As someone who really detests sweatshops, on the grounds that a safe working environment should be a universal human right, please please stop calling it slavery.

On the one side, it invites people who don't care about the problem to argue semantics, and on the other it makes a false equivalence to real actual slavery that still exists in the world(though is universally illegal).

There will always be some circumstance when bandwidth is limited.

But that won't stop everyone from "modernizing" their sites into things that won't work in low bandwidth browsers.

Fine, allege whatever you want. But if you want people to believe you, you're going to have to submit some kind of evidence of your claims.

Please, while out-and-out corruption is a theoretically plausible explanation, the GAO does audit the finances of major (unelected) decision makers sometimes. If there's a legal alternative, it's more plausible, on the simple grounds that it's easier to fly under the radar.

Think more along the lines of "specifically targeting various regulatory requirements NASA has for contractors" or "having lots of ex-Boeing employees working in low engineering review roles" if you're going the route of believing there's manipulation. It's cheaper for them and its legal.

Why don't they just have the space station sound stage on earth, like the moon one, why do they need to fake being in space in orbit?

It finally pays off.

Yes, "very pure" and "hyper pure" are semantically the same. Don't whine at me because I used a prefix where you used an adjective. That's the most pedantic useless complaint I've heard.

You doofus.

Because it's 101 and not 201?

Oh yes, let's time travel to this specific historical event and objectively test what happened.

I seem to recall that's havard's policy, more or less.

I'm glad you made up my mind for me, because I was pretty sure you're an idiot decrying new technology for imagined reasons, using a facile justification, then declaring yourself the victor in an internet debate.

Good job on catching that typo, though. My credibility is ruined now.

This is not the thread to engage me this point. Go back to the one where you made the stupid simplistic statement that didn't adequately reflect reality, and defend what you actually said.

What I'm saying is that these guys go "Supply/demand the end" without consider how those factors are considered. It's far too simplistic and it's like the a sphere of uniform density in a frictionless vacuum is to physics, in that it helps you understand the concepts, but applying it so simplistically is going to get you bad results.

They do require power for flight, though. The power is wind energy.

Please.

The intellectually hard work of software isn't the idea. It's almost entirely within the coding.