To deduct medical expenses, they have to be in excess of 7.5% of your AGI. In 2012, that would mean you would need an AGI below $26,667 to be able to deduct any of your medical expense. Even with an AGI of $26,667, it is very unusaul for your itemized deductions to exceed the standard deduction, not impossible, but unusual, so if you did deduct $2,000 in medical expenses on your itemized deductions, you might want to check your tax return before the IRS does.
I deduct a lot of money from medical and daycare this way And insurance premiums are pre tax deductible as well
That's great if your employer has an FSA account. For most people, insurance premiums are not pre-tax. First, only insurance premiums from an employer sponsored plan "may" be pre-taxed and then, only if your employer has a cafeteria plan. It's not automatic and most businesses in the US do not provide it (although a large minority of them do).
This is normal in that generally, in the US tax code, you can defer paying taxes by paying employees more, by making investments, etc. Only if that dollar you collect becomes profit do you generally pay taxes on it.
It's not a rich vs poor thing either. Poor people get tax benefits in the form of the EIC and the personal deduction. Middle income earners get to deduct health care expenses and certain job expenses (uniforms, union dues, sometimes use of a vehicle).
The point is that everyone gets tax breaks and the reason why is that our tax code is crazy complicated. Facebook will pay their share eventually, but it's just not going to be on their 2012 return.
If Facebook eventually pays "their share" then their accountants and lawyers shoudl be fired. Most corporations in the US do not pay income tax because the system is created that way. That is why when the Obama Administration talked about raising the corporate tax rate, nobody cared. OTOH, when he talked about closing loopholes, everybody had a panic attack and the stock market dropped.
Bringing the poor and middle class into the mix is a red-herring. The poor don't have any substantial income to tax in the first place and what little is taxed via sales tax and social security is a larger percentage of their total income than what other groups pay. As for middle class tax deductions, well, yes, they can deduct some of those expenses, but businesses can deducted, not just some of them, but all of them, which is why the wealthy so often form their own corporations to deduct everything and draw a small salary, but have the corporation pay for everything. That way, the corporation doesn't pay tax, the wealthy person doesn't pay tax and everybody is happy (Actually, they do pay taxes but at substantially lower percentages than the minions who work for them).
It very much is a rich versus poor thing. Only the rich are blind to this.
Actually, I was semi-serious, at least on the first part about blocking cell phones while in the car. Like you, I think cars have become too much and my list of features would be very similar to yours with two exceptions. I would allow electronic ignition instead of points and I would allow automatic transmission for those who simple can't/won't drive a stick.
I actually drive a stock 72 VW Beetle, daily, although I did replace the am radio with an am/fm/cd/mp3 and upgraded the brakes to front discs. There are a few days in August that I wish it had A/C, but otherwise, it's not too bad.
My 40 year old car that was actually designed about 80 years ago gets 27mpg around town and 34 on the highway (if I drive 65 and 32 if I drive 70). It is good, basic transportation to get from point a to b with a minimum of fuss. My wife has a 2002 Ford Focus that gets 26mpg city and 32 mpg highway, is definitely a smoother ride and definitely spends more time in the shop ($$$).
Do I think everybody should drive an old VW? No, of course not. My point being though is that most new cars today are extravagant luxury items based on what was considered standard transportation a generation or two ago.
Prior to 9/11 nobody thought about flying a plane into a building.
That, sir, is pure bullshit. In fact, prior to 9/11 someone had thought about the possibility of a terrorist doing so, and had submitted a report on the subject, which was summarily ignored.
You are correct. What I should have stated is that prior to 9/11 nobody thought that the likelihood of flying a plain into a building was a plausible scenario. Of course the "nobody" in the previous sentence meaning nobody with authority to do something about it.
THAT! is a bold faced lie! Absulutely zero risk??? Hardly! You can easily get meta-carpal tunnel syndrome by flying a drone for hours at a time! Not to mention hemorrhoids! Its also a hazard to sit for long periods of time! Ask an office worker!
Then you would receive a purple heart for being wounded in the line of duty.
How long til a malicious person is able to crash (potentially lots of) cars in the real world by hacking into some cloud servers? Or make the cars run over pedestrians instead of avoid them?
This is potentially a really serious problem, that people so far are ignoring. Maybe we need a law requiring physical isolation of a self-driving car's control computer from all networks. They need access to GPS data, but this can probably accommodated with special hardware that does its best to ensure only GPS data is passed in.
No need to hack. Just cut one off and force its AI to choose between hitting your car or a pedestrian. Prior to 9/11 nobody thought about flying a plane into a building. I'm pretty sure that the AI in self driving cars can't account for all of the crazy things people will come up with.
