The important factor in mileage is whether or not you're putting a load on your engine; whether you're accelerating or merely trying to maintain your speed up a hill. To boost mileage you're going to have to do a lot of coasting.
I installed a boost/vacuum gauge in my car some time ago; it being a turbocharged 4-cylinder. A friend pointed out that it's a handy tool towards managing fuel economy something I've experienced myself. Using that in conjunction with my MPG calculate I know exactly how much throttle input I need to maintain speed on a flat road but maximize fuel economy. If you commute in a hilly area you're going to struggle to keep up your mileage; you will have to let yourself lose some momentum up hills by staying off the throttle as much as possible. And 60mph is definitely better than 80mph.
It's very interesting, but I find that over my 15 mile commute I have to commit to fuel efficiency it from the start.
Perhaps they're horribly inefficient, but have you tried pouring out a gallon of a liquid over 20 miles? That small bead of liquid is enough to motivate a 4000lbs vehicle at 70mph. That's impressive if you ask me.
The reason we still are driving petroleum fueled vehicles is because no one has yet found a better or cheaper alternative. People love bringing asinine conspiracies as to why we don't yet have 100mpg cars. Like every automaker on Earth wouldn't kill to have a fuel efficient car that is a viable replacement for existing vehicles.
I'm all for ending daylight savings time. Provided my timezone gets shifted forward permanently. I don't want to deal with 4am sunrises in the summer, which basically means a waste of daylight.
It might be pointless closer to the equator, and perhaps even at the poles where the days and nights get so long. But at the middle latitudes DST is quite helpful.
Perhaps time zones should be broken into half hour increments. Some places fall into awkward spots on the time zone and end up in a situation where they get the day shifted forward excessively. 8am sunrises and 10pm sunsets, for example. Some places are at the other extreme, or close, like where I live.
I think of those episodes, as I imagine a starship helmed by Sarah Palin and the type of civilization that would arise if you let her and a bunch of teabaggers colonize a new planet.
They'd probably be a lot happier than those who ended up on a planet ruled by Nancy Pelosi and friends.
China is looking for dominance on every level. I'm convinced they want to be the next superpower. Certainly, focusing on economic might is at the forefront. China isn't shoveling an ever increasing amount of money into military spending for fun. In pretty much every area you can think of technology, space, banking or infrastructure they're heavily invested. If they were interested in only economic might they would be taking Japan's approach, but obviously that's not their intent.
China is likely not intending to invade at some point. But they're very pragmatic and extremely ambitious. And like it or not, a strong China is not necessarily a good thing for America because obviously they're only looking out for themselves.
China will never invade Taiwan. China has far too much to gain from Taiwan economically. And, not only that, the current administration of Taiwan has gotten quite friendly with China. Many Taiwanese are more pragmatic and value the money they can make in China more highly than national pride.
The only way China would invade Taiwan is if their economy collapsed, or at least they faced a serious economic downturn which is bound to happen. But by then they may be close enough that a military invasion wont be necessary. And anyway, China has bigger fish to fry.
I really can't stand this culture of entitlement; these millenials who need to be pampered in every way. And ironically, despite all this money dumped into this feel good crap these students continue to perform poorly in schools. Americans would be shocked at the classroom environments students in Asia face, especially the huge classes with upwards of 30 students. And yet, academically, they run rings around Americans. Kids are in school to learn, not to feel good, not to have fun.
Kids fidget because they don't want to be in class. Stick them in $5000 recliners and they'll still be antsy to get out of class. Either that or you'll have a classroom full of sleeping students.
Want kids to excel in school? Instill in them the value of working hard, the value of an education. Don't let them slack off. Stop instilling in kids the unrealistic expectation that work can be fun; that our lives will only be fulfilling if we're constantly doing crazy, unproductive things or partake in a hyperactive nightlife. That the guy who has a regular job and is raising a family is a loser who's given up on life. Of course, it's hard to fight this when the entertainment industry is constantly perpetuating this attitude.
Also extremely important is to not over-emphasize the importance of socializing. It is important to interact with people and have friends, but it is not the most important thing in the world. That's a huge mistake I see parents make all the time and it seems to be a surefire way to ensure kids perform poorly in school.
I went to what many would consider an inner-city school. Those who went on to be successful, some of whom went to ivy league schools had parents who stressed these principles to one extent or another. And given that their parents weren't necessarily all that well off they didn't didn't have the money to spoil them. The best part is when parents acknowledge their kids are spoiled but continue doing it anyway.
