Actually, there can be good reasons, which involve detailed requirements. For instance:

-Army develops armored vehicle
-Marines need armored vehicle, get Army vehicle
-Army vehicle doesn't meet Navy safety requirements
    +Army stores HE shells in bunkers waaay far away for everything else on their bases
    +Navy ships not that big (and "sunk due to magazine explosion" is a common theme in naval warfare), so safety is bigger deal
    +Marines must use Navy ships for amphibious capability
-Marines make different armored vehicle (add ability to float as well)
-Congress / people claim waste because two different vehicles built for large $$$ that look / appear to do the same job.

This definitely isn't always true, but it's probably true more often than the layperson expects.
This argument can be done vice versa if you include that the Army doesn't want to pay for Marine-specific features or needs something that can be procured and logistically supplied / maintained in much larger numbers.

At least many of our citizens are better armed than our military

NATO can't easily win a long term tactical / conventional war against the PRC. China is in a production infrastructure boom as the US was during WWII and has plenty of people to man all war materials produced.

China and the US are so economically tied that both would have severe long term losses. China is dependent on US consumers to buy its exports, generate IP to steal (er, "produce"), and on the US being able to repay its foreign debts. The US is dependent on cheap Chinese manufacturing, shipping, and rare earth metal exports.

I believe this is quite possible following the aerogel production process. Once the supercritical compound is "drained" out it, the aerogel would basically be at vacuum.

You mean like this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomorrow_Never_Dies

OK, then who draws the line between those that can mentally function and those that are deemed hopeless? What does that line look like?

First, make sure you know all the current needs. Are you just doing to electrical infrastructure, or ALL of it. Who else is providing input to your boss? There are certain groups that will have higher priority in the building design, such as Safety & Occupational Health, Human Factors, etc. Make sure these are covered BEFORE you start planning. You don't want safety to throw up a flag if you need a power box near an eyewash station.

Next, ask what is in the business pipeline for the near and far future. You may know some of these, but not all of them...

Check industry vendors to get an idea of where the future of CNC equipment you may be using is going. What infrastructure will be needed to support these capabilities? How will the workfloor change to accommodate these machines?

Bearing these in mind, scope up your desired infrastructure. Keep in mind:

a) Boss may not be able to afford everything. Make sure it is possible to scope back your design. Be sure to also know and communicate what risks become more likely if the scale-down is needed. There will also be compromise if multiple designers present conflicting designs.

b) Remember your *ilities. Make sure changes can be implemented, because maintenance, breakdowns, and logistics happen and the world has revolutionary changes that nobody expects.

It's a two way street.

While the cost of incrementally upgrading your equipment can be high, if you leap generation(s) you also have risk that the upgrade process will be lost amongst your staff. If that happens, then when [eventually] you do need to upgrade the process may not be as smooth, leading to extended downtime and/or extra costs (lost customers, wrong hardware, infrastructure upgrades, etc.)

The only way to know for sure is to have a cost-benefit analysis and a risk strategy tailored to your business areas.

Depends on the bike. A KLR650 is about 400lbs and gets ~50 mpg, but part of that is because it's a 1987 design with a carburetor.

The similar BWM 650 Sertao gets ~75mpg while putting out a lot more electrical power and weighing more because it's a more modern design with fuel injection. The downside is you need a lot more than duck tape and RTV silicone to fix it.

When you consider supercavitating torpedoes that are approaching or surpassing the speed of sound in water (and have active homing), things like this, and actual DE weapons (closure rate close to c) in development there are a lot of hazards out there.

Yes, each new technology can be use against you. Science is science, the will to use (and how to use) is an invention of man. However, by knowing about and having these items first, you have time to develop defenses. You also have the means to test those defenses since you have the weapon systems already. This is why we press forward with R&D in the military.

Further, there is significant political traction by saying we have these items. If that alone leads to a peaceful solution without actually having to use systems of destruction, then hasn't that weapon still paid off?

Many would say the value is in fact greater than if it was actually used, as no one ended up getting hurt as would happen in a conventional conflict. Others may have different opinions...

Spectroscopy grade [~99.9999%] water does leeches ions & salts from your blood into your throat, stomach, etc. via osmosis. This does not feel pleasant (i.e. you may puke). You won't be able to drink much

Not saying how I know this...

Because you have to know what you are doing to actively edit software code and make a positive contribution. Those who are having countless amounts of free time are typically low NCO's and enlisted, they have little college education, and have to be ready for their next mission after their buddy's truck was blown up on the last.

This DARPA grant is soliciting for a method of using those idle people to test software without those programming skills. It is not a direct outsourcing of those skills. I don't believe the published request equates crowd to the general public.

Ok, lets stop the knee jerk reactions and take a breath.

There's a lot you can do. Asymettric battles have occurred and continue to occur without one side dominating the other.

Intelligence can garner some clue about what exactly we can expect and not expect. Example: While the US enjoys air superiority most of the time, using underground fortifications and transport routes can counter that without purchasing a massive air force or developing cutting edge aerospace technologies of your own.

Economic theft of IP: See also, AIM-9 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIM-9_Sidewinder#Compromised_technology)
Manhatten Project / Fuchs & Rosenburgs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_spies)
and the daily list of Chinese copies of technologies from Europe, Korea, Japan, etc.

None of this is possible without knowing what's out there. Now the more speculative items...

Of course, we can probably expect advanced technology races to have a high standard of living (beyond what we have here for 1st world countries). As such, minimum pay amounts may be lavish by any standard(i.e. flipping burgers earning $150,000 by todays standards, or via bringing back near-magical devices from the alien equivalent of Walmart and fetching much higher prices on Earth.

Assuming "our own" is the United States, there are twenty according to this list:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_index

DRM does help sales, to a point. I would counter that overdoing the DRM is the major issue.

If the DRM stops casual piracy (ie. the selling of $2 DVD's on street corners) while not being completely bullet proof (such that a moderately technical user can circumvent) that is the golden area. From here, a significant number of people are able to bypass but not the majority due to hassle, virus fears, or lack of know how / fear of tinkering with a computer. It balances mass piracy against privacy intrusion and playability issues.