How about a truly smart car? You know, one that doesn't let your cell phone work while you are driving? No, texts, no calls, nothing. Maybe it can also warn you that you are speeding and then automatically slow you back down to the posted speed limit (or ask if you would like to continue and then notify the authorities).
Otherwise, all of these cloud conected cars seem to be one more way to distract drivers on an already overcrowded highway system.
"IIRC most of the article was not about the costs themself but about the discrepencies between NASAs figures and Europes figures.": Sure, but that doesn't make the data any less valid, I just picked the first reference I found on Google, if you have reference to prove your point, you're free to share them.
By definition, using old antiquated date does make it less valid. Plus, I don't need a reference to prove my point. I'm not even trying to prove it. You are trying to disprove it, so the burden is all yours. Good luck, too, because you will find that with valid data, the numbers won't work out.
"One has to wonder why so cheap since none of the costs have come down. Most analysts believe it is because they are in desparate needs of funds and like the airlines, an discounted seat brings in more revenue than an empty one.": I'd like to see this analysis, because SpaceX is estimating their crewed Dragon would be priced at $140 million, which is even cheaper.
Ok, first you were saying the Soyuz was the way to go at $60M to LEO, now you are saying that Dragon is cheaper at $140M. Last time I checked, $140 is not less than $60M. Also, as you point out, SpaceX is estimating their price at $140M. Even the outdated study you used talked about the price sensitivity of launches and it is forseeable that a launch could be 50% higher in cost than the estimates show, so that would bring it to $210M. Even still, that is a small craft going to LEO, not something able to sustain a crew for three years round trip to Mars, where you have to take everything with you.
"Comparing the Soyuz to another group is like comparing apples and oranges. You are comparing different lift vehicles, different launch sites, different capitalization patterns and a host of other things.": I didn't start the comparison, if you have an apple to apple comparison please just make it.
"Instead of Soyuz, you could have just as easily picked the shuttle, which had an average mission cost of $450million": But the Shuttle orbiter is reused, which means most of the mission cost would be launch cost to send the orbiter up there, what you should use is the orbiter price tag of $1.3 to 2 billion, which is indeed much more expensive than a satellite, but the orbiter is also so much bigger than satellite (100 tons vis a few tons).
You are going to need to lift into orbit enough food and supplies to last at a minimum three years for the crew. In addition, you will need a lot of water, not to drink but for shielding from cosmic radiation as that is the current preferred strategy. Think of launching enough water to enclose a room big enough to house the crew for 18 hours or longer surronded by a meter of water all the way around.
Look at the ISS. Assuming you are sending a similar sized crew to Mars, you will need similar sized quarters plus storage space as you won't be able to send resupply ships (although you could send them now and meet them on the way, but has costs, too). Face it, no matter how you do it, to house humans for 3 or more years you are going to need something much, much larger than the Apollo program ever envisioned. To get all of that into space costs money. To add everything you need for the crew protection costs money. And finally, since we are talking about large masses, the energy required to get it moving and to stop it will cost money.
The Mars landers were small crafts lifted out of orbit on relatively inexpensive rockets. Why? Because they didn't need food and water and habitats and all sorts of other things that human beings need in the hostile environment of space. While we may have the technology to send a person to Mars, it doesn't mean it is the most efficient or effective use of limited space exploration resources.
It would be helpful to actually read the article I referenced when doing discussions like this, otherwise we're just talking over each other.
I did read the out-dated article you referenced. Of course all of the shuttle references are no longer valid as the shuttle is no longer flying. IIRC most of the article was not about the costs themself but about the discrepencies between NASAs figures and Europes figures.
As for the launches you are referring to in your post. Yes, the Russians are selling Soyuz seats at $60 million, about 1/3 what they were just a few years ago. One has to wonder why so cheap since none of the costs have come down. Most analysts believe it is because they are in desparate needs of funds and like the airlines, an discounted seat brings in more revenue than an empty one.
Comparing the Soyuz to another group is like comparing apples and oranges. You are comparing different lift vehicles, different launch sites, different capitalization patterns and a host of other things. A Cessna and a 747 can both take you to your destination, but their cost structure is not an even comparision, either. A valid comparison would be what would summitridgegroup charge to launch a human into space and return them safely versus a satelite. Instead of Soyuz, you could have just as easily picked the shuttle, which had an average mission cost of $450million. Using those numbers would indicate that it is much more expensive for humans than satelites. Of course, like your comparison, that one is also meaningless.
