1. Your airbag didn't cost $150,000,000.
2. We're not talking about something that will only be used once per flight. We're talking about something that will only ever be used once, because no similar stage will ever fly again. If you must have a car analogy, it's like designing a new car which you'll only make one of, and you'll set it on fire at the end of the first drive.

Yes, just like we ended human flight when planes commonly crashed and killed bunches of people.

For one thing, airliners don't carry IFF. For another, IFF is not infallible; if I remember correctly, the Tornado(s) the US ground missile batteries shot down in the Gulf had IFF, but it wasn't configured the way the US crews expected, so they decided it was an Iraqi plane even though they hadn't been flying for days.

Not being allowed to shoot at the range the aircraft was designed to engage at because they can't positively ID the bad guy is a common complaint in the pilot memoirs I've read from recent wars.

That's what they said when they built the Phantom with no cannon. That's why they had to hurriedly retrofit cannon for Vietnam, when Phantoms started getting into dogfights.

As for long-range missiles, they've been the panacea for decades, but then the military impose rules of engagement requiring positive ID of the bad guy before you shoot, and suddenly you're not at long range any more.

True. It could inject a completely new UI into Window 8.

Bingo. These companies make money collecting your data. It's their biggest asset, and that asset will be sold if the company is sold.

Like I said, AMD fanboy claptrap. Memory bandwidth has never had much impact on the majority of computing tasks, which are typically limited by CPU performance and memory latency.

1. Comparably priced 32-bit Athlons only beat the P4 on floating-point-intensive tasks that didn't use SSE. Which typically meant games, but not pro-level 3D applications like the ones I was running.
2. The performance difference was nothing to do with the FSB.

Indeed. AMD make good graphics chips, and mediocre CPUs. They should sell off the CPU side and start a new company that just makes graphics. They could call it... I don't know... ATI?

Yes. Back when I had the misfortune to work on Windows, I was one of the people in the company who were continually running benchmarks, so I was one of the few people in the company allowed to not have anti-virus software on my PC, because it turned the computer from one of the fastest then available to a complete slug that spent most of the time hammering its hard drive.

CPU prices were higher back when AMD was competitive with Intel.

Their competition in most markets today is ARM, not AMD.

Um, that's utter crap.

AMD beat Intel when it was crippled by the concept of 'long pipelines with high clock frequencies' and 'pushing 64-bit users onto Itanium'. The early Core chips took back the crown from AMD, and they had an FSB.

'AMD rulez because no FSB' was just AMD fanboy claptrap, like 'AMD rulez because Intel put two chips in one package for a quad-core, but AMD puts four on one chip.' None of those things made any significant difference to performance in that era.

That just makes it even more of a 'rich man's subsidy'. I can only wonder why you support a program that takes tax money from the poor and gives it to the rich.

Chevrolet Spark: MSRP $13k to $17k, according to Chevrolet's web site.
Chevrolet Bolt: MSRP $37,500 minus $7,500 of taxpayer subsidies, according to these articles.

That extra $13k-17k buys a lot of gas.

This appears to be a similar size to, or smaller than, a Honda Civic, and costs twice as much without the thousands of dollars of taxpayers' money being thrown at subsidies. So, yes, it's a damn expensive car.

It's also a damn stupid name, since my first web search found numerous page on Chevrolet wheel bolt patterns before it actually found anything about the car.