I think better than a ring lock using magnets would be one using an RFID chip embedded in your own ring, which would authenticate you with a chip in the guns grip.
I'd like my car doors and ignition and my house to let me in based on this, too.
One of the advantages of deducting the entire vehicle in a given year is to knock you down 1 or more tax brackets, decreasing the tax rate you pay on your remaining taxable income, particularly when taken together with other deductions.
Another factor is that my income is steadily increasing, so $9,000 extra this year is more valuable to me than $9,000 2 or 3 years from now when I am making more money (assuming the trend continues, which it has and I intend to further).
The real question has nothing to do with my decision, which I am still satisfied with a year later.
The real question is:
Why is the IRS encouraging the purchase of gas guzzlers? I have thought about this a lot and haven't come up with a single logical reason.
Except that I work from home and will likely put far LESS than 12,000 on the vehicle, let alone 20,000.
At 12,000 my fuel costs are:
$2.00/gal * 4,000 gal = $8,000 -- FUEL COSTS
So I am up $1,000 over 5 years.
But the item in question isn't why I made my purchasing decision, by why on earth the IRS is encouraging the purchase of gas guzzlers. I've thought about this for a year, and I'm stumped. I haven't come up with a single logical reason. Except oil, which isn't logical in my book.
So if all of the gas in your town is $18.95 a gallon, and 2 of the other gas stations are $18.85 a gallon, you're a happy camper because there is a "price war"?
Induction is similar to magnitism or gravity in that it's effectiveness (and physiological impact) diminish exponentially the further you get away from it.
So it is less like radio waves and similar radiation, and less of a concern. However, we will be in rather close proximity if we are leaning on the desk all day.
It should be said, however, that the worst thing we are around, all day, every day, is CRT's, in my opinion. My eyesight can attest to that. When I became a programmer my eyesight changed quickly and dramatically, and worsened quicker and quicker as time went on and I had to lean closer and closer to the monitor to read small text. I've had an LCD for 2 years now, and my prescription hasn't changed at all. My eyes hurt less too. I highly recommend switching to an LCD.
The next big thing in power will be induction, in the form of furniture that charges devices set on it.
The technology exists to power speakers, mice, keyboards, digital cameras, cell phones, even LCD monitors, all without power cords.
Beneath the surface of the desk will be induction pads that power the device via induction, without the risk of electrocution, even in the event of a spilled drink.
The technology is maturing rapidly. I'd like an entertainment center that powers everything on it wireless. I hate the rats nest of wires behind my TV, VCR, DVD, etc.
Similar technology is used to recharge pacemakers and similar internal medical devices using an arm cuff.
I don't want to get into a big environmental discussion because no one wins and there is no resolution.
However, I disagree that a replacement for oil will come from the big energy companies.
There likely won't be an oil crisis related to supply for a long time. Getting that supply into our hands is another discussion entirely.
The big energy companies only want a replacement solution which they can monopolize. So they favor hydrogen and methan over solar and wind. Big business is interested in consumable products. They don't want to sell us a solar panel that reduces our dependence on them, when they can sell us a car we have to refill once a week.
If there is any chance for a clean and energy efficient solution, it will come from universities or some relatively small company. No one else, including the governments of the world, are going to give up their power, control, and profits because it's better for the environment.
A good example of this is how hard De Beers is trying to discredit new man-made diamonds. The only flaw in the latest generation of man-made diamonds is that they are TOO perfect. They are working on injecting impurities into the system, at which point the man-made diamonds will likely be indistinguishable from the natural counterpart. De Beers is trying anything and everything they can to stop this. When the same battle comes to their doorstep, the Saudis and big energy companies will (and have) reacted the exact same way.
My savings last year was $9,000 (the difference between writing Uncle Sam a check for $9,800 and writing a check for $800, which is what I did).
$9,000 buys a LOT of gas.
I used the phrase "deduction" which is only partially accurate. Section 179 allows you to write off the entire purchase price of the vehicle THAT YEAR. The taxable income for my business went from ~$80,000 down to ~$45,000 with that deduction alone. Add in all of my other business expenses, and it just doesn't make sense to be an employee somewhere else.
So yes, Section 179 DEFINITELY encourages people to buy gas guzzlers, and NO, the cost of gas doesn't come anywhere close to affecting the decision.
At issue isn't whether Kerry or Bush has more stocks, but which has more to gain.
Bush, Bush's entire family, and many, many of Bush's friends are all in the oil business.
