because better sources of information are only a mouse click away
You forget that the majority on the internet actually believe its YOUR job to educate them and if you don't educate them, then you're wrong. But frankly, if they are honestly too stupid to realize what they don't know or that what they know is based strictly on hearsay, which even by slashdot readership is a very large amount, I feel absolutely no obligation to address their ignorance since they'd rather argue about things they don't know rather than become self aware and learned.
Right, which means you took MANY LEAPS OF FAITH that day. Even after reading that book, you absolutely did not KNOW. You put faith in the book that it and all its surrounding evidence was at least close. Or are you saying that day the massive number of experiment required to support those theories were all, not only demonstrated, but fully understood by you, on that same day? The simple fact is, you used faith and you placed it in the hands of the church of science.
I'm not saying that's bad. I did the same thing. Just the same, it was still a leap of faith.
We have to trust all sorts of experts. Is it a matter of faith to take the advice of your doctor, lawyer, accountant, priest, architect or mechanical engineer?
That's entirely the point. I made a minor revision there to bring it home.
And to add to it, once you get into the things like cosmology and quantum physics, even the priests of science are making leaps of faith. Its not that they "know", its that they hope, because the evidence points in that direction. In fact, some of these guys are making leaps of faith as large as the laymen is making on them.
People take for granted, when they guys say, "we know", that's actually not what they mean. What they mean is, "based on what we know, and the best of evidence we have at hand, and given the theories we've been able to evaluate, this is the most likely answer we can provide at this time." Hell, some of the things "we know" are in fact, known to be rough estimates. Far too many people presume, "we know", to mean, "in absolute terms", when nothing could be farther from the truth. And so, to close the gap, such that we can simply converse and say, "we know", we all make that leap of faith.
Or maybe there is something else going on that is relevant here.
The fact you ask means its going over your head. You're thinking far to literally. I just finished saying this to yet another person.
Why is such an extremely simple concept so tough to comprehend by some? Did you even read the article?
It boils down to the simple facts that both parties are saying, "trust me", when in fact, neither party has absolutes to offer. In both cases, leaps of faith are required before you can arrive. The truth is, why many physicists say, "we know", its not actually what they mean. Which brings us full circle; its a matter of semantics.
Again, this absolutely is not a dig at science. I very much believe in science. But the fact remains, when you look at the edges of human scientific effort, it absolutely requires a leap of faith - even for the scientists conducting the research.
Whoosh. You're being far too literal and closed minded. Read my other replies in this thread and elsewhere. You can find all my replies by clicking on my name. You really are making this harder than it is.
You by far over estimate the public. You are taking for granted the spenders of your intelligence. You are the exception rather than the rule.
This isn't about demonstrating how a water rocket works to the laymen. There, you are right, the layman can quickly grasp the subject without any math. But that's not about a leap of faith. What you are dismissing is entirely what this is about.
The difference between a high priest of science saying, "see x", and a religious priest saying, "see y", is strictly one of semantics. Furthermore, once you get into the truly complex worlds of quantum physics and cosmology, even the high priests, just as with religion, are required to make leaps of faith. That's a truth every they admit - which is, in fact, noted in the article.
To be clear, that doesn't undermine science. Its just that to the laymen on the street, you're arguing semantics.
To answer your question, "its all around you." Have you never heard anything of religious ceremony?
But beyond that, whooosh! You completely missed the point. What you're arguing has exactly zero to do with anything. Shocking, I know.
Try explaining relativity to a ten year old. At the end of the discussion, IF he believes you, its strictly because he's surrendered himself to your expertise. Its the same with religion. That act of surrendering higher logic and inability to comprehend, is exactly what faith is. Faith is the ability to believe when there exists no logical reason to do so. As such, the explanation of many advanced disciplines are far beyond comprehension to the layman. As such, its an equal leap of faith to adhere to religious doctrine as it is to believe in the big bang. Hell, I'm a pretty science savvy guy and smarter than the average bear, and there's some areas of quantum physics which makes my head spin like I just got off a caravel ride. I've literally seem layman go almost comatose with even dumb-ed down explanations of some of what science has to offer. Its at this point the difference between advanced physics and God is touching your with his hand becomes extremely small.
I'll also add that your position also seems to be bordering on the beginnings of zealotry. It starts just this way. Technically, we have absolutely no idea of the big bang happened. We *think* it did. We don't have another theory which fits the evidence as well, but that's not the same as speaking in absolutes. We think a lot of unproven math with yet more unproven theories support that it did. But at the end of the day, even the high priests of science must still use a leap of faith.