If this is such a good idea, then why doesn't Deep Space Industries raise the capital and do it? It is always interesting how people (usually business leaders) cry out for smaller government, but want the government to fund their business endeavors. It's quite simple really. The estimate from Deep Space Industries is that there is about $195B worth of resources to be mined from the asteroid. Depending on what they want for a ROI, say 40%, if they can do mine it for less than $139B then they should do it. If not, then it doesn't make business sense to do it and they should move on.
When there is a for-profit venture, the government shouldn't be footing the bill. That is the role of the private sector. The government should get involved when research is necessary for the benefit of citizens but the ROI isn't there to encourage the private sector to act (ie. develop inexpensive vaccines) or to provide infrastructure (ie. if you want hydrogen powered cars, somebody has to build hydrogen delivery systems across the country).
If Deep Space Industries thinks this is a good idea, then they should be able to convince any number of venture capitalists to fund it instead of taxpayers. Of course, venture capitalists have to be repaid, where taxpayers usually are not.
In term of technology, you're right, but in term of economy the cost to launch the Mars spacecraft to LEO is a major expense, if you check the cost breakdown at the end of this article, it shows the launcher is the most expensive part of the mission. Given cheap access to LEO, I think it would be much easier to design the rest of the mission since mass constraint would be greatly reduced.
No, the cost to protect the crew for the multi-year journey and stay on the planet is the major expense when looking at the total cost of the program. Cost to launch is applicable per mission, but not overall. Look at it this way. A heavy launch vehicle launching a satellite versus a manned capsule uses just as much resources to reach LEO, so the cost to launch is equivalent. However, the actual cost to put a capsule into space is much more than a satellite. Why? Because protecting the human cargo is more costly than protecting integrated circuits.
Now that is just to LEO. Extend that for a 76 million mile round trip, plus a 12 month or more stay on the planet and see what happens to the cost. If cost is the primary concern, unmanned exploration is always cheaper.
We are on the verge of having cars that can drive them self in everyday traffic. Surely the AI that is advanced enough for that is advanced enough for exploration on a distant planet. The question that needs to be asked is what does sending people to Mars and the associated extra costs get that sending sophisticated machines doesn't provide?
Don't get me wrong - I'm not anti-tax and I PERSONALLY would have no issue with paying a little more if I knew it'd go to NASA. I'm just saying that most people probably wouldn't. Most operate under the impression that the government just has all this free money to send where it wants with no clue that those resources and funds have to actually come from somewhere.
Yeah, just think if NASA had been allowed to keep the patents and royalties from teflon, velcro and any number of products developed through the early space program. They could probably be fully self-funded by now, but instead, taxpayers payed for the research and private companies got to profit from it.
Well if SpaceX can get the reusable Falcon working, 2033 is about right for a Mars landing powered by cheap commercial space transportation.
The obstacle to getting to Mars is not in the first 22,000 miles of the trip (we did that in the 1960s). It's the next 36 million miles. Plus, whoever goes, will probably want to come back home, so really it's a 72 million mile trip.
Ummm, if the DRM is in the html code, then what is to stop somebody from having html code that circumvents the DRM? Here is a better idea. If you have content that you want to protect, then protect it on your end. Yes, it is less convenient for your users, but if they value your content they will still jump through your hoops. If they don't they will go elsewhere. Most likely the content owners realize that their content isn't all that valuable and if they try and restrict it on their end, people will indeed go elsewhere. However, that is how free markets are supposed to work.
Use online newspapers as an example. Many have paywalls and do quite well, with that model, however, those that do not want to pay, get their content elsewhere. It doesn't require DRM built into HTML to protect content.
Google scans my emails for keywords to target advertising and Microsoft says that is bad. Microsoft, on the other hand, scans what applications I web pages I visit with IE and updates their search engine(even if I don't use their search engine) to which they sell advertising but that is good.
Google openly tells people they do this for the free version of their programs to cover the cost so they can remain free - but Microsoft still says that is bad. Microsoft, on the other hand, denied the search engine data harvesting and claimed entrapment, but again, their approach is good.
If Microsoft were so certain they were morally correct in all of this, then why would they design a David vs Goliath commercial to tell everybody about it instead of just coming out to let you know the ad is sponsored by Microsoft?
Maybe Microsoft should check the color of their kettle before commenting on the color Google's pot.
Today's education system even impacts/. when a "hypothetical" creature "not found" in the fossil record, but "inferred" by it, is now put forth as a revelation as to the origin of all mamals, including humans.
By not being found in the fossil record, we have no concrete evidence. By being inferred, we have reasoned it's existence. That makes the use of the term "revealed" quite correct, as that is exactly the same process early man used to determine their various deities.