Additionally, Bush has strong ties to the Saudi royal family, who make their money off the sale of oil. Bush's own oil business was largely funded by Saudi investors.
Bush even took his administration one step further and put lifelong lobbyists for the oil industry at the top of his energy commission.
So I'd say Bush shows far greater signs of oil special interest than Kerry ever would. Add in the democratic slant to the environment and the difference between them is even greater and more significant.
There are two technologies that I think will be cruicial for this to happen:
1) Micro-sized nuclear power plants like this one need to be tested and then widely deployed. They are completely safe from melt down, and incredibly cost effective. My town of 50,000 could reduce it's energy costs by about 80% by installing one.
2) Tritium-D needs to be used to replace or augment batteries in electric cars. A very small amount of Tritium-D, which is safe to use and is already used in consumer products like night sights on guns, could power an electric car for 10 - 20 years. It may not entirely replace gasoline for all operating conditions, but could take the MPG into the 100 - 200 range.
Unfortunately, neither of these will happen anytime soon. Not for the reasons listed in this story, but because doing so would take money and power from the top levels of our government, and that will not be allowed to happen.
The fact that our average car gets 15 MPG right now is attrocious. And these low MPG's are actually encouraged by the government. As evidence see the IRS code for a Section 179 deduction, which requires the vehicle to be over 6,000 Lbs, regardless of the industry the vehicle is used in. I'm a self-employed web designer / software engineer, and I used the Section 179 deduction last year. I would have much rather purchased a Hybrid Civic or Prius, but could only get the deduction by purchasing a Ford F-150 (or similarly sized gas guzzler).
That would be sweet, since the only way Bush got in office was through litigation and 3 years of underhanded preparations in Florida with his brother Jeb and their wench Katherine.
If what goes around truly does come around, then Bush will win the popular vote and Kerry will take office.
Al Gore's contribution to the internet is an absolte joke
While I appreciate your long and thoughtful post, unless you can produce a resume and personal first-hand knowledge that rivals that of Robert Kahn and Vinton Cerf, I have to take their word for it, and they give credit where they (and I) believe credit is due.
I can't find the article that I referenced in my previous post (I read it a couple of months ago), but I was able to find this story on the same subject and the underlying causes:
The root of the problem boils down to the vast amount of influence that large industries and companies have in affecting legislation. President Bush in particular has embraced the lobbyists with open arms, in many cases appointent the lobbyists themselves in his administration!
This deals a major blow to public rights. The funding is done by OUR money, but the rights get turned over to companies who charge US outrageous prices for OUR technology.
Just because NFS talks over IP, does not make it part of the internet.
The difference between the internet and the world wide web is largely semantics. When you look at how the internet benefits the world at large, the everyday users of the internet, almost all of that growth took place after Al Gore coming onto the scene. It is my opinion, and is shared by Cerf and Kahn, that Al Gore made a significant contribution to that, and was justified in his statement. That is the essence of this discussion, and I think is very clear.
In an interesting letter written by Robert Kahn and Vinton Cerf on the topic of Al Gore's contribution to the Internet, they said "Gore provided much-needed political support for the speedy privatization of the Internet when the time arrived for it to become a commercially-driven operation.".
In otherwords, even though the internet is a commercial operation now, it did not start that way (and would not have started at all without the governments involvment).
The reason we have one internet globally that interoperates successfully is due to government research and standardization.
If you take away all government involvment, including the funding of research at universitities, I don't think you'd have the internet at all, at least in any way that resembles what we have now in scope and usefulness.
Indeed, we may be 15 or 20 years behind in computer technology in general. It was, afterall, military spending that led to the creation of the first computers, and there to better and faster computers, and all that followed.
We may have gotten there without it, but the end result would have been vastly different, much less "compatible", and much, much later in the coming.
daVinci and were certainly the two closest, but either one still has a long ways to go.
I hope daVinci never attempts a launch, as it will almost certainly result in a fatality unless they make significant progress from here.
Likewise, as much as I like Carmack, Armadillo Aerospace has some serious stability issues (the video of the last launch that pancaked their rocket was less than inspiring), and I personally wouldn't fly on it anytime in the near future.
The incredible thing about Scaled is the simplicity and inherent stability of the system. The feathered wing is ingenious, inexpensive, inherently stable, and inexpensive. I would go on SpaceShipOne tomorrow if it were a possibility and I could afford it.
As for the Rocket Guy, I'm jealous that he gets to spend all of his time doing what he loves and having so much fun, but he has almost no chance of going up and coming back down in one piece, no matter how long he spends. I watched a show on him, and for a one man team doing it all at home, it is amazing what he has accomplished. Nonetheless, I'd never fly on what he is building.