Has anyone noticed the kinds of cars college kids are driving nowadays? It's shocking to see all the expensive, brand new cars. I find it ironic when I go past the bus stop and see foreign students waiting there. Most of those college kids with the nice cars would give an impassioned argument about how they need that car to survive, but I guarantee the foreign kids on the bus will be the valedictorians at graduation.
Humans will find a way to exploit any system. Look at any online RPG out there. They all start with the most level playing field imaginable and strive to ensure equality. And yet eventually you end with haves and have-nots.
What we need is regulation that is flexible and able to respond to a changing environment. We also need regulation that doesn't favor special interests and don't compromise. Perhaps a true free market would eventually work through any problem, but I think it's likely that most problems wouldn't be addressed on a short enough timescale to be of any use to most people.
But regulation doesn't imply a bloated, ponderous government. Is there any reason why we can't have a small government AND efficient, proper regulation?
You would think people with the technology to travel through time wouldn't even need a phone. Hell, we don't even need to hold a phone to our heads today. A nearly invisible headset will do the job just fine. I suppose it could have been a voice recorder, but again why the need to hold a device to the head?
What it looks to me is like an older woman shielding her eyes from the sun and some guy with a hyperactive imagination. Or a guy with quite a talent at special effects and a good sense for keeping things just subtle enough that people wont be quick to dismiss it. And in either case the guy is likely looking for his 15 minutes of fame and a springboard for his career.
I agree. I find it hard to believe it took Apple this long to notice and then address supposed issues with light leakage. I'm having trouble even seeing how this would even ever be a problem.
Perhaps they decided they were going to try to address the broken glass issue, among others, before they release the white version. It would be rather stupid to go ahead and release alternate color knowing it's got all the problems plaguing the black version.
I generally agree with all the points you made. But something stuck out to me:
Nobody plays Go (or Chess; but Go is a superior game)
I have to ask: why is Go superior to Chess? Easier to pick up? More possible permutations? It was created in China as opposed to Chess which is a Western game?
I don't see how any of these reasons make Go inherently superior to Chess. Hell, even Checkers is a pretty damn good game and there are a million other good ones out there.
If you prefer Go, that's great, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's better than anything else.
It's not "liberal" when an individual or corporation decides to do these things. It's considered "liberal" when the government forces individuals to do these things, or extracts money from individuals and corporations in order to do these things themselves.
Many conservatives participate in a lot of charity, I'm not sure why you consider those two things to be mutually exclusive.
I predict once North Korea sees a regime change they're going to open up dramatically and all their rhetoric will finally come to an end. North Korea is a pariah and has nothing to gain from launching a strike. Even merely having a nuclear weapon doesn't necessarily improve their position.
Iran, on the other hand, does have a lot to gain by having a nuke. And they might even have an incentive to launch it, even if it resulted in Iran's obliteration. Likely, they'd bring down Israel with them, turn the region into chaos and almost certainly spark a real war. And some might actually consider Ahmadinejad a hero.
Boo!!! Why do you have to crush our flights of fancy? Are we wrong to dream?
And anyway, the more you do something, the easier and cheaper it gets. Think of the upfront cost as an investment which would undoubtedly pay off in the long run. Unfortunately that payout wont come soon enough for politicians to be re-elected. Better to spend our money on "bribes" which ensure reelection and keep the people dependent on government.
One of the big advantages Silicon Valley has enjoyed is it's proximity to Asia. And likely it's one of the reasons why Silicon Valley is where it is. They enjoy easier access to the high technology coming out of Japan, South Korea and Taiwan and the manufacturing resources of China.
The automotive industry is an entirely different beast. The technology isn't nearly as concentrated as it might be with computers or consumer electronics. A company could draw on manufacturing, expertise and technology from Europe, Asia and within the United States. So why even bother putting up with the high taxes and regulations present in California? The company could be based anywhere.
And building a car, especially a green car, is a far more complex undertaking than a lot of people seem to realize. I expect we're going to see a lot of investors burned in ventures that end up not working out. Even Tesla, which has gotten far further than most is struggled. Too many start ups have impractical pie-in-the-sky ambitions. Unrealistically lightweight vehicles with amazing fuel economy that manage, by magic, to meet all crash-worthiness requirements. And they simply don't have the resources to build aerodynamic bodies cheaply and efficiently. I expect that in the end it's going to be the major automakers who will bring practical green cars to the market.