Really, the difference is strictly one of semantics.
The big difference is that when someone says they see a miracle, all they can offer is "Because I said so."
You really have no idea you just said a really, really funny joke.
When basic algebra is used with most people, their eyes glaze over. Which means, for the majority of the world's population, if it wasn't taught in eighth grade, they believe you, "because I said so."
Look, they are not saying science has less merit or that its merits are strictly that of faith. What they are saying is, by the time it trickles down to the layman, they only acknowledgement is strictly ONLY, "because I said so", from an authoritative source. Given that many people consider churches and/or religions to be an authoritative source , in the layman's eyes, its a difference without distinction. After all, in both cases, its completely a leap of faith.
A lab full of scientists claiming Antihydrogen will have some evidence to support their claims. More importantly, they will continue to replicate the results.
A full cathedral of priests claiming god will have some evidence to support their claims. More importantly, they will continue to replicate the results by reading from scripture. Remember, people claim to see his miracles daily and to have felt his hand in their actions. Others claim to have heard him speak to them.
There's a difference between blind faith and having faith in the experts.
Only so long as you are not far removed from those experts. Once you are, like say, the general public, the difference is strictly one of semantics.
While tragic, the disasters in Japan have brought a small yet direly needed reprieve from Japan's massive and completely disproportionate over fishing of the seas.
Remember, they had the very basics of IFR all the way back to WWII and night missions. But it was basically what submarines did using a visual reference to synchronize a timer. The nuclear aircraft required the creation of more formalized procedures which which look more like today's modern rules.
My information was from a documentary with the pilots who flew those aircraft and their statements about the fact THEY, and this program, were the origins of modern day IFR procedures.
You should also investigate the procedures which followed the canyon crash. They were minor changes to say the least.
It is important to note that the idiocy is *not* in thinking that nuclear power has problem. It is in thinking that anything else we have is better.
That's an extremely rational point, to which I completely agree. The problem is, rationality is extremely foreign to anti-nukers. You need to keep in mind, people have long attempted to educate and rationalize with anti-nukers and as a result, we have their world of self fulfilling prophecy which slows progress, endangers the world, and makes everything more expensive.
Until the Japan disaster, this was all starting to change. People were finally starting to listen to reason and were beginning to rationally filter the anti-nuker idiots.
The thing is, these people *really* want to be helpful
We're talking about two classifications of people here which you are conflating as one. Frankly, I'm guilty of some conflation here too. There are those who have been victimized by the anti-nukers and then there are the anti-nukers. The victims, who generally just sit there suffering from fear and ignorantly create friction to a safer world, probably do want to be helpful; else the anti-nukers wouldn't be as powerful as they are today. They just don't realize how ignorant and unhelpful they really are. But the real anti-nukers absolutely do not want to be helpful. Not in any way. They only want fear, ignorance, stupidity, and humanity living back in caves. Literally, if you killed all anti-nukers today, the world would be a better place tomorrow.
For instance, Tri-Alpha is talking about breakeven energy within 2 years...
Last I heard, that doesn't mean the same think it does to the rest of the world. For them, break even means they measured more energy than they put into the system. That's it. That's an extremely far cry from harvesting the output energy, let alone harvesting in such a manner which is still above breakeven. Even more so, that's a long way toward then redirecting the harvested energy back into a sustainable process. And that completely ignores that their numbers represent a single, completely unsustainable burst of energy. Generally, hours to months are required before the next fusion attempt is possible. That's not even close to any sort of practicality in our lifetime.
Hell, sustainable fusion and making use of zero of its output energy, in of itself, would be an unparalleled human accomplishment that completely ignores something like another dozen feats of equal complexity are required before we can even begin to discuss viable fusion power for humanity.
I used to be completely excited about the potential for fusion power within my lifetime. After all, its always twenty to fifty years out. The reality is, that's complete bullshit. Some time ago I bothered to actually learn something of the associated science. What a complete disappointment and shattering of my nieve ignorance. Frankly, if we have fusion power in less than 150-200 years from now, especially with the borderline funding fiasco (good 'ol boy system) associated with current fusion research, it will be a literal miracle. Personally, I'm betting fusion is another 300-500 years from now, if in fact its even possible at the physical scales they are currently attempting to do so.