Burt Rutan and Scaled have done something that NASA wouldn't have done in 50 years, and that is make space accesible to the average citizen (with an above average bank account). When Virgin licensed their technology and put out the feelers to see how many people wanted to take a trip for $210,000, over $1.2B worth of pledges came back. That is incredible, and encouraging.
Here's to hoping I can have dinner with my wife in space on our 25th anniversary (15 years from now). I'll settle for our 50th anniversary if I have to, but I don't think it will take near that long.
Certainly all 17 count. Mike Melville could have easily died from a failed reentry or an unescapable fire prior to launch.
I thought you were the same person this conversation started out with, who said "Rutan has been spectacularly lucky.", but you came in later in the conversation.
I don't at all disrespect or undervalue what NASA has accomplished, only the current state of NASA, which according to the governments own investigation following the last accident, which concluded that NASA was bloated and had a culture that discouraged anyone that bucked the system (pointing out flaws, waste, or needed improvements).
I don't want to see NASA go away. But I'm very happy to see more and more private endeavors coming onto the scene with regard to space. I think as more and more groups like Scaled join the pursuit of space, our growth, knowledge, and the accessibility of space will increase rapidly. That is a good thing.
I dislike "corporate welfare" more than any other form of handout!
A university developed a blood pressure medication recently, at a cost of about $800,000. The government took the technology for the medication, paid the university back (or made the drug company do so), and GAVE the patent on the technology to the drug company. The value of the patent over the life of the patent protected drug is in the billions of dollars.
That is attrocious! There is absolutely no excuse for that. The only winners are the drug company and maybe the government. The losers are the citizens who could have used that medication to better their lives, without turning over their hard earned money to the drug companies.
I have no problem with a company being rewarded for their R&D efforts, but the reward should be reasonable for the effort and cost put in, and should be for something they actually did!!!
I don't think its fair or reasonable to say that Burt Rutan has been lucky when he has a perfect safety record over a long career.
It should also be noted that his composite plane that thousands have built has a kit plane has never had a death due to plane failure. Two private pilots have died flying that plane design, but both died from flying into mountains or other structures, and both were pilot error and had nothing to do with the plane design.
I repeat, you can't say that a 40 year perfect safety record, entirely untarnished, is luck.
And I think it is safe to say that Burt Rutan does want manned space exploration, has grown a pair, and has made sacrifices in his pursuit. The only thing he hasn't sacrificed was safety (which cannot be said of NASA, since many of their failures and deaths we forewarned of from within, and the warnings were stifled due to the NASA culture).
I never even implied that the Ansari's were rooting for anyone to fail. They have plenty of dough. But when the heir to the Ansari fortune was interviewed live, the day the prize was one, she said they didn't expect anyone to win and were pleased that someone was able to make progress so fast and win the prize. I don't even own a tinfoil hat.
The $50M prize for orbital flights deadlines in 2008, IIRC, and even though the development cost will no doubt go over $50M, I wouldn't be at all surprised to see Richard Branson fund it. $1.2 BILLION in pledges have already been made to go aboard Virgin's VSS. I don't think there will be any problem finding someone to fund Scaled for orbital flights.
Remember, we did orbital flight and lunar landings in the 60's with limited technology and no experience. I think Scaled is in a far better position to duplicate and even surpass that success by 2008, or the end of the decade if he fails to reach win that prize.
I don't think there was another X-Prize entrant that was realistically within a year of succeeding. Name one that actually had a good chance of doing what Burt did (3 successful flights back to back with no losses).
I have no doubt that it is at least an order of magnitude more difficult to go into orbit, but I doubt Burt has set his sights on it without knowing what is involved.
As for it taking a while, I imagine it will take longer than I think, and come a lot quicker than you think.
If you would have described what Burt and Scaled accomplished to someone in 1996 or even 2000, they would have had a very hard time believing it. Nonetheless, here we are. And I think future progress will be as rapid or better, respective to their complexity (which I understand is large, but we also need to remember NASA did it in the 60's with limited technology and poor computer simulation abilities).
Slashdot Mirror
I think better than a ring lock using magnets would be one using an RFID chip embedded in your own ring, which would authenticate you with a chip in the guns grip.
I'd like my car doors and ignition and my house to let me in based on this, too.
One of the advantages of deducting the entire vehicle in a given year is to knock you down 1 or more tax brackets, decreasing the tax rate you pay on your remaining taxable income, particularly when taken together with other deductions.
