This has always been possible in Windows NT, but the shell kept limits in place for backward compatibility. Expect older application to break in deep directories or with any path that otherwise exceeds MAX_PATH characters.
command.com (being a DOS shell out, operating in 16-bit DOS mode) had the 256 byte limit, but cmd.exe (being a proper Win32 API oriented command-line shell) has had the ability to use the Unicode (\\?\) paths since at least Win2k, if not before that. The tools available under cmd.exe nearly all support the Unicode filename format and have for a long time. That was one of the big draws for using cmd.exe over command.com - less restrictions in use.
The registry is actually fairly basic, it's just also huge and pretty poorly documented. Yes, you can screw up your computer pretty good if you do the wrong thing, just like messing with stuff in the system directory, or in ancient history, in the dos directory, but that's why you should be careful, have a backup, and don't play around or randomly experiment.
Anyone who feels comfortable changing a simple registry entry is almost guaranteed to be able to do this without issue. Anyone who isn't probably doesn't even know what this change even does in the first place.
Well, that and extremely poorly maintained - in part on purpose in order to hide things (like license keys) across multiple registry settings (in part or in whole). But that is what really makes the Windows Registry a mess - you have no real idea where the value is coming from, and it's usually a PITA to track it down and change it successfully.
Why not just turn this on by default? If this breaks some kind of DOS convention, then it's likely only relevant to enterprise users running some legacy crap, and assuming they run Windows 10 at all, I highly doubt they're going to upgrade to this build any time soon anyways.
Because it was not traditionally a registry setting but a compile time setting. Software has to be updated to use the new capabilities, and most software probably won't be as the majority of software dependent on this issue will have by now been upgraded to use the Win32 Unicode/Wide-String APIs that have the 32k byte limit instead of the 260 byte limit in the Win32 ASCIIZ/ASCII-String APIs (CreateFileW vs CreateFileA).
And that's also assuming that a simple re-compile will do the trick; unfortunately most software often refers to the 260 byte character limit as either of the following:
260 (f.e char filename_buffer[260];
unsigned int maxPath = 260;
Better code would have used the MAX_PATH C-Preprocessor Definition (f.e char filename_buffer[MAX_PATH]), but then that would still be a problem as the values are usually on the stack (not the heap) and pre-declared, so the code has to be updated to detect the size automatically at run-time and then allocate the proper amount. For most software this is probably not worth it as its easier to upgrade to using the Wide-Strings with a the Win32 Unicode API, especially as there are a few conversion functions (provided by MS) to do so (f.e MBCSTOWCS() - https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-...).
The bigger issue (which is somewhat mitigated by the fact its disabled by default at the application level) is how many buffer overflows is it going to cause, not just in the applications but also the libraries the applications are using. Remember in Windows development a good chunk of the libraries are provided by other vendors without source, so one not only has to make sure *their* code will support the changes but also that all their dependent libraries (dynamic [dll] and static [lib]) do too.
Some people will.... However, fewer people will figure it out easily (People tend to give up if they can't find the tool easily), and they can go after those too.
Google's also in a good position to make it hard to find information on youtube-dl/etc....
They're a major search engine, so they can just self-censor their search results.
The most incredible part of all this is that your browser stores a copy of the youtube video in cache. That's right: every youtube video you view is already stored on your computer. The only thing the downloader does is make it easy for the user to put a copy copy in whatever folder they feel like; no more having to search through the browser cache to find that video; you can store it on your computer wherever you feel like. Is YouTube also going to go after all the web browsers next in the unlikely event that they manage to shut down all the downloaders? The incredible pettiness of the folks at YouTube is matched only by their stupidity!
A lot of these work by screen scraping the HTML to find the video files (flash, wmv, mov, theora, etc). Some, like Video Downloader, will also provide a transcoding service so you can get the quality video you like; others just enable you to download what you would otherwise get directly.
Either way, if the developers are not using the APIs, etc then they are not bound by any ToS (as the accused in TFA points out). Google could try to add encryption stuff and use the DMCA, but...that won't likely work since these typically operate as browser extensions and therefore have access to the unencrypted content and URLs any way, just like the browser would, which is necessary for their users to view the videos in the browser. Google could also try to do the old cat-and-mouse game of continuously changing the functionality so these tools have to keep changing to keep up with is going on in...and that's probably the only real solution.
