Slashdot Mirror

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn9968-top-10-steps-to-a-better-brain.html?full=true#faq2

Above article is extremely relevant. I'm sure most nerds would find the whole thing interesting. The one section however is specifically about how foods effect your brain function and which ones are good.

Albert Einstein is the most well-known example of an eccentric genius. Grigory Perelman is another example. So is Claude Shannon, the "father" of communications theory.

Yet another example will likely be Burkhard Heim. He formulated the mathematics for warp-drive, and the Department of Defense is actively studying his work in an attempt to build a prototype of a warp-drive engine.

The Hockey Stick debacle came about because someone used math they didn't really understand... or was outright fraud.

Wrong. Climate myths: The 'hockey stick' graph has been proven wrong. The "hockey stick" was investigated by a 2006 report of the US National Academy of Science, which found that:

"The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) was that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1000 years. This conclusion has subsequently been supported by an array of evidence that includes both additional large-scale surface temperature reconstructions and pronounced changes in a variety of local proxy indicators, such as melting on ice caps and the retreat of glaciers around the world."

So, the "hockey stick" is okay, unless you think that the US National Academy of Science are a) liars and b) taking part in a global conspiracy.

I was hoping someone would've already pointed that out! Additionally:

The data of stations located in areas not listed in the Hadley CRU survey often does not show any substantial warming in the late 20th century and the early 21st century.

That is a Strawman argument. No scientist has claimed that every region of the world must experience warming simultaneously in order for the global mean to increase: Regional cooling does not disprove global warming.

Take a look at this.

The "adjusted upwards again" part was just my supposition.

Is your name Louis Michaud?

Well, not until someone writes ASCIITube!

(Or this becomes commonplace.)

asking why CO2 lags temperature gain?

That's an easy one to explain. Every pop sci "top 10 climate myths" article covers this point, for example:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11659-climate-myths-ice-cores-show-co2-increases-lag-behind-temperature-rises-disproving-the-link-to-global-warming.html

Games are good for your eyesight, social life, physical health, learning, stress, language skills and economy, among other things.

Oh, and gaming addiction is mostly bunk.

Games are good for your eyesight, social life, physical health, learning, stress, language skills and economy, among other things.

Oh, and gaming addiction is mostly bunk.

Umm, you might want to rethink that last one.

some of the 'right wing' publications
http://www.newscientist.com/blog/.../10/al-gores-inconvenient-truth.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/13/science/13gore.html
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2007/10/an-inconvenient/
need I go on?

Having recently read an article in the "New Scientist" as to how Carbon could be the new Silicon, thanks to Nanotechnology, this got me wondering whether Carbon could do the same thing for batteries, so I decided to see what the research status is. From what I can see Zinc-Carbon is the current cheap solution in non-rechargeable batteries (according to Wikipedia), though a few hits turn up Lead-Carbon batteries, with this following article suggesting it could be a "game changer":

http://seekingalpha.com/article/115257-lead-carbon-a-game-changer-for-alternative-energy-storage

As to whether that pans out we will have to see. The advantage of Carbon over Silicon and Lithium is its availability.

They will keep it at the same database where some measures from this research are recorded:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13589-sweat-ducts-may-act-as-giveaway-antennas.html

Of course, IQ does a remarkably good job at what it's intended to do: correlate with the sort of things we normally associate with intelligence, in the context of a statistical study. Sure, there are plenty of people who seem stupid in some ways but have high IQ; on average, though, it works well.

By whose measure? The problem seems to be not that high IQ correlates with intelligence, but that intelligence doesn't correlate well with successful decision-making; the application of that intelligence. If I have a saw, but I still choose to "cut" wood by smashing it with a hammer until it breaks, then the fact that I have a saw is essentially irrelevant, except as an indicator of my especially poor decision-making skills. In the same way, it's been suggested that many people with high IQ choose not to exercise their intelligence, instead relying on intuition or resorting to apathy.

The New Scientist article that the GP alluded to above, describing recent studies on the subject still of IQ and successful decision-making, still appears to be free: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20427321.000-clever-fools-why-a-high-iq-doesnt-mean-youre-smart.html

The US has rightly pointed at corruption at the UN, but this brings subverting world institutions for gain to a new level.