I don't doubt the scientific method in proposing a hypothesis or theory. But the reporting of it in this way sure is weak and only strengthens the view that science is anything but accurate (evolution is just a theory and debatable, for instance). Even the recent article on Richard III where DNA "proved" it was him was wrong, it did no such thing. It confirmed it, based on the other evidence, but by itself did not prove it.
Scientific reporting needs to be accurate and able to stand being scrutinized. That might mean that there are people who will not understand what is being reported. That is a shame. On the otherhand, it is better than them thinking they understand what is being reported when the report is not accurate. That does nobody any good.
Here's a thought: Instead of dumbing down scientific reporting (and intellectual thought) so the average person can understand it (even if that misinforms them as to what is being communicated), how about educating people, so they can actually understand it in the first place?
What exactly is an Ubuntu Phone going to offer that I can't get with an iPhone or Android? Or Win8 Phone or Blackberry, for that matter? Maybe something like this will do well in international markets, as a cheap smartphone alternative or something, but I can't imagine much else.
Well, in the West, the smartphone market is pretty saturated. However, in China and SE Asia there is a huge opportunity for growth. If one were to capture a significant portion of that market, it would be very profitable, assuming one had a business model that was profitable. I'm not sure Ubuntu Phone does. OTOH, the phone manufacture using Ubuntu Phone may very well.
Here's an idea. Any patent that comes from research that received government funding, whether through colleges and universities, tax credits, TIFF, or whatever form, has to be made available to the public proportionately to the cost funded by the public. So, if UCLA develops a new drug for Merck and Merck contributed $5M and federal and state funds (including infrastructure, support costs, etc) amount to $10M, then for every $3 Merck makes on the drug, The government gets $2 and Merck gets $1. That way, government supported research treats the government like any other venture capitalist who gets a return on their investment.
We all here, everyday, about how the entitlement systems need to be overhauled. Maybe we should start with the corporate ones, first. Reforming the patent system would be a good start on that.
You're dead wrong, nothing quite beats Fortran in speed when it comes to number crunching. If you need to go through hundreds of gigabytes of data and performance is important there's only one realistic choice: Fortran. Python isn't fit to run on a large cluster to simulate things, too much overhead. And lets not forget what sort of efficiency you can get if you use a good compiler (Intel Composer). You won't find Fortran on the way out over here, it's here to stay!
Isn't that the point of DARPA funding this project - to make it so Python is fit to run on a large cluster to simulate things? I do agree, though, that Fortran is here to stay. However, it is so specialized in what it does and that often a solution then requires multiple languages to get the task accomplished.
Back in the day (1970s) I had a professor who would say that you can write anything in anything. For instance you could write a business app in Fortran and you can use COBOL for plotting trajectories to the moon. But, why would you? Each excel at what they were designed for and create a lot of extra work trying to make them do what they weren't designed for.
Something like Python is good at doing a lot of different things, but not necessarily great at large number crunching/analysis. It seems like DARPA is wanting to change that. That doesn't mean that FORTRAN will be obsolete, but if successful, it does mean that Python can be even more useful in research than it is now.
There is not a blanket ban on "collusion," it is a ban on certain types of collusion, mostly price-fixing.
Actually, that's not quite true. Price-fixing is a type of collusion that is prohibited, but any colluision that restricts competition or puts the buyer in a negative position (think railroads), is prohibited.
Which ones? I'd like to know who doesn't want my money.
AT&T, Cablevision, Comcast, Time Warner Cable, and Verizon. It's in the article.:)
Was this mandated by some law I've not heard was passed...or, are these companies all signing onto this one service voluntarily? If so...why, what is in the bargain for them, they have immunity anyway over what their users do on the networks...why even bother with this?
Collusion is illegal in the United States (and most other places). How come the five largest ISPs in the country all deciding to implement the same tracking system and enforcing the same restrictions on millions of subscribers who have no other alternative to their services is not being investigated by the DOJ?
When the railroads did things like this, the DOJ was quick to step in. When the Unions did things like this the DOJ was quick to step in. Today when big businesses do things like this, the DOJ is nowhere to be found. The DOJ is supposed to protect the 100% of the people, not just 1%. But, that is the price we pay to have the best plutocracy on the planet.
Since DVDs and CDs are digital goods and you have been able to lend, rent and purchased used ones for years, how can this now be patented? The only difference is that this covers digital goods that aren't on physical media, but then software, another digital good, has been distributed electronically for decades if you include mainframes. There was even a big case with Revelon, where a developer "removed" software from their mainframe because they failed to pay -- all done digitally. So, can somebody explain how any of what Amazon was just awarded a patent for is not covered by prior art?
Slashdot Mirror
You can deduct medical expenses in excess of 7.5% of your adjusted gross income, which, yes, is a hell of a lot of medical expenses.
