"This "battery swap" is going to be nowhere near cheap," You have no idea. I could just as easily say: "Battery swaps will be part of the purchase price and take 2 minutes."
Because with taxes it will be cheaper, the people will have a larger say, and it is beneficial to all people.
Interesting anecdote:
I worked for a Water Bureau. The number clearly show that taxing people instead of having a water bill would be substantially cheaper for everyone. I mean 20% cheaper, if not more.
But if you mention it to the public, when they hear 'taxes', the well off scream bloody murder when though it would also be cheaper for them as well. With taxes, you no longer need a billing system. So you loose the expense of that, the infrastructures for that, the expense of maintaining PCI compliance, accountants, taking people to court who don't pay there bills, cut down on meter reading, paper.
" Should someone who doesn't use the service be forced to help pay for it through their taxes?" you mean like the taxes used as subsidies for you phone infrastructure?
It develops the a lot of tech. Creating a machine that has to make decisions and course correcting the 3d is a great challenge. Plus, we learn how to do it better so we can move up to big rocks. The more we understand that, them better a solution we will \have when a big one is headed are way.
"There is some Pt in asteroids, but no where near enough to pay for this type of effort." and there never will be. they more you get, the bigger the drop in value. Still, there is a lot of use for platinum, so it being cheap is a good thing for industry.(except Pt commodity people, but too damn bad)
"sweet sweet platinum," I agree, but lets not forget it would loose value as a commodity immediately after bring one of these back. So it needs to be a government mission
And it's not that crazy and completely do able. In fact we should do a few, some to gather resource for earth, and others to gather resource for mars.
Because we need resources, and we can get those resource from asteroids. Also, we need to expand for the survival of the species.
Ironically the tech to make what you speculate to happen will only come about as a spin off from space exploration. People in VR? we need to put them some place, we need them to be able to be still for large amounts of time, we need complete automated systems, and so on.
"Nope, there are already physics that allow for FTL travel in the same way that the universe is expanding (at a large distance from us) faster than the speed of light."
From its perspective a photon doesn't even travel. Time an distance are different facets of the same thing. Also, reality travels no faster then the speed of light.
There job is to look for threats. Being able to screen out sarcastic response makes them more accurate at their job.. Maybe you don't think that shouldn't be their job, but you need to take that up with congress. That will take work and effort and intellect so you wont try and just respond with a sarcastic remark to make yourself feel good.
no we are not.. Self loathing is a pop culture bullshit., and reddit is one of the more sane places on the internet. I have had far more sane and rational discussion on science topics there then on slashdot by a long shot.
My statement has nothing to do with Nature. It's a statement on the peer review process in general. Many people think publication is the end of peer review and that a published paper means its been fully vetted.
Nature has over 10,000 people that volunteer. It looks like the ones that did this peer review messed up. IT's a hard problem. You get peer reviewers, you do your best to be sure they are good. You can't peer review there peer review so you trust them. That also applies to any organization that has peer reviewers. Don't confuse my wanting things to be clear, and waiting for more informaiton before damning anyone as excuse making. It is not.
1) Did nature follow their own policy when determining who to peer review the paper? 2) Did Nature have a good reason to trust that peer reviewer initially? 3) Did other peer reviewers bring up issues that were unreasonably dismissed? and so on.
Slashdot Mirror
"This "battery swap" is going to be nowhere near cheap,"
You have no idea.
I could just as easily say:
"Battery swaps will be part of the purchase price and take 2 minutes."
I take it you never raised horses?
A) They have to be sure any part is available for the car for a set number of years.
B) will it be cheaper then an oil change and the gas?
"And AFAIK there's no such thing as a government utility,"
there are many.
Because with taxes it will be cheaper, the people will have a larger say, and it is beneficial to all people.
Interesting anecdote:
I worked for a Water Bureau. The number clearly show that taxing people instead of having a water bill would be substantially cheaper for everyone.
I mean 20% cheaper, if not more.
But if you mention it to the public, when they hear 'taxes', the well off scream bloody murder when though it would also be cheaper for them as well.
