I think the biggest problem with 'industrial' architecture is that it's lost its sense of humanity. Minimalist stuff drains all the humanity out of it. That idea works great for the money thing, but it doesn't work great for the feeling thing.
The revolutionary breakthrough will come with rockets that are fully and rapidly reusable. We will never conquer Mars unless we do that. It'll be too expensive. The American colonies would never have been pioneered if the ships that crossed the ocean hadn't been reusable.
There's always a concern over budget with film too but people are more extravagant when they're making a feature. In television everything's tight, everything's paired down and it's just a question of making it look expensive.
When General Motors builds a car, they want to meet the specific needs of many customers. But if they custom-make each car, then it will not be economical.
If we drive down the cost of transportation in space, we can do great things.
I keep my overhead as low as I can.
In California, they're not making any more land. And with the high cost of land, from a business standpoint, being able to move your goods quickly and cheaply makes Compton an attractive place to be.
In the world where people with money overlap with restaurants and try to work out how to make more money, one of the things they talk about is the desire to find 'the new pizza.' This means a new mass-market product that can be made quickly and eaten both on the premises and as a takeaway.
It's easier to cancel a show if it's expensive.
Taking proactive action on climate change is essential to ensuring that Unilever remains a viable business in the future. We will also reap the benefits in innovation, new product development, and cost efficiencies.
Watch the costs and the profits will take care of themselves.
Federal regulations should promote safety without unnecessarily burdening small firms and costing much-needed jobs.
It's all about competitiveness: are you making the products that people really do want and value, and are you making it more efficiently and using less resources and less time than the competition?
I tend to tell my readers to go for the cheapest ingredients every time, unless they're unbearable. If so, you only need to have them once and the next week switch up.
From where I sit, I see the digital cinema creating sloppiness on the part of filmmakers because they know if they really get in trouble, they can fix it later. So they don't pay that much attention, and of course it costs a lot more money.
Well-spent aid money is saving lives for a few thousand dollars per life saved.
Price is what you pay. Value is what you get.
Admire a small ship, but put your freight in a large one; for the larger the load, the greater will be the profit upon profit.
There's a basic principle about consumer electronics: it gets more powerful all the time and it gets cheaper all the time. that's true of all types of consumer electronics.
We need to draw up a regime where government can be an enabler for manufacturing to compete at good quality and prices.
The U.N.'s impartiality allows it to negotiate and operate in some of the toughest places in the world. And time and again, studies have shown that U.N. peacekeeping is far more effective and done with far less money than what any government can do on its own.
The way we want to look at it is we would like to do end-to-end design in India. We've invested for many years, and so at some point, to do end-to-end product in India is very much a possibility.
I don't think we will put higher-ed out of business. I think we'll evolve it. More access, higher quality, lower costs, more global reach.
When you are on assignment, film is the least expensive thing in a very practical sense. Your time, the person's time, turns out to be the most valuable thing.
When I'm shooting on location, you get ideas on the spot - new angles. You make not major changes but important modifications, that you can't do on a set. I do that because you have to be economical.