The big limiting factor is the battery. If someone manages to produce batteries that store far more energy and can be charged quickly it would revolutionize the automotive industry. We wouldn't need hundreds of pounds worth of batteries or hybrid drivetrains and we'd still get a practical 300+ mile range out of these cars.
If McDonald's in Hong Kong is anything like I've seen elsewhere in Asia it's simply a place to hang out. People aren't necessarily eating there on a regular basis but then the place also doesn't have the stigma McDonald's holds in the US. People are thinking about how unhealthy the food is or necessarily consider it a lowly place to work.
In Taiwan several years ago McDonald's started opening cafes within their restaurants in order to compete directly with Starbucks. And honestly, it wasn't half bad. But then there's an important distinction: McDonald's in Asia are extremely clean, the employees courteous and the quality of the food very consistent. But then the same applies to a lot of restaurants there. Friday's is marketed as somewhat higher end than it is in the States. Starting with the identity, which is different than what's featured here, to the interior design, to the cuisine it's all has a more contemporary and higher quality feel. Friday's in the US come off like some rundown sports bar, with dishes no better than bad fast food. When I was there you could find a Starbucks almost literally at every major street corner (it was a big thing for them to take corner retail space where possible). And despite the market saturation every single one was clean and the employees friendly and helpful.
Ultimately, my point is that it's a very different situation to what we see in the States. Management is more closely involved, even store managers who actually ensure employees are doing their jobs. And overall there's a far superior work ethic out there where employees do what need to get done and are friendly with customers. As opposed to the jerks in the States who generally only mope around and only do the bare minimum to remain employed. And management relies on marketing to convince consumers that their franchises are nicer than they actually are.
That said, offering wedding packages at McDonald's seems lame. I'm guessing they're offering packages that feature things that appeal to people but at cheaper prices than might be found elsewhere. And perhaps there are some to whom the novelty might be appealing.
Apple has no reason to be dependent on Microsoft. The main reason anyone needs to touch a Microsoft product in OSX is for Office and Apply offers iWork. In my opinion it's no better, in some ways maybe worse, but it certainly does everything your average user is going to need.
Apple has more of a dependency on Adobe and not just because of Acrobat and Flash. The design industry is heavily rooted in in both camps and any significant split between them would have a profound impact on the industry.
I can certainly see the user experience for the average person growing increasingly streamlined and transparent. iOS is step in that direction. But someone has to build this stuff and those kinds of interfaces aren't the most efficient for that sort of work.
It seems to be like Apple is heavily focused on the consumer at the expense of the professional. In the long term I could see them abandoning the professional user altogether, particularly from what I'm seeing in these announcements. If Apple goes the full iOS route with their laptops and desktops someday, and doesn't offer a professional version, I could see designers being forced to jump to PC/Windows. Not that I necessarily expect it to happen, but that sure would be the irony of ironies.
The airframe might have cost $50k but what about everything else? How much did everything necessary to make this building livable (insulation, wiring, sheetrock, flooring, lighting, plumbing, etc) cost? I'm guessing even the foundation was built separately with the plane serving as little more than a skin. I was expecting to see a plane, or at least part of it, sitting on this property. Oh yeah, then there's making the skin weatherproof given that all those panels were cut up and taken apart. And I haven't even mentioned the massive expense of hiring architects and engineers to work on so unique a project. And clearly they had experts involved to help address any potential rules regarding home construction.
If they didn't balk at paying $8000 an hour to pay for a helicopter I doubt money was an issue here.
The house is very cool and I like how they repurposed materials. But I find it an insult when they try to suggest that somehow this enterprise was done on the cheap. This seems to be a common trait with the green movement when it comes to recycling objects for a different function. They try to impress everyone by how inexpensive or easy it supposedly is to do what they're describing when that's the furthest thing from the truth. If it were so easy everyone would be doing it. This isn't like cutting a milk jug in half and using it for a flower pot.
The US could do what the EU has been doing for years now. Impose anti-dumping tariffs like Europe has done on cheap Chinese clothing, among other things. It would inevitably mean everything would get more expensive for Americans, but then it's also more likely to keep more jobs in the States. I personally thing inflation has been kept artificially low because how much manufacturing has moved to China.
Slashdot Mirror
The important factor in mileage is whether or not you're putting a load on your engine; whether you're accelerating or merely trying to maintain your speed up a hill. To boost mileage you're going to have to do a lot of coasting.