Another factor is that my income is steadily increasing, so $9,000 extra this year is more valuable to me than $9,000 2 or 3 years from now when I am making more money (assuming the trend continues, which it has and I intend to further).
The real question has nothing to do with my decision, which I am still satisfied with a year later.
The real question is:
Why is the IRS encouraging the purchase of gas guzzlers? I have thought about this a lot and haven't come up with a single logical reason.
Except that I work from home and will likely put far LESS than 12,000 on the vehicle, let alone 20,000.
At 12,000 my fuel costs are:
$2.00/gal * 4,000 gal = $8,000 -- FUEL COSTS
So I am up $1,000 over 5 years.
But the item in question isn't why I made my purchasing decision, by why on earth the IRS is encouraging the purchase of gas guzzlers. I've thought about this for a year, and I'm stumped. I haven't come up with a single logical reason. Except oil, which isn't logical in my book.
So if all of the gas in your town is $18.95 a gallon, and 2 of the other gas stations are $18.85 a gallon, you're a happy camper because there is a "price war"?
Induction is similar to magnitism or gravity in that it's effectiveness (and physiological impact) diminish exponentially the further you get away from it.
So it is less like radio waves and similar radiation, and less of a concern. However, we will be in rather close proximity if we are leaning on the desk all day.
It should be said, however, that the worst thing we are around, all day, every day, is CRT's, in my opinion. My eyesight can attest to that. When I became a programmer my eyesight changed quickly and dramatically, and worsened quicker and quicker as time went on and I had to lean closer and closer to the monitor to read small text. I've had an LCD for 2 years now, and my prescription hasn't changed at all. My eyes hurt less too. I highly recommend switching to an LCD.
The next big thing in power will be induction, in the form of furniture that charges devices set on it.
The technology exists to power speakers, mice, keyboards, digital cameras, cell phones, even LCD monitors, all without power cords.
Beneath the surface of the desk will be induction pads that power the device via induction, without the risk of electrocution, even in the event of a spilled drink.
The technology is maturing rapidly. I'd like an entertainment center that powers everything on it wireless. I hate the rats nest of wires behind my TV, VCR, DVD, etc.
Similar technology is used to recharge pacemakers and similar internal medical devices using an arm cuff.
I don't want to get into a big environmental discussion because no one wins and there is no resolution.
However, I disagree that a replacement for oil will come from the big energy companies.
There likely won't be an oil crisis related to supply for a long time. Getting that supply into our hands is another discussion entirely.
The big energy companies only want a replacement solution which they can monopolize. So they favor hydrogen and methan over solar and wind. Big business is interested in consumable products. They don't want to sell us a solar panel that reduces our dependence on them, when they can sell us a car we have to refill once a week.
If there is any chance for a clean and energy efficient solution, it will come from universities or some relatively small company. No one else, including the governments of the world, are going to give up their power, control, and profits because it's better for the environment.
A good example of this is how hard De Beers is trying to discredit new man-made diamonds. The only flaw in the latest generation of man-made diamonds is that they are TOO perfect. They are working on injecting impurities into the system, at which point the man-made diamonds will likely be indistinguishable from the natural counterpart. De Beers is trying anything and everything they can to stop this. When the same battle comes to their doorstep, the Saudis and big energy companies will (and have) reacted the exact same way.
My savings last year was $9,000 (the difference between writing Uncle Sam a check for $9,800 and writing a check for $800, which is what I did).
$9,000 buys a LOT of gas.
I used the phrase "deduction" which is only partially accurate. Section 179 allows you to write off the entire purchase price of the vehicle THAT YEAR. The taxable income for my business went from ~$80,000 down to ~$45,000 with that deduction alone. Add in all of my other business expenses, and it just doesn't make sense to be an employee somewhere else.
So yes, Section 179 DEFINITELY encourages people to buy gas guzzlers, and NO, the cost of gas doesn't come anywhere close to affecting the decision.
It is just a guess, but it's ambiguous.
At issue isn't whether Kerry or Bush has more stocks, but which has more to gain.
Bush, Bush's entire family, and many, many of Bush's friends are all in the oil business.
Additionally, Bush has strong ties to the Saudi royal family, who make their money off the sale of oil. Bush's own oil business was largely funded by Saudi investors.
Bush even took his administration one step further and put lifelong lobbyists for the oil industry at the top of his energy commission.
So I'd say Bush shows far greater signs of oil special interest than Kerry ever would. Add in the democratic slant to the environment and the difference between them is even greater and more significant.