To deduct medical expenses, they have to be in excess of 7.5% of your AGI. In 2012, that would mean you would need an AGI below $26,667 to be able to deduct any of your medical expense. Even with an AGI of $26,667, it is very unusaul for your itemized deductions to exceed the standard deduction, not impossible, but unusual, so if you did deduct $2,000 in medical expenses on your itemized deductions, you might want to check your tax return before the IRS does.
What about fsa?
I deduct a lot of money from medical and daycare this way
And insurance premiums are pre tax deductible as well
That's great if your employer has an FSA account. For most people, insurance premiums are not pre-tax. First, only insurance premiums from an employer sponsored plan "may" be pre-taxed and then, only if your employer has a cafeteria plan. It's not automatic and most businesses in the US do not provide it (although a large minority of them do).
This is normal in that generally, in the US tax code, you can defer paying taxes by paying employees more, by making investments, etc. Only if that dollar you collect becomes profit do you generally pay taxes on it.
It's not a rich vs poor thing either. Poor people get tax benefits in the form of the EIC and the personal deduction. Middle income earners get to deduct health care expenses and certain job expenses (uniforms, union dues, sometimes use of a vehicle).
The point is that everyone gets tax breaks and the reason why is that our tax code is crazy complicated. Facebook will pay their share eventually, but it's just not going to be on their 2012 return.
If Facebook eventually pays "their share" then their accountants and lawyers shoudl be fired. Most corporations in the US do not pay income tax because the system is created that way. That is why when the Obama Administration talked about raising the corporate tax rate, nobody cared. OTOH, when he talked about closing loopholes, everybody had a panic attack and the stock market dropped.
Bringing the poor and middle class into the mix is a red-herring. The poor don't have any substantial income to tax in the first place and what little is taxed via sales tax and social security is a larger percentage of their total income than what other groups pay. As for middle class tax deductions, well, yes, they can deduct some of those expenses, but businesses can deducted, not just some of them, but all of them, which is why the wealthy so often form their own corporations to deduct everything and draw a small salary, but have the corporation pay for everything. That way, the corporation doesn't pay tax, the wealthy person doesn't pay tax and everybody is happy (Actually, they do pay taxes but at substantially lower percentages than the minions who work for them).
It very much is a rich versus poor thing. Only the rich are blind to this.
Actually, I was semi-serious, at least on the first part about blocking cell phones while in the car. Like you, I think cars have become too much and my list of features would be very similar to yours with two exceptions. I would allow electronic ignition instead of points and I would allow automatic transmission for those who simple can't/won't drive a stick.
I actually drive a stock 72 VW Beetle, daily, although I did replace the am radio with an am/fm/cd/mp3 and upgraded the brakes to front discs. There are a few days in August that I wish it had A/C, but otherwise, it's not too bad.
My 40 year old car that was actually designed about 80 years ago gets 27mpg around town and 34 on the highway (if I drive 65 and 32 if I drive 70). It is good, basic transportation to get from point a to b with a minimum of fuss. My wife has a 2002 Ford Focus that gets 26mpg city and 32 mpg highway, is definitely a smoother ride and definitely spends more time in the shop ($$$).
Do I think everybody should drive an old VW? No, of course not. My point being though is that most new cars today are extravagant luxury items based on what was considered standard transportation a generation or two ago.
Prior to 9/11 nobody thought about flying a plane into a building.
That, sir, is pure bullshit. In fact, prior to 9/11 someone had thought about the possibility of a terrorist doing so, and had submitted a report on the subject, which was summarily ignored.
You are correct. What I should have stated is that prior to 9/11 nobody thought that the likelihood of flying a plain into a building was a plausible scenario. Of course the "nobody" in the previous sentence meaning nobody with authority to do something about it.
THAT! is a bold faced lie! Absulutely zero risk??? Hardly! You can easily get meta-carpal tunnel syndrome by flying a drone for hours at a time! Not to mention hemorrhoids! Its also a hazard to sit for long periods of time! Ask an office worker!
Then you would receive a purple heart for being wounded in the line of duty.
Say what you will, but I think the recipients will consider it an Achievement.
Of course they will. Whether it actually is or not is debatable.
How long til a malicious person is able to crash (potentially lots of) cars in the real world by hacking into some cloud servers? Or make the cars run over pedestrians instead of avoid them?
This is potentially a really serious problem, that people so far are ignoring. Maybe we need a law requiring physical isolation of a self-driving car's control computer from all networks. They need access to GPS data, but this can probably accommodated with special hardware that does its best to ensure only GPS data is passed in.
