those two? Both add a rocket to the economy. The difference is whether people get a college education or not. Which do you think is better for the economy, college graduates earning good money, or those same people flipping burgers? Waste REMOVES value from the economy.

Sure there are reasons that our methods have changed, of course. That's just not really related to the point I was making. TFS claims that the military is trying to find ways to kill more people, and that's simply the opposite of the truth. They've been working on ways to only blow up a specific room rather than blowing up a building or a city block. Secondly, IF they wanted to kill lots of people, they wouldn't need need to work on methods to do so. They've had the B-52 for 60 years or so. A single B-52 could kill thousands of people per day if you wanted it to. We COULD have wiped out Iraq in about a day and half. Building a democracy in Iraq is much, much more difficult than killing them would be.

I'm quoting their official platform. Are you saying that they're lying about what policies they advocate?

Their official platform has a list of new and expanded powers they want the FCC to have. That's their official platform. They just haven't thought through the fact that the FCC is run by cable industry lobbyist Tom Wheeler, so new powers for the FCC IS new powers for a top cable lobbyist.

I'll give you a thousand dollars if you can get a current copy of MS Word to read old MS Word documents, like OpenOffice can. Since Microsoft can't pull that off, I'm guessing you won't either. I suppose you could shellExecute(OpenOffice.exe) from a Word macro. :)

So yeah, you COULD throw out all your company's documents in order to avoid having two "power users" of Word learn different menu locations for a few things. That would make sense, if you had Balmer's dick in your mouth.

>> In its latest bid to kill more people, more efficiently, and at less cost

> Isn't this what we want all government agencies to strive for? When the military's actual job is to figure out how to kill people and destroy things with maximum effectiveness

In WWII the US military wanted to kill more people, more efficiently. They were pretty good at it.
Since then, it seems the challenge has been to find ways to kill the FEWEST possible number of people, while achieving a strategic goal. We tried to win the hearts and minds of Iraqis. Germans - we just blew them up.

> It simply boils down to greed at this point

Greed and a whole lot of stupid. Sprint has two brands for the same company, Sprint brand and Boost.
Boost is $35. Sprint is $85 or whatever with a "free" $150 phone. People have the choice, and they choose to pay an extra $50 / month for 36 months = $1,800 for that phone. Not just uneducated people either. I bet someone will get all defensive and reply to this post with justifications of why it's not stupid of them to pay $1,800 for a $150 phone, and that person is a Slashdot user - probably a computer programmer or something.

When so many people choose to pay ten times as much as the phone is worth, it's no surprise someone will sell it to them.

If you're not financing the phone via Verizon, you have no need to pay Verizon anything. Instead you just use one of their subsidiary brands or affiliate for about $35 / month.

I don't remember the current names for Verizon, but as an example Sprint and Boost are the same company, same LTE network Boost is $35 / month. You'd only pay the Sprint contract price if you were paying off your "free" phone.

Now we're getting somewhere.

In ireland, you get 20 days vacation and 9 paid holidays a year.

The average Irish working week is 39 hours and the legal maximum 48.

I was forced to work 83 hours at my last employers. On salary.

Then a year later, they laid all of us off and replaced us with indians.

Then we found out through leaks they had been PLANNING to lay us off when they ordered us to work those hours.

People had heart attacks, divorces.

It's evil and society shouldn't tolerate it.

Rural and many suburban people would be OK as long as they boil the water somehow, but what about people in NYC? Surely you don't think they can drink from the Hudson?!?

1 Luxembourg $4,089
2 Norway $3,678
3 Austria $3,437
4 United States $3,263
5 United Kingdom $3,065
6 Belgium $3,035
7 Sweden $3,023
8 Ireland $2,997
9 Finland $2,925
10 South Korea $2,903
11 France $2,886

So basically, you get better, less expensive, more effective* mostly free national health care, better social security, better standards of living, shorter working days (8-4/9-5 vs 8-5/9-6), and 6 weeks vacation.

For that you surrender $387 a month. In france.

It costs you less in Sweden, Belgium, and UK. I think working conditions in Ireland are currently worse than in the U.S.

It costs you nothing in Luxembourg (atypical), Norway, and Austria.

*While exceptions exist in the U.S., they are usually for very expensive treatments. In general, the mortality rate, child and infant mortality rate, and lifespan are better in the listed countries. U.S. health care outcomes for the bottom 80% are worse than 28 or 29 other 1st world countries.

---

More generally (not in response to your post), you can't negotiate vacation in the U.S. It's a benefit- it's hard coded in the software. I did it once- getting a week without pay- after five years my new manager just arbitrarily cancelled it when I got my paid 3rd week. There was no one to appeal to if I wanted to remain employed.

You are really quite mistaken. The attitude you are displaying is actually quite recent- it developed after 1980. "Business" is purely a social construct. If you look into the history of corporations, the legal constructs were explicitly created for the benefit of society in general in mind.

If all businesses had no employees- then no one could buy any products.

Money is just how we agree to swap things around in society to prevent violence.

Whenever things get too unbalanced, the violence is waiting around just under the surface. It's happened over and over throughout history. Even the wealthy are starting to be openly concerned about the imbalance of the distribution of income and wealth in society.

If we reach a point where business practices benefit well under 50% of the population, I assure you that things will change.

"Either your name is on the volume licensing agreement... or your brains."