I installed a boost/vacuum gauge in my car some time ago; it being a turbocharged 4-cylinder. A friend pointed out that it's a handy tool towards managing fuel economy something I've experienced myself. Using that in conjunction with my MPG calculate I know exactly how much throttle input I need to maintain speed on a flat road but maximize fuel economy. If you commute in a hilly area you're going to struggle to keep up your mileage; you will have to let yourself lose some momentum up hills by staying off the throttle as much as possible. And 60mph is definitely better than 80mph.
It's very interesting, but I find that over my 15 mile commute I have to commit to fuel efficiency it from the start.
Perhaps they're horribly inefficient, but have you tried pouring out a gallon of a liquid over 20 miles? That small bead of liquid is enough to motivate a 4000lbs vehicle at 70mph. That's impressive if you ask me.
The reason we still are driving petroleum fueled vehicles is because no one has yet found a better or cheaper alternative. People love bringing asinine conspiracies as to why we don't yet have 100mpg cars. Like every automaker on Earth wouldn't kill to have a fuel efficient car that is a viable replacement for existing vehicles.
I'm all for ending daylight savings time. Provided my timezone gets shifted forward permanently. I don't want to deal with 4am sunrises in the summer, which basically means a waste of daylight.
It might be pointless closer to the equator, and perhaps even at the poles where the days and nights get so long. But at the middle latitudes DST is quite helpful.
Perhaps time zones should be broken into half hour increments. Some places fall into awkward spots on the time zone and end up in a situation where they get the day shifted forward excessively. 8am sunrises and 10pm sunsets, for example. Some places are at the other extreme, or close, like where I live.
They'd probably be a lot happier than those who ended up on a planet ruled by Nancy Pelosi and friends.
China is looking for dominance on every level. I'm convinced they want to be the next superpower. Certainly, focusing on economic might is at the forefront. China isn't shoveling an ever increasing amount of money into military spending for fun. In pretty much every area you can think of technology, space, banking or infrastructure they're heavily invested. If they were interested in only economic might they would be taking Japan's approach, but obviously that's not their intent.
China is likely not intending to invade at some point. But they're very pragmatic and extremely ambitious. And like it or not, a strong China is not necessarily a good thing for America because obviously they're only looking out for themselves.
China will never invade Taiwan. China has far too much to gain from Taiwan economically. And, not only that, the current administration of Taiwan has gotten quite friendly with China. Many Taiwanese are more pragmatic and value the money they can make in China more highly than national pride.
The only way China would invade Taiwan is if their economy collapsed, or at least they faced a serious economic downturn which is bound to happen. But by then they may be close enough that a military invasion wont be necessary. And anyway, China has bigger fish to fry.
I really can't stand this culture of entitlement; these millenials who need to be pampered in every way. And ironically, despite all this money dumped into this feel good crap these students continue to perform poorly in schools. Americans would be shocked at the classroom environments students in Asia face, especially the huge classes with upwards of 30 students. And yet, academically, they run rings around Americans. Kids are in school to learn, not to feel good, not to have fun.
Kids fidget because they don't want to be in class. Stick them in $5000 recliners and they'll still be antsy to get out of class. Either that or you'll have a classroom full of sleeping students.
Want kids to excel in school? Instill in them the value of working hard, the value of an education. Don't let them slack off. Stop instilling in kids the unrealistic expectation that work can be fun; that our lives will only be fulfilling if we're constantly doing crazy, unproductive things or partake in a hyperactive nightlife. That the guy who has a regular job and is raising a family is a loser who's given up on life. Of course, it's hard to fight this when the entertainment industry is constantly perpetuating this attitude.
Also extremely important is to not over-emphasize the importance of socializing. It is important to interact with people and have friends, but it is not the most important thing in the world. That's a huge mistake I see parents make all the time and it seems to be a surefire way to ensure kids perform poorly in school.
I went to what many would consider an inner-city school. Those who went on to be successful, some of whom went to ivy league schools had parents who stressed these principles to one extent or another. And given that their parents weren't necessarily all that well off they didn't didn't have the money to spoil them. The best part is when parents acknowledge their kids are spoiled but continue doing it anyway.
Has anyone noticed the kinds of cars college kids are driving nowadays? It's shocking to see all the expensive, brand new cars. I find it ironic when I go past the bus stop and see foreign students waiting there. Most of those college kids with the nice cars would give an impassioned argument about how they need that car to survive, but I guarantee the foreign kids on the bus will be the valedictorians at graduation.
Okay, end of rant.
Humans will find a way to exploit any system. Look at any online RPG out there. They all start with the most level playing field imaginable and strive to ensure equality. And yet eventually you end with haves and have-nots.
