http://www.spacex.com/falcon9
500 tons of rocket.
Let's say it's all fuel (90%+ is).

It's RP1/LOX.
You need 2.5:1 liquid oxygen to RP1.

1980s NASA was paying $.08/kg for LOX. Let's say $.20 now.
And $.20 per kg for RP1 - at most 100% over spot oil price.
$1/kg is reasonable.

Making the average cost per launch for 150 tons of RP1 and 350 tons of LOX about $150K+$70K = $220K.
The quoted price is $56M - or the fuel cost is under half a percent.

If I own the device, and the network, then this sort of action may in fact be legally required in some cases.
It's certainly often permitted - if the user is explicitly informed first, and they do not own in any manner the device.

(I am not referring to contract phones, but to employer provided devices)

So, if you are an older father, seeking to reduce their childs risks, simply pick an 18 year-old wife.

For the sake of the children.

http://pediatricbioscience.com...

http://www.jolla.com/ - for example - is one example of a vendor selling a phone that can run android apps - on top of 'normal' linux - without preinstalling the normal google play market. (because they can't - as what they are doing in making the linux side more open means it's not vanilla android anymore)

'You can only use our hammers if you only use our hammers' - might not play quite so well legally.

Those that object to the municipal recycling service go in the purple bin.

I can't seem to find what licence the above work is under.
Great - I can go and browse it.
Can I print out a cake with a small map from the above site on and sell it to commemorate a local event.
Or t-shirts?
Or...

oDBl, CC-by, Crowley, ...

Well...
No.
You need to prove it with a protein extract, if you hope to make a peanut allergy drug.
If you just want to treat peanut allergy, there is no really good reason that a tiny, tiny bit of peanut butter in a large meal won't work.
Start out at a dose which does not kill, and boost the dosage 10%/day.

Though the code behaves differently with, and without optimisation, and does not work on the new compiler whereas it did on the old,
this does not mean it is a bug in the compiler.

GCC, Clang, acc, armcc, icc, msvc, open64, pathcc, suncc, ti, windriver, xlc all do varying optimisations that vary across version, and
that rely on exact compliance with the C standard. If your code is violating this standard, it risks breaking on upgrade.

http://developers.slashdot.org/story/13/10/29/2150211/how-your-compiler-can-compromise-application-security
http://pdos.csail.mit.edu/~xi/papers/stack-sosp13.pdf
Click on the PDF, and scroll to page 4 for a nice table of optimisations vs compiler and optimisation level.

_All_ modern compilers do this as part of optimisation.

GCC 4.2.1 for example, with -o0 (least optimisation) will eliminate if(p+100p)

This doesn't on first glance seem insane code to check if a buffer will overflow if you put some data into it. However the C standard says that an overflowed
  pointer is undefined, and this means the compiler is free to assume that it never occurs, and it can safely omit the result of the test.

would quite like to see catgirl gymnasts.

Unless they are not bright enough to do so.
Which would pretty much cause all of the symptoms mentioned above too.

Name, CC number and details, ...
This will - minimally at least - compress to about 100 bytes per record.

5 or 10GB is not a lot of data any more.

Fraud - as defined in those numbers - is not 'We assessed this person, and had enough proof to criminally convict them'.
It is 'on the balance of probabilities' the person intentionally mislead on their application, and we have stopped their benefit, and they have failed to prove we are wrong'.
Even if you assume that 'claimant error' was 100% malicious,- you still only get to about 1.5%.

The 30% figure is due to:
People getting better (people did not stay on IB forever and some will improve around their assessment for ESA).
Significant changes in the criteria.

If G+ was market dominant, the argument could be made that by showing completions only from google services was anticompetitive.

Quite.
But - if the senior managers are dealing with 100* the sensitive material that a normal employee does - then their rate is very considerably better indeed.
They only need to deal with four times as much sensitive information to do twice as well.