The U.S. National Academy of Science has endorsed anthropogenic global warming:

"The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) was that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1000 years. This conclusion has subsequently been supported by an array of evidence that includes both additional large-scale surface temperature reconstructions and pronounced changes in a variety of local proxy indicators, such as melting on ice caps and the retreat of glaciers around the world". (see Climate myths: The 'hockey stick' graph has been proven wrong

The U.S. Global Change Research Program found that:

"Observations show that warming of the climate is unequivocal. The global warming observed over the past 50 years is due primarily to human-induced emissions of heat-trapping gases. These emissions come mainly from the burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil, and gas), with important contributions from the clearing of forests, agricultural practices, and other activities."

Nature, New Scientist and the BBC

So Nature, New Scientist, the BBC, the U.S. National Academy of Science, NASA, the Smithsonian Institute, the National Science Foundation, the national science academies of every G8 nation etc. etc. are all part of some global conspiracy to defraud the human species?

The United States National Academy of Science investigated the "Hockey Stick" and found it to be valid. Their report states:

"The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) was that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1000 years. This conclusion has subsequently been supported by an array of evidence that includes both additional large-scale surface temperature reconstructions and pronounced changes in a variety of local proxy indicators, such as melting on ice caps and the retreat of glaciers around the world". (see Climate myths: The 'hockey stick' graph has been proven wrong)

Or do you believe that the U.S. National Academy of Science is also taking part in this supposed global conspiracy?

many of the skeptics have been supporting the solar variation side of the theory of global climate change, and (surprise!) it matches up quite nicely to observed temperature changes

From Climate myths: Global warming is down to the Sun, not humans:

Even if solar forcing in the past was more important than this estimate suggests, as some scientists think, there is no correlation between solar activity and the strong warming during the past 40 years... Direct measurements of solar output since 1978 show a steady rise and fall over the 11-year sunspot cycle, but no upwards or downward trend. Similarly, there is no trend in direct measurements of the Sun's ultraviolet output and in cosmic rays. So for the period for which we have direct, reliable records, the Earth has warmed dramatically even though there has been no corresponding rise in any kind of solar activity.

and from Climate myths: Mars and Pluto are warming too

The Sun's energy output has not increased since direct measurements began in 1978 (see Climate myth special: Global warming is down to the Sun, not humans). If increased solar output really was responsible, we should be seeing warming on all the planets and their moons, not just Mars and Pluto.

None of these things have happened over the last twenty years, therefore THEY WERE WRONG.

So, a number of different scientists made a range of different predictions, each having some different confidence interval, and because *some* do not come true, you conclude that "THEY ARE ALL WRONG"..?

many of the skeptics have been supporting the solar variation side of the theory of global climate change, and (surprise!) it matches up quite nicely to observed temperature changes

From Climate myths: Global warming is down to the Sun, not humans:

Even if solar forcing in the past was more important than this estimate suggests, as some scientists think, there is no correlation between solar activity and the strong warming during the past 40 years... Direct measurements of solar output since 1978 show a steady rise and fall over the 11-year sunspot cycle, but no upwards or downward trend. Similarly, there is no trend in direct measurements of the Sun's ultraviolet output and in cosmic rays. So for the period for which we have direct, reliable records, the Earth has warmed dramatically even though there has been no corresponding rise in any kind of solar activity.

and from Climate myths: Mars and Pluto are warming too

The Sun's energy output has not increased since direct measurements began in 1978 (see Climate myth special: Global warming is down to the Sun, not humans). If increased solar output really was responsible, we should be seeing warming on all the planets and their moons, not just Mars and Pluto.

None of these things have happened over the last twenty years, therefore THEY WERE WRONG.

So, a number of different scientists made a range of different predictions, each having some different confidence interval, and because *some* do not come true, you conclude that "THEY ARE ALL WRONG"..?

North America was covered by an ice sheet until about 10,000 years ago.

Strawman argument. Nobody is denying that there have been ice ages in the past. And ice in the last glacial period didn't cover all of North America, just parts of it - have you even read the article you link to? "ice covered most of Canada, the Upper Midwest, and New England, as well as parts of Montana and Washington".

That Mars is suffering "climate change" too.