As a interesting bit of trivia, nuclear aircraft are the primary reason why we have modern IFR rules. The aircraft required so much shielding, the pilots could barely see out of the aircraft. So to allow for safer operation, they started with some simple procedures used by submarines and it has evolved to what safely delivers you to the ground today.
I remember recently Alaska Airlines decided to dump all MD-83 aircraft a year after one lost elevator control and dove into the Pacific. It took precious little time to dump those planes partly because they already had a mixed fleet of 737s and MD-8x airframes.
Dumping aircraft is not the same as purchasing new aircraft. And the ability to shed aircraft is largely governed by the airline's routes, corresponding passenger and cargo loads, planned expansion or consolidation (which is what it really sounds like).
After adjustments for inflation, that's $65,439.31 for design, development, manufacturing, and testing of 54 units. That's $1,211.84 per seat today. By ANY measure, that's an extreme bargain. If you were to take your requirements to a design firm, you'd likely be looking at something around $200,000-300,000+ (3,703-$5,555 each) for the same effort. Basically, the only way someone is likely to do better than those prices are to have unit counts in the tens if not hundreds of thousands.
Basically anyone who uses these are examples of government waste are actively advertising they are idiots.
Nuclear could be a great power source, if we made the owners responsible for all damages.
They used to be. And then anti-nuke idiots decided that wasn't enough. So to prevent any improvements in the nuclear industry, they continued their scare mongering so no one would get an MRI until the name was changed. As a result, people were both scared and stupid.
This had the effect of preventing old reactors from being replaced (like what you see in Japan). It meant new reactors were financially impossible. Insurance companies stopped wanting to cover these plants because of a massive number of fraudulent (fraudulent and unknowing ignorance - see anti-nuclear idiot scare mongering above) claims dating back to Three Mile Island.
Basically, idiot scare mongering anti-nukers were very successful in making the world a more dangerous AND expensive place. Energy costs went up. The cost of running and maintaining nuclear plants went up. As a result, nuclear subsidies became standard far and damage caps were required.
So literally, the only benefit of being an anti-nuclear idiot is everything is more dangerous and more expensive than reasonably should be. And that's all in thanks for providing the cheapest, safest energy source known to mankind, which in turn keeps all other energy sources cheaper.
There isn't an anti-nuke idiot who doesn't have blood on their hands. The really sad thing is, people are ignorantly scared of nuclear power but should really be scared of anti-nuclear idiots.
Everyone with a DVR has the highlights. I can typically watch a full show in roughly thirty minutes. It could be a little faster if I could instantly skip all commercials. But I have to fast forward through them.
If they are designing new 747s, then yes, you are right. If they are designing very focused elements which are to be used on a variety of jets, then not necessarily. I presumed its the later and not the former which we are talking about.
It's just sad when average is seen as something special.
That may well be true for some segment of their viewers. Just the same, a lot of people like watching the show because its applied engineering. They get to build and do things which many of us simply don't have time, budget, or both to tinker. Basically, the show provides an outlet in which many of us vicariously enjoy.
At the end of the day, blowing shit up is fun. Verifying, if even a simpleton approach, classic science experiments is fun. And even though they constantly deviate from the scientific method and constantly completely screw things up, they show can still be fun - even if they are wrong. Its really more about the experience than the result. And if you can get a satisfactory result, its all the better.
Of course, none of that means they are smart, engineers, or scientists.
The toilet seat and hammer bullshit is just that. They were not common variety toilet seats. They had very real design and testing requirements which had to be met with extremely low counts. Which means the per unit costs are very high. Those who hold up those examples simply have no knowledge of the subject matter.
Airlines are extremely slow to take on new technology. Not because they don't want it, but because there is a huge lag time between technology inception, development, practical application, production of said technology, integration of technology into newer aircraft designs, ordering of aircraft (or retrofitting), and the aircraft actually becoming part of that airline's fleet. That span can easily be greater than a decade or two. Which means, by the time a technology is entering public use, its very likely to be a generation, or two, or three, beyond what's currently being researched.
It's a lengthy, costly, pipeline adoption doesn't happen overnight because the costs are so large. Which means, in many cases, retrofitting is simply not an option. Which means, the only way the technology is going to enter a fleet is from new aircraft purchases.
Slashdot Mirror
because better sources of information are only a mouse click away
You forget that the majority on the internet actually believe its YOUR job to educate them and if you don't educate them, then you're wrong. But frankly, if they are honestly too stupid to realize what they don't know or that what they know is based strictly on hearsay, which even by slashdot readership is a very large amount, I feel absolutely no obligation to address their ignorance since they'd rather argue about things they don't know rather than become self aware and learned.
