Old eproms stored there data with a series of fuses. When first programming the chip fuses would be selectively burnt out to store the program data. A program that burnt out the remaining fuses would brick the chip. Modern eproms have limited read write cycles. A program that rewrote the chips over and over again could brick a chip in a matter of seconds.

German names? Like Tsiolkovsky?

I'm wondering why they didn't turn on Dragon's emergency abort system. Space X missed a golden opportunity to test it. Recovered the payload in-tacked after a launch failure would have been more impressive than a successful launch.

We have had combine harvesters for the last 70 years that can replace hundreds of farm laborers. We have automated factorys that can run at night after we turn the lights out. Despite all of these advances we work longer hours than peasants in the middle ages, and longer hours than hunter gatherers. Something tells me that a magic replicator will not create a leasured utopia. We have had the technology for a leasured utopia since the industrial revolution and probably since the birth of agraculture. If you think technology will bring about post scarcity your a fool, we have had the technology for post scarcity for the last 80 years.

pretty sure the navy is just adding a new tool to there shipboard machine shop.

The aummary is wrong. Only an equitorial launch can reach any orbital inclination effectivly. Equitorial launches are also the most efficent. Launching from the southern hemesphere has no advantage.

Don't we already have a self driving truck, AKA a train. It seems like autonomus technology is only reliable for highway driving. The last mile has to be driven by people anyhow. How is that different than intermodal freight?

Why don't they just use a splashdown? It seems that corrosion resistance is relativly easier to solve than landing a rocket on a platform thats swaying in the ocean. You could even have it splashdown in a freshwater lake or a barge half filled with fresh water. You would also save the weight penalty of landing gear.

Couldn't poor countrys simply ignore intelectual property rights? Don't they have sovergnty? Is this a stupid question?

http://xkcd.com/927/

I don't know why they just don't land the thing in the water. It seems like waterproofing and preventing corrosion is a lot easier to solve than the controll problem of landing on a barge. Unlike landing on the moon, landing on a barge you have to deal with wind gusts, currents, and waves. A splashdown would leave a larger margin of error and neglect the need for landing gear.

MOAB has a yield of 11 tons not 11 kilotons. Your off by three orders of magnitude.

I have always thought the ability to get knocked out has been an evolutionary answer to resolve sparring disputes between mails without killing anyone. There is no advantage to losing conciousness in other life threatening scenarios.