Ah, that old chestnut. Climate myths: Mars and Pluto are warming too

Well, duh, "It is the Sun, stupid". Whatever we do here — and we didn't reduce our emissions (save for those few weeks in Bejing you observed) over the decade — the Sun will trump that many times over.

Over the short term of a few years, yes, solar output can vary enough to cause warming and cooling at a greater rate than AGW. But over the long term of decades, the AGW will win out. It is a myth that any cooling disproves global warming.

Same with newscientist
I imagine all scientific journals will be quite clear on this point. A few suspect emails do not destroy millions of man hours of research.

"The Hockey Team" and their data had been discredited a long time ago.

Wrong. The "hockey stick" was investigated by a 2006 report of the US National Academy of Science, which found that:

"The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) was that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1000 years. This conclusion has subsequently been supported by an array of evidence that includes both additional large-scale surface temperature reconstructions and pronounced changes in a variety of local proxy indicators, such as melting on ice caps and the retreat of glaciers around the world."

So, the "hockey stick" is okay, unless you think that the US National Academy of Science are a) liars and b) taking part in a global conspiracy.

Just hope you don't get too many stem cells from them that survive in your body.

A few might lodge in your brain[1] (or your stomach "brain"[2] - which might change some of your dietary preferences[3]).

[1] If fetal stem cells can end up in their mother's brains, why not other transplanted stem cells?
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg18725134.300-baby-comes-with-brain-repair-kit-for-mum.html

[2] See "Enteric Nervous System"
[3] See: http://www.springerlink.com/content/k51335l4k4676577/
That's somewhat anecdotal but I won't be surprised if your organs and other parts have some say on what you feel like eating (it'll be an evolutionary advantage if done "right").

LEDs [...] no toxic materials

Gallium arsenide is a carcinogen, and arsenic is released when the crystal is exposed to water (after the LED light is thrown out and ends up in a landfill.) Manufacturing of semiconductors is producing poisonous waste, and it requires large amounts of energy.

The new ones will use Gallium Nitride
I've seen a 4W Gallium Nitride LED lamp (on someone's kitchen ceiling, next to 11W CFL equivalents) and it's very effective. In that case it's an advantage that the LED is directional - the original incandescents for which they substitute would have been reflector bulbs. The light is yellower and more like an incandescent than the CFLs next to it.

As for energy cost of manufacturing, the original article claims to have factored that in to the total lifetime cost.

Uh, I remember reading about this over three years ago. Come on, Slashdot! Give me some news instead!

Except display on a contact lens actual exist. granted it's only a fw LEDs, but it's a start.
It's not vaporware, and in fact there is a prototype:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18146-contact-lenses-to-get-builtin-virtual-graphics.html

I hope someday to own a pair and play Duke Nukem on them~

I saw this yesterday:

A man strangles his wife while dreaming about fighting off intruders in his sleep. Does that make him mad, bad or innocent? Recent research is helping to unpick these issues, and may help reveal who, if anyone, bears responsibility in such cases.

Last week, British man Brian Thomas appeared in court on a murder charge after strangling his wife as they slept in their camper van. The prosecution withdrew the charges after three psychiatrists testified that locking him up would serve no useful purpose. The judge said that Thomas bore no responsibility for his actions.

Yes, in the past, the increase in the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere lagged behind temperature increases. But that does not mean that an increase in the concentration of carbon dioxide cannot cause an increase in temperatures now.

So, what you're saying is that just because the data we have indicates one type of relationship, it doesn't mean that it can't work in the other direction. That must be a model created with some new strange form of regression I'm not familiar with. Or, we're just ignoring the data that doesn't fit our preconceived conclusions.

All the climate data suggests that CO2 increase does not lead temperature increase, but follows. Even John Houghton, who was co-chair of the IPCC and is a supporter of the idea of antropogenic global warming, admits "Carbon dioxide content and temperature correlate so closely during the last ice age is not evidence of carbon dioxide driving the temperature but rather the other way round... I often show that diagram in my lectures on climate change but always make the point that it gives no proof of global warming due to increased carbon dioxide."