No need to hack. Just cut one off and force its AI to choose between hitting your car or a pedestrian. Prior to 9/11 nobody thought about flying a plane into a building. I'm pretty sure that the AI in self driving cars can't account for all of the crazy things people will come up with.
How about a truly smart car? You know, one that doesn't let your cell phone work while you are driving? No, texts, no calls, nothing. Maybe it can also warn you that you are speeding and then automatically slow you back down to the posted speed limit (or ask if you would like to continue and then notify the authorities).
Otherwise, all of these cloud conected cars seem to be one more way to distract drivers on an already overcrowded highway system.
"IIRC most of the article was not about the costs themself but about the discrepencies between NASAs figures and Europes figures.": Sure, but that doesn't make the data any less valid, I just picked the first reference I found on Google, if you have reference to prove your point, you're free to share them.
By definition, using old antiquated date does make it less valid. Plus, I don't need a reference to prove my point. I'm not even trying to prove it. You are trying to disprove it, so the burden is all yours. Good luck, too, because you will find that with valid data, the numbers won't work out.
"One has to wonder why so cheap since none of the costs have come down. Most analysts believe it is because they are in desparate needs of funds and like the airlines, an discounted seat brings in more revenue than an empty one.": I'd like to see this analysis, because SpaceX is estimating their crewed Dragon would be priced at $140 million, which is even cheaper.
Ok, first you were saying the Soyuz was the way to go at $60M to LEO, now you are saying that Dragon is cheaper at $140M. Last time I checked, $140 is not less than $60M. Also, as you point out, SpaceX is estimating their price at $140M. Even the outdated study you used talked about the price sensitivity of launches and it is forseeable that a launch could be 50% higher in cost than the estimates show, so that would bring it to $210M. Even still, that is a small craft going to LEO, not something able to sustain a crew for three years round trip to Mars, where you have to take everything with you.
"Comparing the Soyuz to another group is like comparing apples and oranges. You are comparing different lift vehicles, different launch sites, different capitalization patterns and a host of other things.": I didn't start the comparison, if you have an apple to apple comparison please just make it.
"Instead of Soyuz, you could have just as easily picked the shuttle, which had an average mission cost of $450million": But the Shuttle orbiter is reused, which means most of the mission cost would be launch cost to send the orbiter up there, what you should use is the orbiter price tag of $1.3 to 2 billion, which is indeed much more expensive than a satellite, but the orbiter is also so much bigger than satellite (100 tons vis a few tons).
You are going to need to lift into orbit enough food and supplies to last at a minimum three years for the crew. In addition, you will need a lot of water, not to drink but for shielding from cosmic radiation as that is the current preferred strategy. Think of launching enough water to enclose a room big enough to house the crew for 18 hours or longer surronded by a meter of water all the way around.
Look at the ISS. Assuming you are sending a similar sized crew to Mars, you will need similar sized quarters plus storage space as you won't be able to send resupply ships (although you could send them now and meet them on the way, but has costs, too). Face it, no matter how you do it, to house humans for 3 or more years you are going to need something much, much larger than the Apollo program ever envisioned. To get all of that into space costs money. To add everything you need for the crew protection costs money. And finally, since we are talking about large masses, the energy required to get it moving and to stop it will cost money.
The Mars landers were small crafts lifted out of orbit on relatively inexpensive rockets. Why? Because they didn't need food and water and habitats and all sorts of other things that human beings need in the hostile environment of space. While we may have the technology to send a person to Mars, it doesn't mean it is the most efficient or effective use of limited space exploration resources.
Face it, the whole man on mars push was a
It would be helpful to actually read the article I referenced when doing discussions like this, otherwise we're just talking over each other.
I did read the out-dated article you referenced. Of course all of the shuttle references are no longer valid as the shuttle is no longer flying. IIRC most of the article was not about the costs themself but about the discrepencies between NASAs figures and Europes figures.
As for the launches you are referring to in your post. Yes, the Russians are selling Soyuz seats at $60 million, about 1/3 what they were just a few years ago. One has to wonder why so cheap since none of the costs have come down. Most analysts believe it is because they are in desparate needs of funds and like the airlines, an discounted seat brings in more revenue than an empty one.
Comparing the Soyuz to another group is like comparing apples and oranges. You are comparing different lift vehicles, different launch sites, different capitalization patterns and a host of other things. A Cessna and a 747 can both take you to your destination, but their cost structure is not an even comparision, either. A valid comparison would be what would summitridgegroup charge to launch a human into space and return them safely versus a satelite. Instead of Soyuz, you could have just as easily picked the shuttle, which had an average mission cost of $450million. Using those numbers would indicate that it is much more expensive for humans than satelites. Of course, like your comparison, that one is also meaningless.