With taxes, you no longer need a billing system. So you loose the expense of that, the infrastructures for that, the expense of maintaining PCI compliance, accountants, taking people to court who don't pay there bills, cut down on meter reading, paper.
" Should someone who doesn't use the service be forced to help pay for it through their taxes?"
you mean like the taxes used as subsidies for you phone infrastructure?
Please, it was no worse then any equally scaled effort by anyone, private or public.
The government runs a lot of services very well.
So you think 177 million is enough for Elon Musk to get people to mars?
Please, Elon Musk hasn't done anything that hasn't been done before.
It develops the a lot of tech. Creating a machine that has to make decisions and course correcting the 3d is a great challenge. Plus, we learn how to do it better so we can move up to big rocks.
The more we understand that, them better a solution we will \have when a big one is headed are way.
"There is some Pt in asteroids, but no where near enough to pay for this type of effort."
and there never will be. they more you get, the bigger the drop in value. Still, there is a lot of use for platinum, so it being cheap is a good thing for industry.(except Pt commodity people, but too damn bad)
"We know Mars."
no we don't.
"sweet sweet platinum,"
I agree, but lets not forget it would loose value as a commodity immediately after bring one of these back. So it needs to be a government mission
And it's not that crazy and completely do able. In fact we should do a few, some to gather resource for earth, and others to gather resource for mars.
Because we need resources, and we can get those resource from asteroids. Also, we need to expand for the survival of the species.
Ironically the tech to make what you speculate to happen will only come about as a spin off from space exploration.
People in VR? we need to put them some place, we need them to be able to be still for large amounts of time, we need complete automated systems, and so on.
Yep, we could never do any space program under a Republic form of government.
" The tax paid agency has no incentive to not lose money. "
they actually do.
becasue
" All they need to do is spend their budget."
that will go away.
You have no clue what net neutrality is, do you? OR maybe you do ant you want 1 company dictating what people can see and do?
"Stop trying to make rules for how the Internet works. "
sense, you make none. The internet functions on rules.
It violates monopoly laws:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
crap. linked to my g+. Sorry, my bad.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
watch this:
https://plus.google.com/115956...
OMFG
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
No, we can't. Gravity can.
Let me know when we can manipulate gravity. AT that point we STILL won't go faster then light.
The poster belittles them because he knows so little about them.
"Nope, there are already physics that allow for FTL travel in the same way that the universe is expanding (at a large distance from us) faster than the speed of light."
Nope, there is not.
From its perspective a photon doesn't even travel.
Time an distance are different facets of the same thing.
Also, reality travels no faster then the speed of light.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
There job is to look for threats. Being able to screen out sarcastic response makes them more accurate at their job..
Maybe you don't think that shouldn't be their job, but you need to take that up with congress. That will take work and effort and intellect so you wont try and just respond with a sarcastic remark to make yourself feel good.
Go ahead, prove me wrong
no we are not.. Self loathing is a pop culture bullshit.,
and reddit is one of the more sane places on the internet. I have had far more sane and rational discussion on science topics there then on slashdot by a long shot.
My statement has nothing to do with Nature. It's a statement on the peer review process in general. Many people think publication is the end of peer review and that a published paper means its been fully vetted.
Nature has over 10,000 people that volunteer. It looks like the ones that did this peer review messed up.
IT's a hard problem. You get peer reviewers, you do your best to be sure they are good. You can't peer review there peer review so you trust them.
That also applies to any organization that has peer reviewers.
Don't confuse my wanting things to be clear, and waiting for more informaiton before damning anyone as excuse making. It is not.
1) Did nature follow their own policy when determining who to peer review the paper?
2) Did Nature have a good reason to trust that peer reviewer initially?
3) Did other peer reviewers bring up issues that were unreasonably dismissed?
and so on.
Like I said, it is a hard problem.
I assure you I am not out of my depth.
"have a heavy vested interest in publishing exciting-but-possibly-wrong stuff,"
no they don't.
" which they do all the time."
no they don't.