As to Contributory Infringement...well that only works if the tool is within the legal boundaries of that law, and they could just as easily move the company outside those legal boundaries (f.e The Pirate Bay), even potentially keeping the same developer team and staff (just move the legal entity, if necessary have it issue a contract to the old entity, transferring all liabilities, etc to the new entity). IOW, there's lots of legal games that can be used to legally get out of the situation.
If you're smoking you at least know damn well you're engaging in dangerous behavior. If you're vaping you have no expectation that the vape pen is going to blow up in your face. The exact opposite actually. You expect it to be safe.
It's no different than any other activity. If you phone (which you would assume to be safe) blew up in your pocket because of a bad battery, are you going to then blame all cell phones or just the manufacturer for *your* phone? No, they'll just go after the manufacturer of your phone and then any manufacturers of parts as revealed by the litigation. Same should apply to vaping - blame the equipment maker and battery maker for their faults, not vaping itself.
Well...a lot of people carry around a lot of powerful batteries in their pockets and by their heads now-a-days (e.g cell phones). Still the issue should be pushed as a battery issues not an e-cig/vapor issue since the vapor is basically water+nicotin+flavoring, IOW, nothing explosive in itself.
Phone batteries (all I've seen) have protective circuitry that prevents over [dis]charging, over current/short circuit protection etc.
"Mod'ed" e-cigs (big and thriving among vapers) are unlikely to have such niceties in place. Couple that with high-power (low ohm) heating coils...
Agreed. But that's a choice of the quality of the batteries and equipment one purchases, not with vaping itself.
Also, the vapor doesn't necessarily contain nicotine - many use just flavored juice, without nicotine.
True, it doesn't have to contain nicotine, but people use vaping to quit smoking by reducing the nicotine levels over time as they can cope with the changes. One of my friends did that - he tried other methods but they didn't work; vaping he quit in 30 days and hasn't turned back. He continues the habit of vaping but now with zero nicotine - it's just flavored water vapor and far safer than anything in a cigar/cigarette.
Don't forget suicides due to Chantix. Oh, and many of the exploding batteries are loose in someones pockets, not 'In someones face'. So user error is too blame. These batteries are far more powerful than the AAs people are far more familiar with and less forging when you do something stupid.
Well...a lot of people carry around a lot of powerful batteries in their pockets and by their heads now-a-days (e.g cell phones). Still the issue should be pushed as a battery issues not an e-cig/vapor issue since the vapor is basically water+nicotin+flavoring, IOW, nothing explosive in itself.
Wright says his team doesn't have Myhrvold's computer codes, "so we don't know why he's screwing up."
May be he used Microsoft Excel and failed to account for the various problems in its math library (like calculating the Ceiling and Floor on negative numbers).
RIM suffered from a big disruption in their network that caused all their customers to lose confidence in their ability to provide services going forward when their entire network was down for over a week, resulting in their customers also being off-line. This mean that C-level execs (CEOs, COOs, CTOs, etc - their real customers) did not have access to their email in the convenient form they had become accustomed to, and resulted in the immediate move from RIM's services to other services. It just so happened that iPhone and Android had solutions that didn't carry the same risk and provided nearly equivalent security (via webmail, and later direct Exchange synchronization).
What RIM did would be nearly impossible for any other medium to large company to do, especially one the size of Apple. A small business? Happens all the time. People need to stop using RIM as a comparison.
RIM's decline actually correlates closer with Android's rise in popularity.
RIM was holding its own against iPhone and Android just fine, until they had a global network issue and the design of the network showed a fatal flaw - their entire network was down for at least 1 week; due to the centralization of their network design, it also meant that *all* of their customers were without service. They never recovered from the event.
Or just take the stance of "if the employee doesn't make it the employer's problem, then the employer will leave the employee alone". The employer can still reserve the ability to do testing should it prove necessary, but they can also leave their employees alone in the vast majority of cases. A good policy.
Sorry but someone who is required to obey their husband, but their husband not required to obey them, are not co-equals, no matter how much you twist it.
Created as co-equals (see the Genesis reference), but due to sin (Genesis 3) that balance was shift with the husband having final accountability (and therefore authority) before God. Obedience also shouldn't be demanded, and one should desire to obey the other. Read the references - it calls for both to submit to the other, not simply for one to lord it over the other.
Informative? That's the shine they show the world. When evangelical men get together on their own, they tell each other they're the rightful boss of their wives, that there is a hierarchy that goes from God through their pastor through them down to their family.
To put this correctly - the husband is the head of the household, responsible *to* God for *everything* and *everyone* in the household. The wife has a similar duty but not to the same degree - she is a check on the husband, but primarily responsible for herself and everyone else. So when it comes for Judgement Day (per Revelations), the husband has to answer for the entire household, not the wife.