Right, which means you took MANY LEAPS OF FAITH that day. Even after reading that book, you absolutely did not KNOW. You put faith in the book that it and all its surrounding evidence was at least close. Or are you saying that day the massive number of experiment required to support those theories were all, not only demonstrated, but fully understood by you, on that same day? The simple fact is, you used faith and you placed it in the hands of the church of science.
I'm not saying that's bad. I did the same thing. Just the same, it was still a leap of faith.
We have to trust all sorts of experts. Is it a matter of faith to take the advice of your doctor, lawyer, accountant, priest, architect or mechanical engineer?
That's entirely the point. I made a minor revision there to bring it home.
And to add to it, once you get into the things like cosmology and quantum physics, even the priests of science are making leaps of faith. Its not that they "know", its that they hope, because the evidence points in that direction. In fact, some of these guys are making leaps of faith as large as the laymen is making on them.
People take for granted, when they guys say, "we know", that's actually not what they mean. What they mean is, "based on what we know, and the best of evidence we have at hand, and given the theories we've been able to evaluate, this is the most likely answer we can provide at this time." Hell, some of the things "we know" are in fact, known to be rough estimates. Far too many people presume, "we know", to mean, "in absolute terms", when nothing could be farther from the truth. And so, to close the gap, such that we can simply converse and say, "we know", we all make that leap of faith.
Or maybe there is something else going on that is relevant here.
The fact you ask means its going over your head. You're thinking far to literally. I just finished saying this to yet another person.
Why is such an extremely simple concept so tough to comprehend by some? Did you even read the article?
It boils down to the simple facts that both parties are saying, "trust me", when in fact, neither party has absolutes to offer. In both cases, leaps of faith are required before you can arrive. The truth is, why many physicists say, "we know", its not actually what they mean. Which brings us full circle; its a matter of semantics.
Again, this absolutely is not a dig at science. I very much believe in science. But the fact remains, when you look at the edges of human scientific effort, it absolutely requires a leap of faith - even for the scientists conducting the research.
Whoosh. You're being far too literal and closed minded. Read my other replies in this thread and elsewhere. You can find all my replies by clicking on my name. You really are making this harder than it is.
I guess some idiot hates science and wanted to censor.
You by far over estimate the public. You are taking for granted the spenders of your intelligence. You are the exception rather than the rule.
This isn't about demonstrating how a water rocket works to the laymen. There, you are right, the layman can quickly grasp the subject without any math. But that's not about a leap of faith. What you are dismissing is entirely what this is about.
The difference between a high priest of science saying, "see x", and a religious priest saying, "see y", is strictly one of semantics. Furthermore, once you get into the truly complex worlds of quantum physics and cosmology, even the high priests, just as with religion, are required to make leaps of faith. That's a truth every they admit - which is, in fact, noted in the article.
To be clear, that doesn't undermine science. Its just that to the laymen on the street, you're arguing semantics.
To answer your question, "its all around you." Have you never heard anything of religious ceremony?
But beyond that, whooosh! You completely missed the point. What you're arguing has exactly zero to do with anything. Shocking, I know.
Try explaining relativity to a ten year old. At the end of the discussion, IF he believes you, its strictly because he's surrendered himself to your expertise. Its the same with religion. That act of surrendering higher logic and inability to comprehend, is exactly what faith is. Faith is the ability to believe when there exists no logical reason to do so. As such, the explanation of many advanced disciplines are far beyond comprehension to the layman. As such, its an equal leap of faith to adhere to religious doctrine as it is to believe in the big bang. Hell, I'm a pretty science savvy guy and smarter than the average bear, and there's some areas of quantum physics which makes my head spin like I just got off a caravel ride. I've literally seem layman go almost comatose with even dumb-ed down explanations of some of what science has to offer. Its at this point the difference between advanced physics and God is touching your with his hand becomes extremely small.
I'll also add that your position also seems to be bordering on the beginnings of zealotry. It starts just this way. Technically, we have absolutely no idea of the big bang happened. We *think* it did. We don't have another theory which fits the evidence as well, but that's not the same as speaking in absolutes. We think a lot of unproven math with yet more unproven theories support that it did. But at the end of the day, even the high priests of science must still use a leap of faith.
