The cold fjord account also has sock puppet moderator accounts traveling along with it, as you just found out the hard way. It's not even a "he". It's a "them". There may actually be one person typing up all the posts, but that person is being fed talking points and misinformation from other people to use to fill those posts. He and his team work for the US Navy.
But they were very hilly (both ways) and covered in snow.
Most McDonald's are franchises. There are no big cheeses.
And you don't understand business. Franchisees pay ongoing franchise fees to the franchiser. It's the bloody definition of the business. There sure as hell are some big cheeses running the McDonald's Corporation (NYSE: MCD).
I know a Christian who has told me precisely that, and wasn't joking. Whether or not they were being truthful is another question.... They could have been self-deceptive (more than usual, that is). But they were serious and they believed it, as far as I could tell.
It really does happen, and as far as I've seen, pretty much exclusively among evangelicals.
California's rolling blackouts were a poster child for exactly how wrong privatization can go. The blackouts were intentionally induced by Enron executives in order to make more money. Some of them went to jail for it, because they were inducing them under fraudulent circumstances.
Privatization is generally a bad choice when speaking of monopoly situations, and power distribution is very definitely a monopoly in the United States. It is both a natural monopoly (it's very very expensive and very time consuming and very messy to install a second grid on top of the first one) and an enforced monopoly (nobody wants this in their neighborhood). Unregulated private monopolies are the worst possible choice for customers, in every respect, and regulated private monopolies aren't much better. Private companies are no more likely to run a monopoly better than a government is, and in many cases, they're provably worse. Profit motive is a bitch.
And the rate would be even lower than that if not for OCZ (and an early Crucial model).
A thoughtful response, but you used his phrase and shouldn't have. It's not "security through obscurity." It's "competitive advantage through obscurity." They're rather different. Different enough that I think his application of the phrase is misleading. The industry insiders are manifestly correct. They are in fact achieving a competitive advantage through obscurity. Though in the case of things like Coca-Cola and KFC (they officially changed their name, by the way, like SGI did), the obscure formula is only worth as much as it is specifically in conjunction with the trademarked brand. Those people who can brew up any version of Coke they like aren't going to be able to sell billions of dollars worth at $3.50 per 12 pack without investing an enormous amount of money in establishing a brand to rival Coke. (Or RC Cola would do better than they have been.) Likewise if Chick-fil-A started using KFC's spice mix and selling fried chicken, not only would people not notice, but if confronted with the possibility, they would vociferously deny that the two brands taste the same. People are funny like that.
Trade secrets really aren't all that terrible as a means of competing. If the resulting product really is that awesome, someone else can and will figure out how to make it, possibly duplicating the secret or possibly not. Then it comes down to customer service and quality, all without involving the lawyers. Sounds like a step up, if you ask me.
It's hear hear. You got it right the first time. Possibly short for "hear him, hear him" (wikipedia) or "hear the previous speaker and applaud him" (wiktionary). The true origin of the phrase is lost in the mists of time, it's so old. These days it's simply idiomatic, and that's the spelling.
That's reckless emission of a pollutant in my house. You get arrested and go to jail for a night. Or you can buy carbon credits from me. Then it's ok.
I'm fairly certain legalizing things like meth and cocaine wouldn't do much to aid the addicted. Just because one drug is harmless doesn't mean they all are.
It would still help. Particularly for methamphetamines, in general, legalizing them would make treatment more accessible and easier to administer. Plenty of addicts don't ever seek treatment because they're afraid the hospital will inform the police (whether or not the hospital actually has such a policy). Worse, plenty of relatives of addicts don't try to get their addicted relative treated for fear they would be convicted for possession themselves, even though they don't use the drug.
Legalizing followed by regulation akin to alcohol regulation would also reduce the number of accidental deaths due to overdoses, as well as side effects from products that have been cut with something dangerous. Accurate labeling of known dosages and ingredients would reduce healthcare costs and the rates of injuries and fatalities.
Alcohol isn't harmless. It killed my cousin earlier this year. It's currently killing my uncle. It killed my friend's mother. Tobacco isn't harmless. It's killing my mother's sister. It reduced her quality of life to near nothing a very long time ago. Harmlessness isn't a criteria already, so what's the problem?
What the fuck is wrong with you?
With that user id? It's a troll account.
His 150 engines number might be right after all, considering the first recovery of a first stage may happen as early as CRS-3. Mr. Musk has said that some of next year's contracts require new rockets, but some have clauses that allow reuse of a first stage, for a price break and at the customer's option. It remains to be seen if any of next year's customers will have to nerve to exercise that option, but it's possible.
Near half? Closer to one tenth. A Falcon 9 costs $56.5 million. The last ULA launch cost $465 million. I don't know that the price difference is all that much of an accomplishment though. How hard is it to beat a bloated cost-plus military-industrial complex dinosaur that exists mainly as welfare for mediocre engineers? The short fabrication and assembly times, the incredibly short integration time, the miniscule size of the launch crew, all while conducting rocket surgery—now those are accomplishments worth extolling.
Yes, SpaceX is cheap, and yes, they could trivially match the Indian Mars probe price. You know how I know that? The Price Sheet says a Falcon 9 launch is $56.5 million. Leaving plenty of slack to build a little Mars probe. Considering a ULA launch costs literally 10 times as much, cheap is an understatement.
They've been profitable for 5 years and their price has never been higher than that. Since they're profitable, they're obviously not loss leaders. Why would it go up now? Especially considering SpaceX has already won the lucrative government contract that was available, namely Space Station resupply.
But no, the Chinese are not quaking in their boots. Long March rockets do cost more to build than Falcons, probably a lot more, but the Chinese don't care. They're building them for national pride, not customers, and they're damn well going to make absolutely certain they work, no matter how much it costs. They have to.
If you look down-thread, you'll see one now, yammering about loss leaders and Musk-balls.