Properly understood, this is *not* about power but rather responsibility and accountability.
And as others have pointed out, nothing is truly free. Someone has to pay the workers to watch the kids, etc. Whether you pay for it yourself directly (private daycare options) or indirectly (taxes to fund public daycare options) - you still pay for it.
I'd rather have the lower taxes and make my own choice.
In our case, she'd still stay home. There's greater value in raising the kids yourself and then pawning them off to someone else to raise.
My wife may have wanted to stay home anyway to be with the kids. She's lucky that she works in an industry where she can make decent money for part time work and she can take a few years off and still be employable. That's kind of rare.
There is a significant financial risk for women who do stay home. If something happens to their husband, - he dies or is no longer able to work, they're screwed. After a few years at home, it's going to be much harder to find a job that makes up for his lost income.
If a woman is dependent on her husband for income, it also puts her on unequal footing. Getting divorced if she's unhappy with the marriage is problematic since she's less able to earn a decent income on her own. If she had maintained a career that's not as much of a problem.
My wife keeps up in her field, so staying home isn't really hurting her all that much. Even so, good financial planning makes a huge difference in that scenario - which sadly most do not.
But face it, those same things are a problem for anyone that is essentially unemployed for an extended period of time.
In the US, it's not being taken from you to begin with. You can also live off a single income if you're engineers. If both of you work, you can just bank the 2nd income.
Your claims are absurd. They sound like old Soviet propaganda.
My wife can earn about the same as me. It's more efficient for her to stay home than it is for her to work. If she works part-time (20 hours/week normal for 1/2-3/4 of the year, 40 hours the remainder of the year) , then pretty much all of her income goes to childcare, we don't get to bank it. If she works full-time (40 hours/week for 1/2-3/4 of the year, 60-80 hours the remainder), then we still lose about half or more of her income between taxes and childcare, netting us a small amount; in the end, her time taking care of 3 kids is saving us more money than if she worked.
In terms of evangelical conservative views, of course they make terrible wives and mothers...
Until you realize that an Evangelical Conservative view a husband and wife are co-equals, differing responsibilities but equal and submissive to each other (Ephesians 5:21-6:4 and Genesis 2:20-25, among other places.)
I guess you missed SpaceX landing the Stage 1 boosters on land (Florida) and at sea recently after accomplishing their missions, in both cases using propulsion.
You're the second clueless fuckwit with the reading comprehension of used bubble gum that doesn't seem to grasp that a Dragon isn't a Falcon, and Mars isn't Earth.
As cbhacking kindly pointed out, those are not as big an issue. SpaceX has already demonstrated hovering capabilities (see videos for the Falcon9 for their testing - with propulsive take-off and subsequent landing on Earth). Yes, they may not be slowing down from orbital velocity, but that's not a huge issue - a far bigger issue is what to do when you slow down enough and get close enough to the ground that you have to deal with both (a) slow movement and (b) time to impact - SpaceX has demonstrated knowledge and ability for both; slowing down - while requiring resources and fuel - is not a huge issue.
Honestly, the Falcon9 first stage landing is a far more difficult problem than landing on another planet since it is operating a high velocity with limited resources - far fewer resources than would be available for a propulsive landing from orbital velocity on a craft designed for and carrying equipment and resources dedicated for such tasks.
I think he is off to a good start. Don't know about the time table. He has successfully shown that he can perform this type of lift and landing.
o.0 Huh?
The Falcon Heavy hasn't flown, he's never been beyond LEO (the difference in thermal environment is of particular concern here), and no Dragon of any kind has ever landed propulsively. (Though there have been some short test hops IIRC.) Or, to put it another way, pretty much none of the precursors to this mission have been demonstrated, let alone successfully.
Seriously, are Musk fanboys just completely clueless when it come to space technology, or are their blinders that thick?
I guess you missed SpaceX landing the Stage 1 boosters on land (Florida) and at sea recently after accomplishing their missions, in both cases using propulsion. Expanding that for the additional stages should actually be an *easier* task than what they've already done.
Slashdot Mirror
This has always been possible in Windows NT, but the shell kept limits in place for backward compatibility. Expect older application to break in deep directories or with any path that otherwise exceeds MAX_PATH characters.
command.com (being a DOS shell out, operating in 16-bit DOS mode) had the 256 byte limit, but cmd.exe (being a proper Win32 API oriented command-line shell) has had the ability to use the Unicode (\\?\) paths since at least Win2k, if not before that. The tools available under cmd.exe nearly all support the Unicode filename format and have for a long time. That was one of the big draws for using cmd.exe over command.com - less restrictions in use.