There are two technologies that I think will be cruicial for this to happen:
1) Micro-sized nuclear power plants like this one need to be tested and then widely deployed. They are completely safe from melt down, and incredibly cost effective. My town of 50,000 could reduce it's energy costs by about 80% by installing one.
2) Tritium-D needs to be used to replace or augment batteries in electric cars. A very small amount of Tritium-D, which is safe to use and is already used in consumer products like night sights on guns, could power an electric car for 10 - 20 years. It may not entirely replace gasoline for all operating conditions, but could take the MPG into the 100 - 200 range.
Unfortunately, neither of these will happen anytime soon. Not for the reasons listed in this story, but because doing so would take money and power from the top levels of our government, and that will not be allowed to happen.
The fact that our average car gets 15 MPG right now is attrocious. And these low MPG's are actually encouraged by the government. As evidence see the IRS code for a Section 179 deduction, which requires the vehicle to be over 6,000 Lbs, regardless of the industry the vehicle is used in. I'm a self-employed web designer / software engineer, and I used the Section 179 deduction last year. I would have much rather purchased a Hybrid Civic or Prius, but could only get the deduction by purchasing a Ford F-150 (or similarly sized gas guzzler).
Thanks for nothing politicians (wastes of skin).
More like:
Four More Wars!
Four More Wars!
Four More Wars!
Four More Wars!
That would be sweet, since the only way Bush got in office was through litigation and 3 years of underhanded preparations in Florida with his brother Jeb and their wench Katherine.
If what goes around truly does come around, then Bush will win the popular vote and Kerry will take office.
Al Gore's contribution to the internet is an absolte joke
While I appreciate your long and thoughtful post, unless you can produce a resume and personal first-hand knowledge that rivals that of Robert Kahn and Vinton Cerf, I have to take their word for it, and they give credit where they (and I) believe credit is due.
EOF
Funny, I missed the part in the bible where we are supposed to rape and pillage the earth for corporate profits...
I can't find the article that I referenced in my previous post (I read it a couple of months ago), but I was able to find this story on the same subject and the underlying causes:
http://www.tompaine.com/feature.cfm/ID/4201
The root of the problem boils down to the vast amount of influence that large industries and companies have in affecting legislation. President Bush in particular has embraced the lobbyists with open arms, in many cases appointent the lobbyists themselves in his administration!
This deals a major blow to public rights. The funding is done by OUR money, but the rights get turned over to companies who charge US outrageous prices for OUR technology.
Just because NFS talks over IP, does not make it part of the internet.
The difference between the internet and the world wide web is largely semantics. When you look at how the internet benefits the world at large, the everyday users of the internet, almost all of that growth took place after Al Gore coming onto the scene. It is my opinion, and is shared by Cerf and Kahn, that Al Gore made a significant contribution to that, and was justified in his statement. That is the essence of this discussion, and I think is very clear.
No, Julie Andrews would be singing it from the mountaintops.
This chap is signing from the mountaintops.
Not sure which is better...
I strongly disagree.
In an interesting letter written by Robert Kahn and Vinton Cerf on the topic of Al Gore's contribution to the Internet, they said "Gore provided much-needed political support for the speedy privatization of the Internet when the time arrived for it to become a commercially-driven operation.".
In otherwords, even though the internet is a commercial operation now, it did not start that way (and would not have started at all without the governments involvment).
The reason we have one internet globally that interoperates successfully is due to government research and standardization.
If you take away all government involvment, including the funding of research at universitities, I don't think you'd have the internet at all, at least in any way that resembles what we have now in scope and usefulness.
Indeed, we may be 15 or 20 years behind in computer technology in general. It was, afterall, military spending that led to the creation of the first computers, and there to better and faster computers, and all that followed.
We may have gotten there without it, but the end result would have been vastly different, much less "compatible", and much, much later in the coming.
daVinci and were certainly the two closest, but either one still has a long ways to go.
I hope daVinci never attempts a launch, as it will almost certainly result in a fatality unless they make significant progress from here.
Likewise, as much as I like Carmack, Armadillo Aerospace has some serious stability issues (the video of the last launch that pancaked their rocket was less than inspiring), and I personally wouldn't fly on it anytime in the near future.
The incredible thing about Scaled is the simplicity and inherent stability of the system. The feathered wing is ingenious, inexpensive, inherently stable, and inexpensive. I would go on SpaceShipOne tomorrow if it were a possibility and I could afford it.