Can't we stop arguing our political positions and just look at the science? I realize it's hard to do because politicians on both sides have hijacked the discussion, so it's difficult to find the real facts through all of the noise that has been created on the subject. But, both sides need to just shut up and learn how to analyze data instead of issuing talking points that twist the truth into propaganda.

...

The big problem is really obvious. It's the quality of teachers. And it's not that the teachers are bad per se, it's that they're unmotivated to do better. Teacher's unions make it so that you get paid on years on the job and tenure, not how well you teach. Decoupling rewards with results in this way has been the single worst decision in education in this country.

Look at most charter schools. They flourish. Why? Because the teachers are motivated to teach well, not just do well until they get to tenure status.

Unions are NOT the problem. The unions in Europe are incredibly strong, probably much stronger than any teachers unions in the U.S. http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/feb/01/speakout-american-teachers-unions-the-fatal-flaw/ Why don't we put the blame on teacher training and certification instead. How else can you explain how 16% of U.S. science teachers are creationists? http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13930-16-of-us-science-teachers-are-creationists.html

Nonetheless, he failed to identify IBM as the inventor of the precursor to the Universal Translator.

Still, he accurately predicted many techologies: communicator (i. e., cell phone), phasors (i. e., laser cannon, for which the Pentagon has already designated a prime contracror to build the device), and warp drive (hyperdrive, which the Pentagon is now attempting to build).

"You have it RIGHT on the head. That is why when ppl speak of CO2 on a per capita basis, I just want to shoot them. Basically, it rewards nations that breed like f***ing rabbits. Instead, it should be based on emissions per SQ KM".

You have an interesting sense of justice. Wealth and education are well known for being the most effective birth control measures we have. Since the western way of life is built on our massive energy consumption per capita, it follows that one of the chief reasons for our lower birth rates is our energy consumption and thus our CO2-emissions.

The fact is that the US is the world's biggest polluter per capita. This probably looks a lot better if you measure per SQ KM instead but quite frankly this would be meaningless. It not like Americans spend a large part of their energy heating the Rocky Mountains (*), so why should they benefit from their huge land areas (**)?

The problem is definitely not overpopulation. The wealthiest 7% of people contribute approximately 50% of the world's emissions and the 50% poorest contribute approximately 7% of the emissions (source).

Thus if everyone produced as much CO2 as the nations that breed like "f***ing rabbits", our CO2 emissions would be roughly 14% of what it is now. I'm fully aware this is simplistic, if everyone produced that little CO2 everyone would likely be breeding like "f***ing rabbits", however it is very likely that we could reduce our emissions by 50% at least by behaving more sensibly.

Attempting to switch the measurements is essentially an easy and actually quite evil cop-out. Think of the allowances that would be given to the British or Japanese compared to that of the Americans? Do you really think that is fair? It is far, far easier for countries with big land mass to reduce their energy consumption per capita than it is for countries with a small landmass and large population to reduce their energy consumption per SQ KM. Only mass deportation or deaths would solve those problems for Japan and Britain.

(*) Well, actually you do due to the green house effect, but it is surely not deliberate.
(**) I am Norwegian, which due to a very low population density would benefit greatly from measuring CO2 per SQ KM rather than per capita. I currently live in Britain who would comparably suffer greatly from this change.

How does that switch work for you?

It's pretty laughable comparing smoking to driving. There are no jobs that you have to smoke to get to. There are no grocery stores that you can't get to without smoking. There are no schools or children's soccer games that you magically get to by lighting up. Cars are actually useful.

shit you're kidding me, right? Easy enough to put those outdoor ashtrays back in place, and your problem's solved.

Obviously you've never looked up at the ceiling of a restaurant that allows smoking. You'd be amazed at the amount of particulate output from cigarettes.

Oh, and just to counter both your points with a single study, "The air pollution emitted by cigarettes is 10 times greater than diesel car exhaust". And diesel exhaust, of course, is far nastier close to the ground than normal cars. Just saying.

Yes, there will be some positive effects due to global warming, such as more arable land in the high latitudes. On the other hand, there will also be negative consequences, such as drought and desertification in other areas, and rising sea levels which will cause millions of people to have to relocate. There is general agreement among world leaders that warming over 2 degrees Celsius would result in overall negative consequences, so they're trying to limit the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to 450-550 ppm to limit the effects.