The registry is actually fairly basic, it's just also huge and pretty poorly documented. Yes, you can screw up your computer pretty good if you do the wrong thing, just like messing with stuff in the system directory, or in ancient history, in the dos directory, but that's why you should be careful, have a backup, and don't play around or randomly experiment. Anyone who feels comfortable changing a simple registry entry is almost guaranteed to be able to do this without issue. Anyone who isn't probably doesn't even know what this change even does in the first place.
Well, that and extremely poorly maintained - in part on purpose in order to hide things (like license keys) across multiple registry settings (in part or in whole). But that is what really makes the Windows Registry a mess - you have no real idea where the value is coming from, and it's usually a PITA to track it down and change it successfully.
Why not just turn this on by default? If this breaks some kind of DOS convention, then it's likely only relevant to enterprise users running some legacy crap, and assuming they run Windows 10 at all, I highly doubt they're going to upgrade to this build any time soon anyways.
Because it was not traditionally a registry setting but a compile time setting. Software has to be updated to use the new capabilities, and most software probably won't be as the majority of software dependent on this issue will have by now been upgraded to use the Win32 Unicode/Wide-String APIs that have the 32k byte limit instead of the 260 byte limit in the Win32 ASCIIZ/ASCII-String APIs (CreateFileW vs CreateFileA). And that's also assuming that a simple re-compile will do the trick; unfortunately most software often refers to the 260 byte character limit as either of the following:
Better code would have used the MAX_PATH C-Preprocessor Definition (f.e char filename_buffer[MAX_PATH]), but then that would still be a problem as the values are usually on the stack (not the heap) and pre-declared, so the code has to be updated to detect the size automatically at run-time and then allocate the proper amount. For most software this is probably not worth it as its easier to upgrade to using the Wide-Strings with a the Win32 Unicode API, especially as there are a few conversion functions (provided by MS) to do so (f.e MBCSTOWCS() - https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-...).
The bigger issue (which is somewhat mitigated by the fact its disabled by default at the application level) is how many buffer overflows is it going to cause, not just in the applications but also the libraries the applications are using. Remember in Windows development a good chunk of the libraries are provided by other vendors without source, so one not only has to make sure *their* code will support the changes but also that all their dependent libraries (dynamic [dll] and static [lib]) do too.
Some people will.... However, fewer people will figure it out easily (People tend to give up if they can't find the tool easily), and they can go after those too.
Google's also in a good position to make it hard to find information on youtube-dl/etc.... They're a major search engine, so they can just self-censor their search results.
The most incredible part of all this is that your browser stores a copy of the youtube video in cache . That's right: every youtube video you view is already stored on your computer. The only thing the downloader does is make it easy for the user to put a copy copy in whatever folder they feel like; no more having to search through the browser cache to find that video; you can store it on your computer wherever you feel like. Is YouTube also going to go after all the web browsers next in the unlikely event that they manage to shut down all the downloaders? The incredible pettiness of the folks at YouTube is matched only by their stupidity!
A lot of these work by screen scraping the HTML to find the video files (flash, wmv, mov, theora, etc). Some, like Video Downloader, will also provide a transcoding service so you can get the quality video you like; others just enable you to download what you would otherwise get directly. Either way, if the developers are not using the APIs, etc then they are not bound by any ToS (as the accused in TFA points out). Google could try to add encryption stuff and use the DMCA, but...that won't likely work since these typically operate as browser extensions and therefore have access to the unencrypted content and URLs any way, just like the browser would, which is necessary for their users to view the videos in the browser. Google could also try to do the old cat-and-mouse game of continuously changing the functionality so these tools have to keep changing to keep up with is going on in...and that's probably the only real solution.
As to Contributory Infringement...well that only works if the tool is within the legal boundaries of that law, and they could just as easily move the company outside those legal boundaries (f.e The Pirate Bay), even potentially keeping the same developer team and staff (just move the legal entity, if necessary have it issue a contract to the old entity, transferring all liabilities, etc to the new entity). IOW, there's lots of legal games that can be used to legally get out of the situation.
In 2010 according to FEMA there were 350 smoking related residential fire deaths and 950 injuries. See https://www.usfa.fema.gov/down... .
Great numbers. Probably any of the numbers I listed would make the 66 injuries for e-cigs look really small.
