Only if you are dumb enough to think that the price to the consumer is related to the cost of production. Cost of production may set the minimum that a producer will sell for. The actual selling price is what people will pay. Pretty simple, actually.
You can set your own prices however you want. What you can not do, and Apple did, is make it so all your competitors must raise their prices to match yours.
It is called 'being an employee'. You trade in the ability to get rich for the relative safety of a steady paycheck.
Britain had 999 30 years before the US had 911. Your grandfather may have had something to do with 911, but he did not 'invent' it.
But the owner of those APIs (Novell) says it is OK.
Oh please. The reason the FDA cracked down on colloidial silver manufacturers has NOTHING to do with the eeebil drug companies and EVERYTHING to do with the fact that there is no proper scientific evidence showing it is safe and effective. Is there some special reason colloidial silver should be exempt from this requirement?
So do the work required to get it approved by the FDA. Sure it takes a lot of money, but you're the ones claiming that the money and the ability to recoup it is of no importance.
First, I am not assuming anything, I am just reading their document.
It seems there are some recent developments you may not have heard of. These are called stairs, ramps, elevators, and escalators. These new technologies allow places like Chicago and Disney World to have magical transportation systems 20ft in the air, without having to ever come to ground level. Other cities are even starting to use these amazing new things to put transportation systems under the ground! You should check it out.
Also, in the still-unread document, they list projected costs, including $700M for tunneling, and $1B for land and permitting. Where do you get this idiotic 'for free' idea?
Hence the sentence that says there is a tunnel through the mountain.
Someone else who didn't bother to read the proposal, but knows all about it. The references to gas pipelines are about construction techniques, not layout. The thing is proposed to be built on pylons 20 to 100 feet tall. All those dips and valleys and hills and streams just went away. There is a tunnel through a mountain that is too high.
Now that I look at it more, that math is a big WTF. The 'A' in that formula is not in units of 'G's, it is in m/s^2. Since 1G is about 9.8m/s^2, the correct formula is 10.78 = (166)^2/r or r=(166)^2/10.78, or 2.5km.
Instead of just assuming you know what they are doing, and using bad math to prove them wrong, why not actually READ the document and see what they are ACTUALLY proposing?
Read more than 2 pages. Pages 44-50 show the details, including the turning radii and the deviations from I-5.
I think your math is off. According to their whitepaper, the turning radius at 1220km/h (339m/s) is 23.5km. Plugging that into your formula gives a centripetal acceleration of 4.9m/s^2, or 0.5g.
While they are mostly following I-5, they deviate when necessary to smooth the turns. That is one of the reasons it is built on pylons.
Where do they claim it can do sharper turns? The route they lay out in their whitepaper is designed so there are no sharp turns, and no g-forces greater than 0.5g, which can be 'banked'.
Their whitepaper, starting on page 39.
Except that their projected travel time is 35 minutes, which is quicker than a plane. And it is supposed to use about 1/10th the energy per person to make that trip. And instead of 'dozens' of flights a day, it leaves every 2 minutes (every 30 seconds during peak time).
Their proposed route never exceeds 0.5g in any direction, and the capsules can bank.