variety of grape that stands out the most in the flavor of wine,
I'm wondering perhaps the grape contents is what is good, instead of eating a lot of grapes you can get same amount of the "good stuff" those grapes contain in a liquid form. The wine may have the same as the grape juice, maybe drink the juice before turning it into wine (though might not be as much fun, drinking grape juice doesn't have that "wine connoisseur" image that gets respect at parties of sophisticated people. Are certain grapes more beneficial than others? Right now I'm too lazy to do research so I'll post opinions on the forum.
Way back when I thought there were only two kinds of grapes: Red grapes and light green grapes. Cabernet sauvignon, merlot, etc. were company names of the grapes. It wasn't till much much later when I learned those names were the grapes themselves. Also back then while riding a bike through vineyards near Salinas, I see lots of grapes, hey stop and have a snack. Yuck, them grapes even though they were ripe tasted awful. Just as well probably covered with pesticides that would have killed me.
That series has profited $6.5 Billion. Profited. Not grossed. Net.
Interesting. There was diatribe of a thread here on slashdot about several blockbuster movies that lost money which included HP series. Reason is to keep net profits low as possible to avoid paying taxes. Well crap, another one bites the dust to "fake news?"
See, that's where you're going wrong. I've actually had clients tell me that a proposal has to be _over_ a certain dollar amount - if it's less than (for example) $50k, it's subject to a lot more oversight than, say, $1M.
It seems to me procurements are very mysterious. I'm constantly having to justify whatever purchase even for $100. What you suggest is proposal over a certain amount, maybe it is when high level people get this "OMG we need this capability now, buy it!" And then zoom, order screams through. Most of the time it feels technical procurements are as touchy-feely-emotional like a choreographer preparing a dance routine that will resonant with the audience.
here we go again... both Musk and NASA are doomed to keep a single course to Mars.
(borrowing a few sentences from Tom Matula on NASAwatch): I blame most of the destination argument on the creation of the Mars underground in the 1980's. Prior to that NASA was focused on using the Shuttle for industrialization in LEO with projects like demonstrating the repair and return of satellites, building structural items in orbit, tethers, etc., all logical starting points for building a Cislunar industrial capability that would have given us the Solar System. NASA didn't even have plans to send robots to Mars. By advocating that we needed to skip the Moon and go rushing off to Mars they started this entire useless destination debate that has paralyzed space policy ever since.
I guess you didn't see Chelsea Clinton's tweet: "If you have less money one year versus the previous year, that is called ____ ("cut"), otherwise know as _____ ("less money").
NASAWatch added a Capt Picard facepalm picture.
as "we will have a man on Mars in 20 years" for the past 50 years. Now it has been extended to infinity. This only trumps up the Mission To Nowhere as everyone loves to talk about Mars because you can defer costs to build real hardware to some other smucks 20 years into the future. Unlike if Moon is the goal then gotta come up with some real money now to build a lander, transfer stage, etc.
But wait, there are some people talking about the Moon besides Spudis and Wingo. Maybe we get some action before we are all dead of old age:
And Spudis blog has some interesting comments, http://www.spudislunarresource...
Research is to see what everybody else has seen, and think what nobody else has thought.