I'm not sure how you can greatly reduce the budget for fusion power - it's virtually zero as it is.
It only says that if you're from the "MBA-style, profit now at the expense of long term viability" mindset, but that is all too common on slashdot these days.
For such a tiny amount of money too.
Put it this way, if we funded fusion research at 3 billion dollars per year for 40 years (120 billion dollars) it would still come way under the annual spending on oil exploration alone (300 to 400 billion). That's one year's exploration only - that doesn't cover the cost of actually recovering and refining what you find.
Or, if you want to pay for it with purely DoD funds, 3 billion dollars per year is 0.6% of the 2015 defense budget.
In other words, when you look at the *actual* funding over the past 40 years, the amount is lost in the noise at the bottom of any graph.
Of course, it's extremely hard to do it when the funding is so small.
That's why it's eternally 20 years away. It's remarkable what we've actually learned despite the issue of funding it with pocket change for 40 years.
If that is the real goal of the Tokamak then they're doing a hilariously poor job of it - the funding is minuscule.
They never ran JET above Q = 1.0 because they were doing other experiments with it (mainly relating to material research on what to make the walls out of that don't become brittle due to neutron flux over time) but the data that was collected was conclusive enough that they felt confident that they could if they wanted to.
As it stands, they reached the point where the time and energy is better spent on the ITER experiment as the next stage of the research.
Of course, the funding is still tiny trickle compared to what it really ought to be, but such as it is.
The main problem they had with materials is that they couldn't source enough of these small, green, flexible rectangles that they could exchange for almost anything - building materials, labour, research effort, rent, food, etc.
Pretty much covers it, even with the speculative forecasting. The money put into it is equivalent to throwing the spare change you have in your car's ashtray toward a new car fund every year.
Do you need that much FPS? Can anyone really tell much above 30fps? That used to be my baseline for knowing when I could finish tweaking the settings and start playing.
Absolutely. There is a clear difference between 30 and 60 fps when playing computer games.
Anything above 60 is gravy, but getting a game to stay at 60 is what you want, since it tends to be the refresh rate of the screen you're playing on.
The compact Model E aims to be competitive with the Audi A4 and BMW 3-series, which both start in the low $30,000 range.
So... is there going to be a compact Model LC for the sub-30K$ market? A car for the majority of drivers?
I'm sure they are. They started with the premium sedan Model S, then next is the Model X SUV, then this 30k Model E. The trend is definitely towards more affordable vehicles. You just need to establish yourself as a solid manufacturer first with high-profit sales. The success of the 70k+ Model S has helped to fund the factory to allow them to build the cheaper models to come.
It just takes some time.
Can I borrow your time machine please?
Great and incisive commentary... except that iPhoto and the replacement app that will be bundled with Yosemite are free.
So, kill your pro app that costs money to force people buy a free app that comes with the OS (which is also free).
The level if genius in your analysis must be beyond me.
So we drop the cargo down with a sky crane/inflatable combination/retro rocket system then land the crew with something like the LEM.
It's not like we don't have experience landing small, rocket-powred craft on airless low-gravity environments, and that was 40 years ago.
We put Curiosity down onto the surface intact using a sky crane flown remotely (with automatic systems handling key bits due to time delay). It's not like we can't land car-sized objects on Mars already.
But no, that sort of "we can't possibly do it" thinking is exactly what we need in space exploration. Keep it up.
Gravity is also only 40% of Earth's on average, which helps to negate some of those downsides.
Doesn't seem to have hurt Samsung, who were caught bait and switching by faking smartphone benchmarks.
This will be quietly forgotten.