The first stage is suborbital, so that's not really an option. And when it comes to aerodynamics, on the way up it's pushing hypersonic speeds with a not-even-supersonic-friendly profile, not even the usual "nose-needle" to break the shockwave, presumably because it's having to fight gravity the whole way without lift surfaces, so can't face directly into the line of motion. Plus with the fact that it doesn't start really pouring on the speed until it's mostly clear of the atmosphere anyway.

Bottom line - it's a rocket: with minimal lift surfaces efficiency isn't really high on it's feature list to begin with. On the return trip it's free to travel at much lower speeds though - it's basically a tradeoff between air resistance and the fuel consumed to hold it in the air instead of falling like a rock. Still, fuel is currently only a couple percent of the total cost of a launch, so even if you had to double the amount used you'd still see negligible effect on the total launch cost. First they have to get rocket reuse working - once you can get a half-doze uses out of a rocket, then maybe it makes sense to start worrying about efficiency on the return trip.

The QuNexus also has control voltage outputs for directly triggering analog/modular gear.

That is great news. I've got a room full of old modular synths, like a Serge suitcase model and an early Arp.2600. Not to mention a Steiner-Parker that looks like it should have a 1930's phone operator sitting at it.

I've built some home-brew triggering controllers, but none of them are anywhere near as good as what McMillan makes.

I've heard that, long term, there are two alternate plans, depending on the percentage of payload/delta-V being used: if the target orbit requires enough of the total capacity to make returning to the launch site infeasible, it will instead land on the floating barge to refuel, and *then* fly back to the launch site.

I suspect that landing at sea, while less energy intensive, is considerably more difficult - especially considering that you now need favorable weather at both the launch and landing sites to have a decent chance of success.

It's not as bad as you think it is.

-RC4 is weak, but the BEAST attack is mostly resolved on clients, and SSLLabs doesn't even penalize you for it anymore.
-TLS1.2 and lack of PFS only really breaks IE at this point, and not the latest version either. In many cases you can sleep at night. Not implementing PFS still doesn't open you up to the major attacks on SSL that are presently out there and will allow IE to work.
-Chain certificate issues are administration problems, and there's no reason not to re-issue your certificates with a stronger signature right now. It doesn't affect clients.
-Not entirely sure about FREAK but from my understanding is the downgrade attack drops you back to export only ciphers which really should be restricted for use anyway. I don't think a default installation of Apache / OpenSSL will make you vulnerable to this downgrade attack as I hope the weak ciphers are rejected. I'm still digging up more info about it.
-OpenSSL supports TLS1.2 just fine and has for a while now.
-LibreSSL isn't available in mainstream distros true, but I would caution against jumping on the bandwagon until the code has been properly re-factored tested and shown to be reliable. The old, never buy version 1.0 of a product rule applies here.

If you abandon older versions of IE you can get an A+ rating on SSLLabs and support all other major browsers. Also again based on my limited understanding that you can specify a cipher order so just because you support IE doesn't mean you don't get PFS and TLS1.2 with a browser that supports it. That only affects clients that connect in an obsolete way. Some of those clients have other internet breaking features like the inability to support virtual hosts with SSL. The only other problem then is a downgrade attack, and even then you can only downgrade to a certain point and if the server doesn't accept vulnerable ciphers then even with the attack you're not in too bad of a shape.

This is just my understanding of the issues. Please correct me if any of this is wrong, I'm by no means an expert on this.

Are those statement's mutually exclusive?

- Posted from a Surface Pro currently in tablet mode.

Not knowing and not wanting to are two completely different things. A lot of the UI decisions in Windows 8 were precisely for tablets. Bigger areas for button presses, charms, bigger hit boxes and all that stuff, and you know what? Good for them, I hope they keep going in that direction.

I've only been wanting a tablet that isn't crippled for a good 10 years now. Walking down the isle in Office Works I see more than half the laptops have a touch screen and from those that do half of those again can be folded backwards tablet style. One thing was certain, you could not use these systems with the Windows 7 UI. Windows 8.1 is far from perfect, but your view of "tablet = bad" is ignoring the realities of where the market is heading, and my opinion is we're finally going in the right direction not requiring me to unfold a 2 piece rigid set of electronics to take a simple note. Guess what, your spreadsheets still work, so does Visual studio, but I can now use the system using a touch interface too, is that so bad?

I hope they improve the integration so you can do everything from the metro interface and everything from the normal interface rather than the mishmash at the moment. Don't get me wrong, it pisses me off no end that I can't open wireless settings without hitting that damn side bar, but at the same token I'm glad I can do something from that side bar because trying to hit that tiny TINY wireless icon with my finger is borderline impossible when I don't have a keyboard and mouse with me.

I'm looking forward to being able to use my tablet more like a PC.

Good luck convincing a court that someone owes you money after you refused their cash.

Why would they owe you money? You never gave them the goods because you couldn't be sure their cash wasn't counterfeit. If anyone is going to have to convince a court, it's they who are going to have to argue that I did something illegal by refusing to accept their funny money.

I have one theory. We now know that the NSA/QCQH/GCSB/etc seemingly know everything about everyone. Yet the underwear bomber was allowed to board a plane despite being dobbed in to the powers that be by his own family, and terrorism really hasn't changed much.

I am beginning to get a feeling of apathy because I am starting to believe they have so much information that they aren't able to draw any meaningful conclusions from any of it. It's very hard to target a person when you're busy tracking 7billion.

don't get it.
he's in his legal right to point out to everyone that
a) someone posted under a specific account a specific threat.
b) everyone is everyone.

How extreme his actions are might be perceived as malicious, then the law would step in.

the action of the employer, schools and ... are those parties actions. Which could spell more trouble for both sides.

It's a real tough question for me, I've stood my ground on my beliefs more than once and paid the pipers tune. And I've been in this guys shoes 2 times in my life. Both times I followed legal protocol and effectively destroyed the other side. both times I've lost friendships too. with that said, I've taught my daughters the value of your actions and words.

I am proud that they have decent manners and behaviors and some respect for others. Who knows maybe one day they will be great coders, scientist or speakers. and will fight with other based on facts with principles

I liked, "A Walk Among the Tombstones".

funny that you mention them. I looked at their postings recently. I was happy that they took what I told
them to heart. nothing outside the normal, he said this, she said that, my hair is not right .... nothing that is vulgar about others.
rather proud

There was a period in the early 00's when one of the my company's manager would periodically walk through my office door and the first words out of his mouth was "I just read about this patent..." and I'd stop him right there.

"This is going to be one of those things where the extent of the filer's 'invention' was to take something people were doing with LORAN fifty years ago, cross out 'LORAN' and write in 'GPS', isn't it?"

"Well," he'd begin.

"I don't want to hear about it. It's guaranteed to be invalid on the basis of obviousness, but if they get lucky in court and I've actually read or even heard about that specific patent they'll be able to take us to the cleaners."

You'd be amazed at some of the technology patents the patent office grants. Stuff anyone who'd been a practicing engineer for more than a few months would laugh his ass off at if he were patent examiner.

Way too late.

I've never been around a Windows phone user to hear how great they are.

Terrible that the best damn phone ever invented is so unpopular.