If this is such a good idea, then why doesn't Deep Space Industries raise the capital and do it? It is always interesting how people (usually business leaders) cry out for smaller government, but want the government to fund their business endeavors. It's quite simple really. The estimate from Deep Space Industries is that there is about $195B worth of resources to be mined from the asteroid. Depending on what they want for a ROI, say 40%, if they can do mine it for less than $139B then they should do it. If not, then it doesn't make business sense to do it and they should move on.
When there is a for-profit venture, the government shouldn't be footing the bill. That is the role of the private sector. The government should get involved when research is necessary for the benefit of citizens but the ROI isn't there to encourage the private sector to act (ie. develop inexpensive vaccines) or to provide infrastructure (ie. if you want hydrogen powered cars, somebody has to build hydrogen delivery systems across the country).
If Deep Space Industries thinks this is a good idea, then they should be able to convince any number of venture capitalists to fund it instead of taxpayers. Of course, venture capitalists have to be repaid, where taxpayers usually are not.
In term of technology, you're right, but in term of economy the cost to launch the Mars spacecraft to LEO is a major expense, if you check the cost breakdown at the end of this article, it shows the launcher is the most expensive part of the mission. Given cheap access to LEO, I think it would be much easier to design the rest of the mission since mass constraint would be greatly reduced.
No, the cost to protect the crew for the multi-year journey and stay on the planet is the major expense when looking at the total cost of the program. Cost to launch is applicable per mission, but not overall. Look at it this way. A heavy launch vehicle launching a satellite versus a manned capsule uses just as much resources to reach LEO, so the cost to launch is equivalent. However, the actual cost to put a capsule into space is much more than a satellite. Why? Because protecting the human cargo is more costly than protecting integrated circuits.
Now that is just to LEO. Extend that for a 76 million mile round trip, plus a 12 month or more stay on the planet and see what happens to the cost. If cost is the primary concern, unmanned exploration is always cheaper.
We are on the verge of having cars that can drive them self in everyday traffic. Surely the AI that is advanced enough for that is advanced enough for exploration on a distant planet. The question that needs to be asked is what does sending people to Mars and the associated extra costs get that sending sophisticated machines doesn't provide?
Don't get me wrong - I'm not anti-tax and I PERSONALLY would have no issue with paying a little more if I knew it'd go to NASA. I'm just saying that most people probably wouldn't. Most operate under the impression that the government just has all this free money to send where it wants with no clue that those resources and funds have to actually come from somewhere.
Yeah, just think if NASA had been allowed to keep the patents and royalties from teflon, velcro and any number of products developed through the early space program. They could probably be fully self-funded by now, but instead, taxpayers payed for the research and private companies got to profit from it.
Well if SpaceX can get the reusable Falcon working, 2033 is about right for a Mars landing powered by cheap commercial space transportation.
The obstacle to getting to Mars is not in the first 22,000 miles of the trip (we did that in the 1960s). It's the next 36 million miles. Plus, whoever goes, will probably want to come back home, so really it's a 72 million mile trip.
Ummm, if the DRM is in the html code, then what is to stop somebody from having html code that circumvents the DRM? Here is a better idea. If you have content that you want to protect, then protect it on your end. Yes, it is less convenient for your users, but if they value your content they will still jump through your hoops. If they don't they will go elsewhere. Most likely the content owners realize that their content isn't all that valuable and if they try and restrict it on their end, people will indeed go elsewhere. However, that is how free markets are supposed to work.
Use online newspapers as an example. Many have paywalls and do quite well, with that model, however, those that do not want to pay, get their content elsewhere. It doesn't require DRM built into HTML to protect content.
Google scans my emails for keywords to target advertising and Microsoft says that is bad. Microsoft, on the other hand, scans what applications I web pages I visit with IE and updates their search engine(even if I don't use their search engine) to which they sell advertising but that is good.
Google openly tells people they do this for the free version of their programs to cover the cost so they can remain free - but Microsoft still says that is bad. Microsoft, on the other hand, denied the search engine data harvesting and claimed entrapment, but again, their approach is good.
If Microsoft were so certain they were morally correct in all of this, then why would they design a David vs Goliath commercial to tell everybody about it instead of just coming out to let you know the ad is sponsored by Microsoft?
Maybe Microsoft should check the color of their kettle before commenting on the color Google's pot.
Today's education system even impacts /. when a "hypothetical" creature "not found" in the fossil record, but "inferred" by it, is now put forth as a revelation as to the origin of all mamals, including humans.
