Why? is he a dinosaur?
You fail to take into account that other manufacturing processes will continue to improve over the next 15 years as well. For highly customizable personal goods I agree 3D printing will be revolutionary, but I suspect it will be more of a "upload my file to the commercial 3-d printer at the local Walmart and pick it up" than a Star Trek replicator at home. Just like it is with photo's, I "can" print photo's at home on a $50 ink jet, but it's much cheaper and I get better picturess when Costco prints it on their $10k dye diffusion printer. For general commodity goods, mass manufacturing will always be cheaper. The factory can buy raw materials in bulk at much lower costs than you and can stamp them out 1000 at a time. Economies of scale don't dissappear simply because of 3D printing.
Except that due to the number of mandatory appeals, reviews and other efforts by very expensive laywers and judges that go along with the death penalty, it typically costs far more to execute someone than it would be to incarcerate them for the rest of their life
Unlike Bill Gates he does have 2 degrees (in Business and Physics). Yes he dropped out of Stanford (hence the "planned" commend I made) long before he got his PhD
Well considering that he has a degree in Physics, specifically material physics, and was planning to earn his PhD in Applied Physics (with a focus on advanced batteries), and he probably has a better understanding of how the batteries on the Model S are designed, I'll take his word on what the correct procedure is for extinguishing his batteries
There is no such thing as "zero gravity", in fact the force gravity in LEO is only slightly less that it is on the surface. Astronauts and spacecraft are in free-fall around the Earth which is equivalent to what they experience in the Vomit Comet. The only difference is that in orbit, you're moving fast enough that you continually miss hitting the ground. The Vomit Comet isn't so lucky and thus needs to pull up periodically
I guess then the new cover building and fuel transport crane that has been built over unit 4, doesn't exist. Not to mention all of the work to restore the service floor and fuel handing machinery plus the testing and inspections that are being done in preparation of starting to remove stored fuel next month is a figment of peoples imagination. The 123 pgase updated TEPCO decomissioning plan approved June 27 by Japan's Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry must be a fairy tail. Care to try again with some facts instead of "AHHHHHH WE'RE ALL DEAD!!!!!!!!!"
I wouldn't exactly call the LM "privatized", it was a typical Cost Plus contract, just like every other component of Apollo. Boeing build the S-IC stage, North American built the S-II stage and Apollo CSM, Douglas built the S-IVB stage, IBM the instrument unit, etc. All to the governments exact specifications Cost Plus is the traditional method of government procurement for "new" things. It's typical for most weapon systems, rockets, satelites etc. The contractor charges the actual "cost" of developing and manufacturing what ever it is the government wants (including all of the overhead required to deal with the government) "plus" an agreed upon profit margin. The government provides detailed specifications and the contractor provides the bodies and facilities. Under this model, there really isn't any incentive for the contractor to bring things in under budget or schedule. The government assumes all of the risk. What is different with the new commercial space agreements is that they are all milestone or service based. NASA pays a pre-set amount of money when specific milestones are achieved or service is delivered. Doesn't matter how much it actually costs SpaceX or Orbital to deliver that service. In this case the government assumes very little risk and the contractor is highly incentivised to achieve its goals efficiently.
Except of course only ~300 tonnes of partially treated water IN TOTAL leaked (not 300 tonnes per day) and the leak has been stopped. Some of the water was recovered, and soil removed. It is also unclear if ANY of the water entered the ocean as nothing has been detected in any of the drainage ditches. And while 100 mSv of Beta radiation was detected at the surface of one of the puddles, only 1.5 mSv of Gamma radiation was detected (as the water was already partially treated to remove any Caesium). So don't go bathing in or drink the water and you'll be fine.
Spacecraft 2 (Virgin Galatic's production craft) is not an orbital vehicle (not even close). The problem with wings is that except for the last few min of flight, they are dead weight that needs to be carried all the way to orbit and back. The result is a very inefficient vehicle (the Shuttle stack for example was capable of launching about the same payload as the Saturn V, the problem is, most of that payload was taken up by the shuttle itself. When you're dealing with payload margins of a few percent, the difference between using an engine you already need and some lightweight landing legs vs much heavier wings is substantial.
It depends entirely on the nature of your business If your business primarily reselling an existing product or making modest customizations of an existing product then most of your costs will be related to marketing and sales. Apple for it's size spends comparatively little on R&D, but a lot on marketing and sales. If you're business is at the cutting edge of technology constantly pushing new boundaries then you would expect a lot more in R&D and less in marketing. Intel for example spends quite a lot on R&D for it's size. It's like asking what's the right size of building for a company
SpaceX was founded on the the "cost-is-everything" perspective as well. Elon's whole purpose in founding SpaceX was to substantially reduce the costs of payload to orbit. BTW, Falcon 9.1 prices to orbit are currently ~$4000/kg, while Falcon 9 Heavy should be half that, also if they are successful recovering and reusing stages, prices should drop below $1000/kg
It's not the party that gets 15% of the vote that concern me. It's the one that gets 2%, gets 5 seats and then effects significant shifts in national policy as other major parties solicit its support. I'm not American, but I shudder to think of the kind of fringe parties that would wield a disproportionate amount of power in the US if this were ever enacted. While "winner take all" election systems do encourage larger parties, they also encourage more inclusive parties that have broad platforms that encompass the numerous issues needed to rule a country. Proportional representation encourages single issue, or regional parties that. The problem with the list approach, is that the most connected political insiders and hacks are the ones at the top of the list. If you don't vote the way the party leader instructs you, then come next election you'll find yourself way down the list. As a politician your main mechanism for ensuring re-election is to ensure you're near the top of your parties list. In Canada like most first past the post, parlimentary systems, it's possible for a party to win, while defeating the party's leader, or right hand man (this has happened several times). Ultimately since it is politicians that vote in their respective houses or parliments, I would rather have the ability to vote for a person, rather than the abstract concept of the party
Proportional representation isn't a panacea. Sure it gives small parties a chance to win seats, but it that also means the "I love cheese" party and all sorts of other wack-a-doodle parties get their voice. As well, since you're more likely to have minority governments, these minor parties often have a disproportionate amount of power since they're needed to get anything done. Sounds great for the Pirate party and Green Party, but works just as well for the neo-nazi and right wing religious extremist pary of your choice. The worst problem with proportional representation however is that candidates are chosen off of prioritised lists prepared by the parties themselves, meaning it's all political insiders beholden to the party rather than those who elected them
More like if JFK had a son that never did anything except for ride on his dad's name. Like or hate Pierre Trudeau, he had an impressive background. A successfull lawyer, he studied at Harvard and London School of Economics. He helped lay the intellectual foundations of the quiet revolution in Quebec. As a politican he served as Minister of Justice and introduced sweeping legislation to decriminalise homosexuality, and legalise contraception. When he ran for leadership of the Liberal party, he didn't win until the 4th ballot with 51% of the vote. Justin on the other hand, while very charismatic, he is not his father. His background is a few years as a high school teacher and a few years as an opposition MP and yet he wins leadership of the party on the first ballot with 80% of the vote.