Considering the engines provided a max of around 22,000 pounds of thrust and the plane weighed around 30,000 pounds empty, the brick strapped to a rocket analogy is inaccurate. The aerodynamics work, if there is a rapid enough input to deal with the rapid changes in airflow. The same has been the case since at least the F-14; the F-117 was just an extreme case. Modern fighters are even less statically stable than the Nighthawk was. It's what gives them their maneuverability.
Given the number of people that buy name brands over store brands that are often made at name brand factories despite the store brand being cheaper, your argument seems to fall flat.
The incremental cost is probably minimal, especially compared to the cost of existing bottle redesigns, as are the potential lost sales. I've seen various attempts to market bottles in forms that are supposed to get more of the product out (only the 409 bottles that feed from the bottom via a molded tube seem to fully work), and that can absolutely be a sales pitch. I hate trying to get the last of the mayo out of the jar because I end up having to dirty a spatula to get at the remnants. I'd happily get something that would allow me to pour out the last bits instead, and I suspect many others will, too.
The people who call themselves "coders" already do little more than paste together half-assed open source projects they find on github and snippets copied from Stack Overflow.
Replacing them with an AI would increase the quality of software by orders of magnitude, and increase the productivity of everyone who can't be replaced.
Steyn resembles Ayyadurai,though. He's an attention whore who makes shit up for attention.
The real "ethical debate" should be about whether a group of moralizing busybodies should be allowed to interfere in the reproductive choices of other people.
Of course, it is a short debate, because the answer is "no".
It's funny how many of our most contentious issues are actually about people fearing that someone else's (undeserving) kids will out-compete their own.
80% odds of winning (though I'm not sure who had that--FiveThirtyEight had about 70% odds, and almost everyone else was 90%+) still means a 20% chance of losing. Would you play Russian Roulette with a five-chamber pistol?
that explains picking a Judge with only ten years of experience to the Supreme Court instead of the most experienced one that could be found.
Chief Justice John Roberts had five years of experience as a judge before being nominated for Associate Justice to replace retiring Justice O'Connor and then being nominated to replace Chief Justice Rehnquist when he died. While I don't agree with everything he says, he's done a good job of steering the court overall.
Going after the most experienced usually means going after the oldest, which has some potentially significant downsides not just in terms of time on the Supreme Court but also often least understanding of current issues. Going after the most qualified does not mean the most experienced.
Nice try Vermin... that is Mr Ratzo.
You know who else talked like that?
It's funny how quickly you people lose your composure when your power is threatened.
The injunction issued by a whiny, politically motivated judge whose argument was nothing but "my fee-fees!" is not going to stand.
Still standing. For all your whining about the "fee fees" of judges, el Presidente Anaranjado sure is getting into an all-caps frothy rage over this. Your populist hero is the biggest lolcow in American history.
You want to give Trump an extra 4 years? Keep bashing and invalidating people who are trying to do good things.
What an odd threat. Recognize those (rare) times Republicans do the right thing, or they will help rather than hinder the incompetent president they nominated?
Well, thank you for making my metaphor explicit. Trump's power functions like he is holding the country hostage, and even his own party sees it that way.
These are not people that will ever be satisfied or content with Trump. There is no reason to cater to them at all.
Well, yes, intelligent people see him for the Dunning-Kruger charlatan that he is, so even when his policies are advantageous, they fear the taint his supporting them would bring to their cause. So opposing Trump is always a win-win in the long run.
I know you people still feel like losers, even after your political tantrum was successful, so it must really stick in your craw when Trump is thwarted. You're just going to have to learn to live with it. The President is not a king and he must answer to a wide variety of power that challenges his own - and his only originates from and is limited by the Constitution. He has no soft power at all. His leverage is that of a toddler holding gasoline and a match.
You might want to consider why right-wing boycotts and protests usually amount to nothing more than providing material to comedians, while the protests against Trump have traction and are supported by the most successful companies. I mean, even Anheuser-Busch trolled you dumbasses hard.
Know Thy User.