Really, the difference is strictly one of semantics.
The big difference is that when someone says they see a miracle, all they can offer is "Because I said so."
You really have no idea you just said a really, really funny joke.
When basic algebra is used with most people, their eyes glaze over. Which means, for the majority of the world's population, if it wasn't taught in eighth grade, they believe you, "because I said so."
Look, they are not saying science has less merit or that its merits are strictly that of faith. What they are saying is, by the time it trickles down to the layman, they only acknowledgement is strictly ONLY, "because I said so", from an authoritative source. Given that many people consider churches and/or religions to be an authoritative source , in the layman's eyes, its a difference without distinction. After all, in both cases, its completely a leap of faith.
A lab full of scientists claiming Antihydrogen will have some evidence to support their claims. More importantly, they will continue to replicate the results.
A full cathedral of priests claiming god will have some evidence to support their claims. More importantly, they will continue to replicate the results by reading from scripture. Remember, people claim to see his miracles daily and to have felt his hand in their actions. Others claim to have heard him speak to them.
There's a difference between blind faith and having faith in the experts.
Only so long as you are not far removed from those experts. Once you are, like say, the general public, the difference is strictly one of semantics.
Or more likely, completely destroy the oceanic ecosystem.
While tragic, the disasters in Japan have brought a small yet direly needed reprieve from Japan's massive and completely disproportionate over fishing of the seas.
Remember, they had the very basics of IFR all the way back to WWII and night missions. But it was basically what submarines did using a visual reference to synchronize a timer. The nuclear aircraft required the creation of more formalized procedures which which look more like today's modern rules.
My information was from a documentary with the pilots who flew those aircraft and their statements about the fact THEY, and this program, were the origins of modern day IFR procedures.
You should also investigate the procedures which followed the canyon crash. They were minor changes to say the least.
It is important to note that the idiocy is *not* in thinking that nuclear power has problem. It is in thinking that anything else we have is better.
That's an extremely rational point, to which I completely agree. The problem is, rationality is extremely foreign to anti-nukers. You need to keep in mind, people have long attempted to educate and rationalize with anti-nukers and as a result, we have their world of self fulfilling prophecy which slows progress, endangers the world, and makes everything more expensive.
Until the Japan disaster, this was all starting to change. People were finally starting to listen to reason and were beginning to rationally filter the anti-nuker idiots.
The thing is, these people *really* want to be helpful
We're talking about two classifications of people here which you are conflating as one. Frankly, I'm guilty of some conflation here too. There are those who have been victimized by the anti-nukers and then there are the anti-nukers. The victims, who generally just sit there suffering from fear and ignorantly create friction to a safer world, probably do want to be helpful; else the anti-nukers wouldn't be as powerful as they are today. They just don't realize how ignorant and unhelpful they really are. But the real anti-nukers absolutely do not want to be helpful. Not in any way. They only want fear, ignorance, stupidity, and humanity living back in caves. Literally, if you killed all anti-nukers today, the world would be a better place tomorrow.
For instance, Tri-Alpha is talking about breakeven energy within 2 years...
Last I heard, that doesn't mean the same think it does to the rest of the world. For them, break even means they measured more energy than they put into the system. That's it. That's an extremely far cry from harvesting the output energy, let alone harvesting in such a manner which is still above breakeven. Even more so, that's a long way toward then redirecting the harvested energy back into a sustainable process. And that completely ignores that their numbers represent a single, completely unsustainable burst of energy. Generally, hours to months are required before the next fusion attempt is possible. That's not even close to any sort of practicality in our lifetime.
Hell, sustainable fusion and making use of zero of its output energy, in of itself, would be an unparalleled human accomplishment that completely ignores something like another dozen feats of equal complexity are required before we can even begin to discuss viable fusion power for humanity.
I used to be completely excited about the potential for fusion power within my lifetime. After all, its always twenty to fifty years out. The reality is, that's complete bullshit. Some time ago I bothered to actually learn something of the associated science. What a complete disappointment and shattering of my nieve ignorance. Frankly, if we have fusion power in less than 150-200 years from now, especially with the borderline funding fiasco (good 'ol boy system) associated with current fusion research, it will be a literal miracle. Personally, I'm betting fusion is another 300-500 years from now, if in fact its even possible at the physical scales they are currently attempting to do so.
As a interesting bit of trivia, nuclear aircraft are the primary reason why we have modern IFR rules. The aircraft required so much shielding, the pilots could barely see out of the aircraft. So to allow for safer operation, they started with some simple procedures used by submarines and it has evolved to what safely delivers you to the ground today.