I wonder..how many...new Lung Cancer incidents due to tobacco were there in the same period? house fires? car fires?
I bet the number of things set on fire by traditional smoking materials is greater still.
In fact, a significant percentage of your house and car fires were started with a cigarette, cigar, pipe, joint, match or spilled lighter fluid.
That was kind of my point.
If you're smoking you at least know damn well you're engaging in dangerous behavior. If you're vaping you have no expectation that the vape pen is going to blow up in your face. The exact opposite actually. You expect it to be safe.
It's no different than any other activity. If you phone (which you would assume to be safe) blew up in your pocket because of a bad battery, are you going to then blame all cell phones or just the manufacturer for *your* phone? No, they'll just go after the manufacturer of your phone and then any manufacturers of parts as revealed by the litigation. Same should apply to vaping - blame the equipment maker and battery maker for their faults, not vaping itself.
Well...a lot of people carry around a lot of powerful batteries in their pockets and by their heads now-a-days (e.g cell phones). Still the issue should be pushed as a battery issues not an e-cig/vapor issue since the vapor is basically water+nicotin+flavoring, IOW, nothing explosive in itself.
Phone batteries (all I've seen) have protective circuitry that prevents over [dis]charging, over current/short circuit protection etc. "Mod'ed" e-cigs (big and thriving among vapers) are unlikely to have such niceties in place. Couple that with high-power (low ohm) heating coils...
Agreed. But that's a choice of the quality of the batteries and equipment one purchases, not with vaping itself.
Also, the vapor doesn't necessarily contain nicotine - many use just flavored juice, without nicotine.
True, it doesn't have to contain nicotine, but people use vaping to quit smoking by reducing the nicotine levels over time as they can cope with the changes. One of my friends did that - he tried other methods but they didn't work; vaping he quit in 30 days and hasn't turned back. He continues the habit of vaping but now with zero nicotine - it's just flavored water vapor and far safer than anything in a cigar/cigarette.
Don't forget suicides due to Chantix. Oh, and many of the exploding batteries are loose in someones pockets, not 'In someones face'. So user error is too blame. These batteries are far more powerful than the AAs people are far more familiar with and less forging when you do something stupid.
Well...a lot of people carry around a lot of powerful batteries in their pockets and by their heads now-a-days (e.g cell phones). Still the issue should be pushed as a battery issues not an e-cig/vapor issue since the vapor is basically water+nicotin+flavoring, IOW, nothing explosive in itself.
66 whole reports?! Why, we need a law immediately! Someone call Congress!
I wonder..how many...new Lung Cancer incidents due to tobacco were there in the same period? house fires? car fires?
Wright says his team doesn't have Myhrvold's computer codes, "so we don't know why he's screwing up."
May be he used Microsoft Excel and failed to account for the various problems in its math library (like calculating the Ceiling and Floor on negative numbers).
RIM suffered from a big disruption in their network that caused all their customers to lose confidence in their ability to provide services going forward when their entire network was down for over a week, resulting in their customers also being off-line. This mean that C-level execs (CEOs, COOs, CTOs, etc - their real customers) did not have access to their email in the convenient form they had become accustomed to, and resulted in the immediate move from RIM's services to other services. It just so happened that iPhone and Android had solutions that didn't carry the same risk and provided nearly equivalent security (via webmail, and later direct Exchange synchronization).
What RIM did would be nearly impossible for any other medium to large company to do, especially one the size of Apple. A small business? Happens all the time. People need to stop using RIM as a comparison.
RIM's decline actually correlates closer with Android's rise in popularity.
RIM was holding its own against iPhone and Android just fine, until they had a global network issue and the design of the network showed a fatal flaw - their entire network was down for at least 1 week; due to the centralization of their network design, it also meant that *all* of their customers were without service. They never recovered from the event.
Drop the test. Duh.
Or just take the stance of "if the employee doesn't make it the employer's problem, then the employer will leave the employee alone". The employer can still reserve the ability to do testing should it prove necessary, but they can also leave their employees alone in the vast majority of cases. A good policy.
Sorry but someone who is required to obey their husband, but their husband not required to obey them, are not co-equals, no matter how much you twist it.
Created as co-equals (see the Genesis reference), but due to sin (Genesis 3) that balance was shift with the husband having final accountability (and therefore authority) before God. Obedience also shouldn't be demanded, and one should desire to obey the other. Read the references - it calls for both to submit to the other, not simply for one to lord it over the other.
Informative? That's the shine they show the world. When evangelical men get together on their own, they tell each other they're the rightful boss of their wives, that there is a hierarchy that goes from God through their pastor through them down to their family.