What we need is regulation that is flexible and able to respond to a changing environment. We also need regulation that doesn't favor special interests and don't compromise. Perhaps a true free market would eventually work through any problem, but I think it's likely that most problems wouldn't be addressed on a short enough timescale to be of any use to most people.
But regulation doesn't imply a bloated, ponderous government. Is there any reason why we can't have a small government AND efficient, proper regulation?
I was kind of hoping I'd see some guy dressed in a silver bodysuit ostentatiously waltzing across the screen yakking big 1980's brick phone.
You would think people with the technology to travel through time wouldn't even need a phone. Hell, we don't even need to hold a phone to our heads today. A nearly invisible headset will do the job just fine. I suppose it could have been a voice recorder, but again why the need to hold a device to the head?
What it looks to me is like an older woman shielding her eyes from the sun and some guy with a hyperactive imagination. Or a guy with quite a talent at special effects and a good sense for keeping things just subtle enough that people wont be quick to dismiss it. And in either case the guy is likely looking for his 15 minutes of fame and a springboard for his career.
I agree. I find it hard to believe it took Apple this long to notice and then address supposed issues with light leakage. I'm having trouble even seeing how this would even ever be a problem.
Perhaps they decided they were going to try to address the broken glass issue, among others, before they release the white version. It would be rather stupid to go ahead and release alternate color knowing it's got all the problems plaguing the black version.
Not being interested in a device at all and not being interested in it if it doesn't include oral sex are very different things.
I generally agree with all the points you made. But something stuck out to me:
I have to ask: why is Go superior to Chess? Easier to pick up? More possible permutations? It was created in China as opposed to Chess which is a Western game?
I don't see how any of these reasons make Go inherently superior to Chess. Hell, even Checkers is a pretty damn good game and there are a million other good ones out there.
If you prefer Go, that's great, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's better than anything else.
It's not "liberal" when an individual or corporation decides to do these things. It's considered "liberal" when the government forces individuals to do these things, or extracts money from individuals and corporations in order to do these things themselves.
Many conservatives participate in a lot of charity, I'm not sure why you consider those two things to be mutually exclusive.
I don't think you need engineering skills to know you could stop this truck. You simply need common sense or to have watched a lot of TV perhaps.
The trick is even coming up with the idea in the moment, but then you don't need to be an engineer for that either.
It's a neat story nonetheless.
I predict once North Korea sees a regime change they're going to open up dramatically and all their rhetoric will finally come to an end. North Korea is a pariah and has nothing to gain from launching a strike. Even merely having a nuclear weapon doesn't necessarily improve their position.
Iran, on the other hand, does have a lot to gain by having a nuke. And they might even have an incentive to launch it, even if it resulted in Iran's obliteration. Likely, they'd bring down Israel with them, turn the region into chaos and almost certainly spark a real war. And some might actually consider Ahmadinejad a hero.
Boo!!! Why do you have to crush our flights of fancy? Are we wrong to dream?
And anyway, the more you do something, the easier and cheaper it gets. Think of the upfront cost as an investment which would undoubtedly pay off in the long run. Unfortunately that payout wont come soon enough for politicians to be re-elected. Better to spend our money on "bribes" which ensure reelection and keep the people dependent on government.
One of the big advantages Silicon Valley has enjoyed is it's proximity to Asia. And likely it's one of the reasons why Silicon Valley is where it is. They enjoy easier access to the high technology coming out of Japan, South Korea and Taiwan and the manufacturing resources of China.
The automotive industry is an entirely different beast. The technology isn't nearly as concentrated as it might be with computers or consumer electronics. A company could draw on manufacturing, expertise and technology from Europe, Asia and within the United States. So why even bother putting up with the high taxes and regulations present in California? The company could be based anywhere.
And building a car, especially a green car, is a far more complex undertaking than a lot of people seem to realize. I expect we're going to see a lot of investors burned in ventures that end up not working out. Even Tesla, which has gotten far further than most is struggled. Too many start ups have impractical pie-in-the-sky ambitions. Unrealistically lightweight vehicles with amazing fuel economy that manage, by magic, to meet all crash-worthiness requirements. And they simply don't have the resources to build aerodynamic bodies cheaply and efficiently. I expect that in the end it's going to be the major automakers who will bring practical green cars to the market.