By not being found in the fossil record, we have no concrete evidence. By being inferred, we have reasoned it's existence. That makes the use of the term "revealed" quite correct, as that is exactly the same process early man used to determine their various deities.
I don't doubt the scientific method in proposing a hypothesis or theory. But the reporting of it in this way sure is weak and only strengthens the view that science is anything but accurate (evolution is just a theory and debatable, for instance). Even the recent article on Richard III where DNA "proved" it was him was wrong, it did no such thing. It confirmed it, based on the other evidence, but by itself did not prove it.
Scientific reporting needs to be accurate and able to stand being scrutinized. That might mean that there are people who will not understand what is being reported. That is a shame. On the otherhand, it is better than them thinking they understand what is being reported when the report is not accurate. That does nobody any good.
Here's a thought: Instead of dumbing down scientific reporting (and intellectual thought) so the average person can understand it (even if that misinforms them as to what is being communicated), how about educating people, so they can actually understand it in the first place?
What exactly is an Ubuntu Phone going to offer that I can't get with an iPhone or Android? Or Win8 Phone or Blackberry, for that matter? Maybe something like this will do well in international markets, as a cheap smartphone alternative or something, but I can't imagine much else.
Well, in the West, the smartphone market is pretty saturated. However, in China and SE Asia there is a huge opportunity for growth. If one were to capture a significant portion of that market, it would be very profitable, assuming one had a business model that was profitable. I'm not sure Ubuntu Phone does. OTOH, the phone manufacture using Ubuntu Phone may very well.
Here's an idea. Any patent that comes from research that received government funding, whether through colleges and universities, tax credits, TIFF, or whatever form, has to be made available to the public proportionately to the cost funded by the public. So, if UCLA develops a new drug for Merck and Merck contributed $5M and federal and state funds (including infrastructure, support costs, etc) amount to $10M, then for every $3 Merck makes on the drug, The government gets $2 and Merck gets $1. That way, government supported research treats the government like any other venture capitalist who gets a return on their investment.
We all here, everyday, about how the entitlement systems need to be overhauled. Maybe we should start with the corporate ones, first. Reforming the patent system would be a good start on that.
You're dead wrong, nothing quite beats Fortran in speed when it comes to number crunching. If you need to go through hundreds of gigabytes of data and performance is important there's only one realistic choice: Fortran. Python isn't fit to run on a large cluster to simulate things, too much overhead. And lets not forget what sort of efficiency you can get if you use a good compiler (Intel Composer). You won't find Fortran on the way out over here, it's here to stay!
Isn't that the point of DARPA funding this project - to make it so Python is fit to run on a large cluster to simulate things? I do agree, though, that Fortran is here to stay. However, it is so specialized in what it does and that often a solution then requires multiple languages to get the task accomplished.
Back in the day (1970s) I had a professor who would say that you can write anything in anything. For instance you could write a business app in Fortran and you can use COBOL for plotting trajectories to the moon. But, why would you? Each excel at what they were designed for and create a lot of extra work trying to make them do what they weren't designed for.
Something like Python is good at doing a lot of different things, but not necessarily great at large number crunching/analysis. It seems like DARPA is wanting to change that. That doesn't mean that FORTRAN will be obsolete, but if successful, it does mean that Python can be even more useful in research than it is now.
There is not a blanket ban on "collusion," it is a ban on certain types of collusion, mostly price-fixing.
Actually, that's not quite true. Price-fixing is a type of collusion that is prohibited, but any colluision that restricts competition or puts the buyer in a negative position (think railroads), is prohibited.
Was this mandated by some law I've not heard was passed...or, are these companies all signing onto this one service voluntarily? If so...why, what is in the bargain for them, they have immunity anyway over what their users do on the networks...why even bother with this?
Collusion is illegal in the United States (and most other places). How come the five largest ISPs in the country all deciding to implement the same tracking system and enforcing the same restrictions on millions of subscribers who have no other alternative to their services is not being investigated by the DOJ?
When the railroads did things like this, the DOJ was quick to step in. When the Unions did things like this the DOJ was quick to step in. Today when big businesses do things like this, the DOJ is nowhere to be found. The DOJ is supposed to protect the 100% of the people, not just 1%. But, that is the price we pay to have the best plutocracy on the planet.
Since DVDs and CDs are digital goods and you have been able to lend, rent and purchased used ones for years, how can this now be patented? The only difference is that this covers digital goods that aren't on physical media, but then software, another digital good, has been distributed electronically for decades if you include mainframes. There was even a big case with Revelon, where a developer "removed" software from their mainframe because they failed to pay -- all done digitally. So, can somebody explain how any of what Amazon was just awarded a patent for is not covered by prior art?