As for the Rocket Guy, I'm jealous that he gets to spend all of his time doing what he loves and having so much fun, but he has almost no chance of going up and coming back down in one piece, no matter how long he spends. I watched a show on him, and for a one man team doing it all at home, it is amazing what he has accomplished. Nonetheless, I'd never fly on what he is building.
Burt Rutan and Scaled have done something that NASA wouldn't have done in 50 years, and that is make space accesible to the average citizen (with an above average bank account). When Virgin licensed their technology and put out the feelers to see how many people wanted to take a trip for $210,000, over $1.2B worth of pledges came back. That is incredible, and encouraging.
Here's to hoping I can have dinner with my wife in space on our 25th anniversary (15 years from now). I'll settle for our 50th anniversary if I have to, but I don't think it will take near that long.
Certainly all 17 count. Mike Melville could have easily died from a failed reentry or an unescapable fire prior to launch.
I thought you were the same person this conversation started out with, who said "Rutan has been spectacularly lucky.", but you came in later in the conversation.
I don't at all disrespect or undervalue what NASA has accomplished, only the current state of NASA, which according to the governments own investigation following the last accident, which concluded that NASA was bloated and had a culture that discouraged anyone that bucked the system (pointing out flaws, waste, or needed improvements).
I don't want to see NASA go away. But I'm very happy to see more and more private endeavors coming onto the scene with regard to space. I think as more and more groups like Scaled join the pursuit of space, our growth, knowledge, and the accessibility of space will increase rapidly. That is a good thing.
I dislike "corporate welfare" more than any other form of handout!
A university developed a blood pressure medication recently, at a cost of about $800,000. The government took the technology for the medication, paid the university back (or made the drug company do so), and GAVE the patent on the technology to the drug company. The value of the patent over the life of the patent protected drug is in the billions of dollars.
That is attrocious! There is absolutely no excuse for that. The only winners are the drug company and maybe the government. The losers are the citizens who could have used that medication to better their lives, without turning over their hard earned money to the drug companies.
I have no problem with a company being rewarded for their R&D efforts, but the reward should be reasonable for the effort and cost put in, and should be for something they actually did!!!
Fine, 17 compared to 0.
I don't think its fair or reasonable to say that Burt Rutan has been lucky when he has a perfect safety record over a long career.
It should also be noted that his composite plane that thousands have built has a kit plane has never had a death due to plane failure. Two private pilots have died flying that plane design, but both died from flying into mountains or other structures, and both were pilot error and had nothing to do with the plane design.
I repeat, you can't say that a 40 year perfect safety record, entirely untarnished, is luck.
And I think it is safe to say that Burt Rutan does want manned space exploration, has grown a pair, and has made sacrifices in his pursuit. The only thing he hasn't sacrificed was safety (which cannot be said of NASA, since many of their failures and deaths we forewarned of from within, and the warnings were stifled due to the NASA culture).
Let me revise that:
Yamaha: Smart choice of operating systems.
Banking Industry: Stupid choice of operating systems.
How's that?
I never even implied that the Ansari's were rooting for anyone to fail. They have plenty of dough. But when the heir to the Ansari fortune was interviewed live, the day the prize was one, she said they didn't expect anyone to win and were pleased that someone was able to make progress so fast and win the prize. I don't even own a tinfoil hat.
The $50M prize for orbital flights deadlines in 2008, IIRC, and even though the development cost will no doubt go over $50M, I wouldn't be at all surprised to see Richard Branson fund it. $1.2 BILLION in pledges have already been made to go aboard Virgin's VSS. I don't think there will be any problem finding someone to fund Scaled for orbital flights.
Remember, we did orbital flight and lunar landings in the 60's with limited technology and no experience. I think Scaled is in a far better position to duplicate and even surpass that success by 2008, or the end of the decade if he fails to reach win that prize.
I don't think there was another X-Prize entrant that was realistically within a year of succeeding. Name one that actually had a good chance of doing what Burt did (3 successful flights back to back with no losses).
I have no doubt that it is at least an order of magnitude more difficult to go into orbit, but I doubt Burt has set his sights on it without knowing what is involved.
As for it taking a while, I imagine it will take longer than I think, and come a lot quicker than you think.
If you would have described what Burt and Scaled accomplished to someone in 1996 or even 2000, they would have had a very hard time believing it. Nonetheless, here we are. And I think future progress will be as rapid or better, respective to their complexity (which I understand is large, but we also need to remember NASA did it in the 60's with limited technology and poor computer simulation abilities).