Viktor Belenko and it was Hakodate Airport in northern Japan. He overshot the runway, damaging the landng gear, but he was almost out of fuerl and couldn't go around (plus, he didn't want to get shot at).

The pressurized flight suit worked fine, I've never read that it didn't (athough the current F-35 program seems to be having problems). Possibly you are referring to the sophisticated environmental system for electronics that the Mig-25 did not have because its vacuum tube electronics did not need them? The vacuum tube radar was far more powerful than any on any U.S. aircraft, 600 KW continuous, with tremendous ECM burn-through power (the F-4 had a 30 kw radar).

Probably you are referring to the fact that the Soviets did not use blind rivets everywhere, as in a US aircraft, but only where they were needed? Or the fact that titanium was only used where its high temperature properties were needed?

Not when flown according to guidelines (they did have a shorter life than U.S. engines though, true).

How about extremely high operating altitude, out of the range of most other combat aircraft?

It has a very creditable (though limited) combat record. But 75% of all Mig-25s were recon versions, and there their performance and record is outstanding, remaining in service in India until recently. It remains one of the most successful combat reconnaissance planes of all time.

That is kJ, not kW.

There are three different expansive phenomenon in modern cosmology - the initial inflation of the original symmetry breaking event, the subsequent vastly longer and slower expansion (measured by the Hubble Constant) that followed where the Universe coasted under influence of gravity alone, and then the recently discovered (and cosmically more recent) cosmic acceleration.that is now offsetting gravity.

The first event lasting a trillionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a second did indeed push all the particles then existing apart very fast, while creating lots of new particles.

The second phase of coasting, and the modern phase when cosmic acceleration kicked in, is currently pushing things apart on a cosmic scale, but not gravitationally bound structures, much less the far more strongly bound electromagnetically bound ones (atoms and molecules, and molecular agglomerations) or nuclear force bound structures.

Eventually, under current models, cosmic acceleration will strengthen to the point where it will start ripping apart these galaxy clusters. then galaxies, then star systems, then stars and bulk matter, then molecules and atoms, then nuclei,and finally composite subatomic particles themselves.

The "tones" - frequencies and modulations in the cosmic medium - support the Big Bang model quite strongly.

The signal-to-noise ratio demonstrating the reality of the Big Bang in scientific data collected over decades is enormously higher than that of the posts appearing here today where numerous ACs spout contentless skepticism and derision, and to the extent they reference facts at all, they get them hilariously wrong.

Any AC who claims lots of evidence against a well-established scientific model, but it unable to cite a single scrap of same it simply polluting Slashdot and wasting everyone's time (including his/her own).

Stormv's argument was flawed, but it was unnecessary also. Coal has never been able to do load following, so other technologies were always required. Mothballed coal plants CAN be used as spare capacity when other generators are taken for maintenance or due to accident, with the same argument - they aren't operating all the time. This still reduces infrastructure, and thus overall, cost since otherwise spare (but unused) capacity must be built.

If meant to be some sort of refutation, this is a non-sequitur. The unsubsized cost of renewables is easily calculated by simply removing the subsidy from the calculation, just as the cost for nuclear must be based on calculations of planned plant costs. When you do these calculations new nuclear is the most expensive form of energy due to its inherent high capital cost.

The facts that dywolf linked to showing that the overall program made money, not even counting the revenue the government will continue to collect in taxes from the economical activity generated.

You haven't shown that it lost any money.

Please provide concrete evidence, you know, actual facts with numbers, that are checkable (citations optional if Googling will bring them up) to support your arguments as others repeatedly requested instead of continually "arguing from your personal hatred of government" which, in your mind, excuses you from having to support your case.

Remarks to which "khallow" was responding:

The program that the Solyndra loan was a part of was budgeted for a 10 or 11% loss rate and even with Solyndra it still had less than 5% losses..

The government has been running different programs like that for a long time (more than 50 years) to help encourage new technologies to get off the ground. They always write in a 10 or 15% loss rate into them and the programs seldom reach that rate

The loss rate for venture capital is 33-50%. Typical loss rate for "safe" conventional commercial investment strategies are 15% for leveraged buy-outs, and 13% for growth equity. A 10-15% loss rate for government is similar, or better than, commercial investment strategies. The stated 10-11% target indicates a very conservative approach, and an actual 5% loss rate is exceptionally conservative.

But is, as it seems, your operating principle is "what ever the government does is bad (perhaps outright evil)" then none of this will matter to you.

TINSTAAFL? Mixing idioms much?

The famous phrase (quite deliberately using a non-mainstream dialect) is "there ain't no such thing as a free lunch": TANSTAAFL,

If you wish to recast it in a standard idiom (for reasons I cannot divine) then you should go with "there isn't any such thing as a free lucnh": TIASTAAFL. But this is pure pedantry.

All is as you say. But your conditional statement reveals why your argument is irrelevant.

Why do the Russian chips need "to be on the same level as modern chips from Intel, IBM, etc,"? They aren't trying to compete against those companies. They aren't selling them on the open market. They are simply using them of desktop computers and servers in the government, by government purchasing decision.

Commercial processors reached the level that they can fulfill all the real functional needs of the vast majority of desktop applications years ago. A decade old chip running decade old office software can do everything nearly everyone working in an office needs to do as well as the latest and "greatest". Microsoft, Intel, and the PC makers now work in quasi-collusion to force "upgrades" on businesses that do not need them or want them to keep the revenue flowing, but with diminishing success at doing so. Witness the fact that 28% of PCs still run Windows XP despite facing the artificial pressure of support termination by Microsoft, and not being able to buy any XP computers for years.

The advantages of using the newest chips have little or nothing to do with supporting the core office functions for which they are purchased - it is to run "eye candy", power saving (not an issue Russia cares about), or applications that actually harm typical office productivity.

The issue is a bit more complicated for servers - but most server applications only require a tiny fraction of modern chip capabilities, which is why high degrees of virtualization are now common. The Russians will have to use more server chips, but each app will still run fine.

Or writers' (or writers's depending on your stylebook).

Indeed so! In fact the lesson learned thus far from hundreds of epidemiological studies (with published papers in the tens of thousands) over the last 30 years or so is that no dietary supplement pill of any kind offers any benefit to the general population. Vitamin and mineral supplements provide benefit only when the taker is actually deficient in a nutrient being provided, and deficiency in any nutrient (but one*) is rare in wealthy nations.

*That one is vitamin D, the only nutrient for which you can make a case for taking a supplement.

Another way to look at it: the $800 iPhone 5S 64GB contains $210 of parts and cost $8 to assemble, with giving an almost 300% mark-up. Laptop margins are usually 10% or less, Apple's laptop mark-ups are greater, around 30%. 300% is really remarkable.

I guess we should count all of the hours spent in metallurgic and mechanical development since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution when considering the cost of car then?