Alarming, or alarmist?

Global warming stopped in 1998, and we're now getting predictions for twenty years of global cooling.

Yes, in the past, the increase in the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere lagged behind temperature increases. But that does not mean that an increase in the concentration of carbon dioxide cannot cause an increase in temperatures now. After all, digging up billions of tons of fossil fuels and burning them is not something that has happened in the past. And we know it's not an increase in solar output causing the warming we've observed.

Yes, in the past, the increase in the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere lagged behind temperature increases. But that does not mean that an increase in the concentration of carbon dioxide cannot cause an increase in temperatures now. After all, digging up billions of tons of fossil fuels and burning them is not something that has happened in the past. And we know it's not an increase in solar output causing the warming we've observed.

If we're trying to prevent the disaster, it had better be news and we had better wake up well before is happens so we can prevent it. As for data validating climate models, that has been happening for decades. Remember? It's been in all the papers for many years. We've seen an increase in the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere since that 1950s, and the warming that was predicted to cause since the 1970s. That's why we're trying to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.

If we're trying to prevent the disaster, it had better be news and we had better wake up well before is happens so we can prevent it. As for data validating climate models, that has been happening for decades. Remember? It's been in all the papers for many years. We've seen an increase in the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere since that 1950s, and the warming that was predicted to cause since the 1970s. That's why we're trying to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.

Yes, they can measure the concentration of the isotope carbon-14. But even if we couldn't do so, what else do you think would make the concentration of carbon dioxide increase from about 285 ppm to about 385 ppm in just over 100 years?

Wait for it? =)

Many people who doubted AGW (humans causing the hockey stick graph, or the graph itself) are claiming this is some sort of smoking gun. I claim it's scientists being scientists, and failing at being politicians.

The very fact that this reveals some scientists are doubting some results is exactly what should happen in science. This is why there is a consensus among scientists. Doubting is a part of science and skeptics alike, but discovering the reasons for the doubt and changing a viewpoint when good, conflicting data are found are hallmarks of the scientist. Skeptics will cling to disproved data, hoping it somehow becomes true if they believe it hard enough.

There is no doubt that the earth is warmer, but mark my words: some idiot media personality will make claims to the contrary due to this. They thrive on confusion, and there's nothing more confusing (and humorous) than watching scientists wrestle with politics.

*awesome* if Google does it; video will be streamed live to overlay on Google Earth and Street View images. It will happen. Privately owned cameras streaming feeds of public spaces (or privately owned spaces owned by the same organization as the feed) are legal and many exist in the form of security cameras, webcams. The technology to do it is almost available and if it can be done it will be done. Soon (many decades) all public space in major urban centers will be visible to anyone, anytime. Okay, maybe *awesome* and scary.

NASA has decided to use imperial units for Ares / Project Constellation instead of metric units earlier this year.

There is a time and place for people to banter on but I don't want it from a news outlet.

I'm with you there. I don't know if this applies across the board, since I have neither the time nor inclination to read all the on-line newspapers (I only buy dead-tree papers when I need something to light a fire with), but I am getting a bit tired of endless screen-space devoted to the inarticulate musings of bored housewives and outraged rednecks. And newspapers aren't the only culprits. New Scientist used to be quite a useful aggregation for scientific journal content, but it's steadily turning into a soap-box.

In the days of the print media, there was something of a class barrier where contributors were expected to know at least something about a subject before pontificating. This survived for a few years with the on-line versions, but now we are seeing a situation where on slow news days we also seem to be getting lumbered with the above-mentioned kind of rubbish presented in a more fleshed-out form as "real" articles under the masthead of formerly reputable newspapers. The Age is a good example of this. I think the editor changed a while ago, and for all the content is now worth, I often feel I might as well be reading Twitter.

Scientists have not been able to talk the raw components, which we already have access to, and get them to form a something living, have they?

Not a full on living system, no. However, the components, such as evolving self-replicators (in the form of RNA) have been made in labs. Pretty amazing stuff. (linky linky)

This is one of the things that annoys me about those kinds of creationist/ID arguments. It took nature on the order of 400(+/- 100) million years to go from inorganic geochemistry to free living chemoautotrophs, and yet, they somehow expect scientists to be able to replicate that in the lab in the half-century or so that we've been able to study such things, and state that scientists' inability to do it so far means that it was impossible for nature. I mean, jeez, give 'em at least a million years to run some experiments, eh? It's only fair.