To put this correctly - the husband is the head of the household, responsible *to* God for *everything* and *everyone* in the household. The wife has a similar duty but not to the same degree - she is a check on the husband, but primarily responsible for herself and everyone else. So when it comes for Judgement Day (per Revelations), the husband has to answer for the entire household, not the wife.
Properly understood, this is *not* about power but rather responsibility and accountability.
If daycare were free, what would your wife do?
And as others have pointed out, nothing is truly free. Someone has to pay the workers to watch the kids, etc. Whether you pay for it yourself directly (private daycare options) or indirectly (taxes to fund public daycare options) - you still pay for it.
I'd rather have the lower taxes and make my own choice.
If daycare were free, what would your wife do?
In our case, she'd still stay home. There's greater value in raising the kids yourself and then pawning them off to someone else to raise.
My wife may have wanted to stay home anyway to be with the kids. She's lucky that she works in an industry where she can make decent money for part time work and she can take a few years off and still be employable. That's kind of rare.
There is a significant financial risk for women who do stay home. If something happens to their husband, - he dies or is no longer able to work, they're screwed. After a few years at home, it's going to be much harder to find a job that makes up for his lost income.
If a woman is dependent on her husband for income, it also puts her on unequal footing. Getting divorced if she's unhappy with the marriage is problematic since she's less able to earn a decent income on her own. If she had maintained a career that's not as much of a problem.
My wife keeps up in her field, so staying home isn't really hurting her all that much. Even so, good financial planning makes a huge difference in that scenario - which sadly most do not.
But face it, those same things are a problem for anyone that is essentially unemployed for an extended period of time.
In the US, it's not being taken from you to begin with. You can also live off a single income if you're engineers. If both of you work, you can just bank the 2nd income.
Your claims are absurd. They sound like old Soviet propaganda.
My wife can earn about the same as me. It's more efficient for her to stay home than it is for her to work. If she works part-time (20 hours/week normal for 1/2-3/4 of the year, 40 hours the remainder of the year) , then pretty much all of her income goes to childcare, we don't get to bank it. If she works full-time (40 hours/week for 1/2-3/4 of the year, 60-80 hours the remainder), then we still lose about half or more of her income between taxes and childcare, netting us a small amount; in the end, her time taking care of 3 kids is saving us more money than if she worked.
In terms of evangelical conservative views, of course they make terrible wives and mothers...
Until you realize that an Evangelical Conservative view a husband and wife are co-equals, differing responsibilities but equal and submissive to each other (Ephesians 5:21-6:4 and Genesis 2:20-25, among other places.)
Mod parent up. Wish I could.
Landing the second stage will be the most difficult because it will be traveling at orbital speed.
Not really that big of an issue compared to what comes after the slow down.
You're the second clueless fuckwit with the reading comprehension of used bubble gum that doesn't seem to grasp that a Dragon isn't a Falcon, and Mars isn't Earth.
As cbhacking kindly pointed out, those are not as big an issue. SpaceX has already demonstrated hovering capabilities (see videos for the Falcon9 for their testing - with propulsive take-off and subsequent landing on Earth). Yes, they may not be slowing down from orbital velocity, but that's not a huge issue - a far bigger issue is what to do when you slow down enough and get close enough to the ground that you have to deal with both (a) slow movement and (b) time to impact - SpaceX has demonstrated knowledge and ability for both; slowing down - while requiring resources and fuel - is not a huge issue.
Honestly, the Falcon9 first stage landing is a far more difficult problem than landing on another planet since it is operating a high velocity with limited resources - far fewer resources than would be available for a propulsive landing from orbital velocity on a craft designed for and carrying equipment and resources dedicated for such tasks.
And that model is unsustainable. It simply doesn't work. Nice in theory, but not in practice.
You know this how?
Income Expenses != sustainability
o.0 Huh? The Falcon Heavy hasn't flown, he's never been beyond LEO (the difference in thermal environment is of particular concern here), and no Dragon of any kind has ever landed propulsively. (Though there have been some short test hops IIRC.) Or, to put it another way, pretty much none of the precursors to this mission have been demonstrated, let alone successfully.
Seriously, are Musk fanboys just completely clueless when it come to space technology, or are their blinders that thick?
I guess you missed SpaceX landing the Stage 1 boosters on land (Florida) and at sea recently after accomplishing their missions, in both cases using propulsion. Expanding that for the additional stages should actually be an *easier* task than what they've already done.