When I read that, I thought you were going to explain why it is an interesting beast in the next paragraph and tell us exactly what you mean by "interesting".

Simpleminded folk like myself think that spending more than you have is a bad idea, and spending more than you will have is an even worse idea (i.e. ballooning debt). I would love to know if I'm wrong. However, your paragraph #2 is about taxes, R&D, infrastructure and retirement age. Now I'm confused.

Does no one remember the DC-X? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_DC-X

I can attest to a very similar experience. While I didn't have 70 lbs to lose, cutting carbs and replacing it with meat, eggs, cheese and vegetables made a huge difference. But it's a long term thing -- I don't see how it'll work for anyone who wants to lose a few pounds in a week.

That's nothing. "Out of sight, out of mind" to Russian and back is "Invisible maniac".

The biggest IF is that there may not be planets at all:

I applaud you for your bravery.

I am, in fact, talking about taking the risk before the technology is human rated to that level (after which there is no risk to speak of and even those with no scientific knowledge can feel safe flying in one). The key is redundancy, which a big part of the reason why air travel is considered safe (the other being the fact that it is now based very mature technology). Most modern helium airships don't have (nor need) multiple gas compartments but hydrogen dirigibles should have them.

Are any of us here willing to take the risk, provided the hull was non-flammable and structurally stable? I can't see myself doing it unless it's built as a collection of fully independent hydrogen compartments. Even if a few burns catastrophically, the ship should be able to make a controlled descent.

xkcd stick-man, is that you?

Funny. I was about to make a joke about Zeno's Paradox.

This is why I refuse to get one. I do read a lot of business books and periodicals and I'm often involved in management. But I steer clear of anything with the words "strategic", "marketing", "smarter-not-harder", "S.M.A.R.T goals", "empowerment" etc.

Maybe this is just unique to my industry or my circumstance, but in many ways, when you start thinking like management, you're compromising some of your professional integrity as an engineer. I prefer to get managers to think like engineers instead...

35 years and still running (I had a 25 year old Toyota which did the same). What happened to us engineers? Where did we go wrong?

That's nothing. Combined with the new 60-day bread, we're looking at an indestructible eclair.

I thought it was more frequently misheard as 'Ass-purgers'.

I keep reading this as the Anus Transformer. Must stop that.

William Wallace and co. would have fared a lot worse if King Edward had ordered the English Royal Air Force jets to pound their positions with precision bombs. And Spartacus against well placed snipers? And Washington against a walkie-talkie coordinated British assault?