The big limiting factor is the battery. If someone manages to produce batteries that store far more energy and can be charged quickly it would revolutionize the automotive industry. We wouldn't need hundreds of pounds worth of batteries or hybrid drivetrains and we'd still get a practical 300+ mile range out of these cars.
Claiming that a dog dries his fur by shaking is a bit of a stretch. They shake off excess water, but you're still left with a rather wet dog.
If McDonald's in Hong Kong is anything like I've seen elsewhere in Asia it's simply a place to hang out. People aren't necessarily eating there on a regular basis but then the place also doesn't have the stigma McDonald's holds in the US. People are thinking about how unhealthy the food is or necessarily consider it a lowly place to work.
In Taiwan several years ago McDonald's started opening cafes within their restaurants in order to compete directly with Starbucks. And honestly, it wasn't half bad. But then there's an important distinction: McDonald's in Asia are extremely clean, the employees courteous and the quality of the food very consistent. But then the same applies to a lot of restaurants there. Friday's is marketed as somewhat higher end than it is in the States. Starting with the identity, which is different than what's featured here, to the interior design, to the cuisine it's all has a more contemporary and higher quality feel. Friday's in the US come off like some rundown sports bar, with dishes no better than bad fast food. When I was there you could find a Starbucks almost literally at every major street corner (it was a big thing for them to take corner retail space where possible). And despite the market saturation every single one was clean and the employees friendly and helpful.
Ultimately, my point is that it's a very different situation to what we see in the States. Management is more closely involved, even store managers who actually ensure employees are doing their jobs. And overall there's a far superior work ethic out there where employees do what need to get done and are friendly with customers. As opposed to the jerks in the States who generally only mope around and only do the bare minimum to remain employed. And management relies on marketing to convince consumers that their franchises are nicer than they actually are.
That said, offering wedding packages at McDonald's seems lame. I'm guessing they're offering packages that feature things that appeal to people but at cheaper prices than might be found elsewhere. And perhaps there are some to whom the novelty might be appealing.
Apple has no reason to be dependent on Microsoft. The main reason anyone needs to touch a Microsoft product in OSX is for Office and Apply offers iWork. In my opinion it's no better, in some ways maybe worse, but it certainly does everything your average user is going to need.
Apple has more of a dependency on Adobe and not just because of Acrobat and Flash. The design industry is heavily rooted in in both camps and any significant split between them would have a profound impact on the industry.
I can certainly see the user experience for the average person growing increasingly streamlined and transparent. iOS is step in that direction. But someone has to build this stuff and those kinds of interfaces aren't the most efficient for that sort of work.
It seems to be like Apple is heavily focused on the consumer at the expense of the professional. In the long term I could see them abandoning the professional user altogether, particularly from what I'm seeing in these announcements. If Apple goes the full iOS route with their laptops and desktops someday, and doesn't offer a professional version, I could see designers being forced to jump to PC/Windows. Not that I necessarily expect it to happen, but that sure would be the irony of ironies.
One last thing... Does your average house even have $50k worth of materials in it? Without a point of reference that figure is meaningless.
Economical. Right.
The airframe might have cost $50k but what about everything else? How much did everything necessary to make this building livable (insulation, wiring, sheetrock, flooring, lighting, plumbing, etc) cost? I'm guessing even the foundation was built separately with the plane serving as little more than a skin. I was expecting to see a plane, or at least part of it, sitting on this property. Oh yeah, then there's making the skin weatherproof given that all those panels were cut up and taken apart. And I haven't even mentioned the massive expense of hiring architects and engineers to work on so unique a project. And clearly they had experts involved to help address any potential rules regarding home construction.
If they didn't balk at paying $8000 an hour to pay for a helicopter I doubt money was an issue here.
The house is very cool and I like how they repurposed materials. But I find it an insult when they try to suggest that somehow this enterprise was done on the cheap. This seems to be a common trait with the green movement when it comes to recycling objects for a different function. They try to impress everyone by how inexpensive or easy it supposedly is to do what they're describing when that's the furthest thing from the truth. If it were so easy everyone would be doing it. This isn't like cutting a milk jug in half and using it for a flower pot.
The US could do what the EU has been doing for years now. Impose anti-dumping tariffs like Europe has done on cheap Chinese clothing, among other things. It would inevitably mean everything would get more expensive for Americans, but then it's also more likely to keep more jobs in the States. I personally thing inflation has been kept artificially low because how much manufacturing has moved to China.
Given that the iWork suite is no better than Office I don't see why Facebook would necessarily be improved.
Apple's GUIs are elegant only when they limit functionality.