I remember recently Alaska Airlines decided to dump all MD-83 aircraft a year after one lost elevator control and dove into the Pacific.
It took precious little time to dump those planes partly because they already had a mixed fleet of 737s and MD-8x airframes.
Dumping aircraft is not the same as purchasing new aircraft. And the ability to shed aircraft is largely governed by the airline's routes, corresponding passenger and cargo loads, planned expansion or consolidation (which is what it really sounds like).
After adjustments for inflation, that's $65,439.31 for design, development, manufacturing, and testing of 54 units. That's $1,211.84 per seat today. By ANY measure, that's an extreme bargain. If you were to take your requirements to a design firm, you'd likely be looking at something around $200,000-300,000+ (3,703-$5,555 each) for the same effort. Basically, the only way someone is likely to do better than those prices are to have unit counts in the tens if not hundreds of thousands.
Basically anyone who uses these are examples of government waste are actively advertising they are idiots.
Give me one example of the anti nuke idiots
Really? So ignoring reality means you didn't just get all your examples and more?
I guess I sincerely wish I lived in the delusion bubble you and others like you create. Sadly, I live in the real world.
Nuclear could be a great power source, if we made the owners responsible for all damages.
They used to be. And then anti-nuke idiots decided that wasn't enough. So to prevent any improvements in the nuclear industry, they continued their scare mongering so no one would get an MRI until the name was changed. As a result, people were both scared and stupid.
This had the effect of preventing old reactors from being replaced (like what you see in Japan). It meant new reactors were financially impossible. Insurance companies stopped wanting to cover these plants because of a massive number of fraudulent (fraudulent and unknowing ignorance - see anti-nuclear idiot scare mongering above) claims dating back to Three Mile Island.
Basically, idiot scare mongering anti-nukers were very successful in making the world a more dangerous AND expensive place. Energy costs went up. The cost of running and maintaining nuclear plants went up. As a result, nuclear subsidies became standard far and damage caps were required.
So literally, the only benefit of being an anti-nuclear idiot is everything is more dangerous and more expensive than reasonably should be. And that's all in thanks for providing the cheapest, safest energy source known to mankind, which in turn keeps all other energy sources cheaper.
There isn't an anti-nuke idiot who doesn't have blood on their hands. The really sad thing is, people are ignorantly scared of nuclear power but should really be scared of anti-nuclear idiots.
Everyone with a DVR has the highlights. I can typically watch a full show in roughly thirty minutes. It could be a little faster if I could instantly skip all commercials. But I have to fast forward through them.
If they are designing new 747s, then yes, you are right. If they are designing very focused elements which are to be used on a variety of jets, then not necessarily. I presumed its the later and not the former which we are talking about.
It's just sad when average is seen as something special.
That may well be true for some segment of their viewers. Just the same, a lot of people like watching the show because its applied engineering. They get to build and do things which many of us simply don't have time, budget, or both to tinker. Basically, the show provides an outlet in which many of us vicariously enjoy.
At the end of the day, blowing shit up is fun. Verifying, if even a simpleton approach, classic science experiments is fun. And even though they constantly deviate from the scientific method and constantly completely screw things up, they show can still be fun - even if they are wrong. Its really more about the experience than the result. And if you can get a satisfactory result, its all the better.
Of course, none of that means they are smart, engineers, or scientists.
I guess we can, but the rhetoric isn't nearly as fun to talk about. I mean, think of the bus and cliff jokes...
The toilet seat and hammer bullshit is just that. They were not common variety toilet seats. They had very real design and testing requirements which had to be met with extremely low counts. Which means the per unit costs are very high. Those who hold up those examples simply have no knowledge of the subject matter.
Airlines are extremely slow to take on new technology. Not because they don't want it, but because there is a huge lag time between technology inception, development, practical application, production of said technology, integration of technology into newer aircraft designs, ordering of aircraft (or retrofitting), and the aircraft actually becoming part of that airline's fleet. That span can easily be greater than a decade or two. Which means, by the time a technology is entering public use, its very likely to be a generation, or two, or three, beyond what's currently being researched.
It's a lengthy, costly, pipeline adoption doesn't happen overnight because the costs are so large. Which means, in many cases, retrofitting is simply not an option. Which means, the only way the technology is going to enter a fleet is from new aircraft purchases.