Yes, I realize that if they cared about fairness, then they wouldn't spread deliberate lies about science and specifically about studies of evolution in order to push their agenda.

The LHC was obsolete before it was even constructed.

It never stood a chance.

The Japanese surrendered after we dropped the atomic bombs, yes.

The Japanese were going to surrender anyway; the massacres at Hiroshima and Nagasaki were about impressing Stalin and justifying the expense of the Manhattan Project, then about ending the war.

"In return we get invaluable scientific knowledge and practical experience in living under such conditions."

The problem is that's a fallacy. We wont learn anything new about human habitiation in space. Because even if we go back to the Moon, we won't be spending any considerable amounts of time there. Just like Apollo, it'll be there and back. There's nothing more we can learn unless we send them to the moon for considerably longer periods of time. And that's why this whole thing is going to be canceled.

The whole rationale behind Constellation was to use the Moon as a means to get to Mars. But even NASA admits we don't have the technology to do that. It's simply too far away, and we can't get men there fast enough.

So what's the point of sending men back to the moon? Nostalgia? If we were going to build a real moon base, and keep astronauts there for extended periods of time, hell, I'd be right onboard with that. That would be progress.

But we're not going to do that. No one seriously believes we'll build a moonbase in the near future, nor that we'll send a man to Mars in our lifetimes. Unless we send some dying cancer patient on a one-way trip, it simply isn't going to happen. We still could do pioneering manned space exploration by sending astronauts to a near-Earth asteroid. But no one seems to think that's a glorious enough mission. Which is sad, because it'd be one hell of a first.

As things probably stand, we're better off canning the whole nostalgia trip, and using the money to do real space exploration... sending more robotic probes across the solar system to send back data.

Given that this test, while useful, didn't actually use any of the components of a man-rated Ares I, I'm not that excited.

Ares I will use a new 5 segment Solid Rocket Booster (SRB), this was the good old STS 4 segment SRB.
Ares I will use the J2-x powered upper stage, this was a weight equivalent mock-up.
Ares I will use the Orion capsule and it's engine to finish up the orbit, again, just a mock-up with right szie and weight.
Ares I flight control software not built yet, but that's ok, as the hardware it will guide wasn't here either.

You know when the car companies build a clay mock up of that new model? That's about where this Ares I-x test was. Baby steps are ok, but I was hoping for more return on investment.

So I'm annoyed that the test program hasn't progressed further, but in reality, this is rocket science, and at least they got the thing off the ground in a reasonable fashion. The problems here go a lot further than my unease that NCSA isn't that far along for the time and money they've already spent. Here's a list of issues that they still have to face in making this a viable launch system:

What's the lifting capacity of the ARES I? 25mt? That was the declared goal. 24 mt? That was a compromise when other issues crept in. 20 mt? Where the current design is, but Ares I needs 25 mt of lift for an Orion capsule with safety features and lunar capability for 4 crew, and doesn't have it.

Also, when is the Ares I scheduled to fly with the Orion capsule, even in a non-man-rated test? 2013, as NCSA originally planned? 2016 as the Augustine commission recently claimed?? Before the Space shuttle stops flying? Before the ISS is de-orbited? Be nice for NCSA to have a way to get our astronauts to the ISS without "borrowing a Soyuz."

More importantly, how much has NCSA spent on the development of the Ares I to date? 5 billion? 6 billion? They still have to finish the 5 segment SRB design and tests, the J-2x Upper stage engine and tests, the new upper stage and tests and the Orion capsule and tests before any manned flights can take place. That's got to be another $5 billion easy. All this to get the lift capacity of an Atlas V or a Delta IV heavy and a theoretical better safety rating.

Lastly, one reason the Ares I was chosen was that it was supposed to be safer for the crew than any alternative. But there's this- http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2009/07/death-knell-for-nasas-ares-roc.html. I feel sorry for the hard-working engineers at NCSA, and I hope that the new management can get them back on track with a better design.