Considering the absolute dependence of all of humankind on energy production via fossil fuels, (1) it does not matter what any document says; unconstitutionality is preferable to the self-destruction of the human race, (2) the constitution does in fact authorize congress to pass laws necessary to promoting the general welfare.

Anyway, don't worry: no governments (or anyone else) are actually doing what is necessary to prevent humans from destroying through over-consumption the environment on which they depend for survival (as they have been doing for the last 10,000+ years). Enjoy your peak oil!

The question was, why would anyone make such an investment? I don't assume that the prize is the only return on the investment; I just don't assume that there is any other return on the investment. (It doesn't matter though, because the $180B up-front loss is too much for anyone, anyway.) But if there was such a large predictable return on the investment separate from the prize, then why would anyone need to offer the prize?

Where are you getting this figure from?? (C'mon man, you're just making it up!)

There's never going to be a "big market" for tourist flights to the moon because it requires too much fuel (well over 99% of humans could not afford a vacation via Concorde; most humans living now cannot afford a road-trip); and whatever "space tourism" there is will of course represent the deprivation of millions.

Did you actually read your Ansari X Prize link? "$10 million was awarded to the winner, but more than $100 million was invested in new technologies in pursuit of the prize."

So apparently the prize resulted in a 90% loss of investment (in the short-term). Now take into account the fact that there are a lot more people capable of losing $90M than $180B...

I propose we take the remaining $32 billion that NASA hasn't spent yet, and deposit it in a bank somewhere. The first American company that lands human beings on the moon, keeps them there for one day, and returns them to Earth can collect $20 billion. The second company that does this can collect $10 billion. The third can have the last $2 billion.

Why would any investor choose to fund a company that planned to attempt to collect this money? How do you convince the investor that even $32 billion, let alone $20 billion (which is the break-even point only for first place), is enough to accomplish the mission?

It just doesn't make sense. When you make an investment where it's possible to lose everything, you want a return on the money that's several times what you put in. Reward needs to be proportional to risk. When corporations make multi-billion dollar contracts, the agreement always includes payment through the contract for on-going activity; they never raise the money up-front, and take on all the risk through their own investors.

It's too much money for private corporations to raise for any project, anyway.

It's just so wrong...

If someone wants to use my identity to frame me for a crime then they're just going to encounter a mountain of evidence from numerous sources which contradict their fabrication. "My G1 was on a Starbucks Wifi at the time of the crime. I used my CC to purchase the drink. I received a text from a nearby tower. I posted a comment on breaking news story that is written in my style of writing. I was seen on 8 security cameras walking to the starbucks from my car. I used an automatic toll card 5 miles away from the coffee shop...." Good luck coming up with a large mountain of evidence to put me somewhere else.

This is how it works: $10,000 and 2 months in jail later, your lawyer will offer to hire a private investigator for another $10,000 to try to find the people you need to subpoena to get that information.

OK, fine, it is the height of arrogance. Just so long as you buy that the flaw is deliberate...

Regardless of the "market", there sure are a lot of desktop machines in physical existence with fewer than 16 cpus.

Why pay good money to inform consumers when one can assume "perfect information" as a premise, for free?

The more cynical part of me wonders if Linus is doing that on purpose, to reduce competition? Make it a pain to maintain a forked kernel, and people will improve mainline. Of course that also means that desktop users are stuck with data center optimizations, but it also keeps them from having good alternatives, so Linux usage will keep on growing.

Well, but isn't it the case that almost nobody who uses Linux uses Linus's kernel? I mean for example all the people who use Ubuntu, Debian, Fedora, etc. distributions, which have their kernel patch sets. In fact what happens is that incompatibilities with such patches only slow adoption by these distributions (and thus by the vast majority of users) of the newer kernel releases from Linus. If Linus has such a plan as you describe, it does not work.

I can't see why you think I am "forgetting" something. You seem a little confused though when you say "its rarity and corrosion resistance is exactly what made it valuable as a monetary exchange token." Metals are easily divisible and easily comparable (through weight), that's what makes them suitable for exchange, use as collateral, etc., (most metals in coins through history were not rare or corrosion resistant like precious metals) but coins are not "tokens" -- the metal has to be valued before it can be used for exchange, or else nobody would have any reason to accept it in the first place. In the case of say bronze you have a metal coin that can be made into a sword or a plow or tool: this is the basis of the value of bronze coins. In the case of gold you have a metal coin that can be made into conspicuous consumption "bling" for the king and his emulators: this is the basis of the value of gold coins.

The fact that you find so much gold in vaults rather than in jewelry [or electronics] is a result of a centuries-long "speculative bubble" in gold prices. Or as I call it, a "popular delusion." Similar principle for fiat currencies. Ultimately those bank notes are indeed worth nothing more than toilet paper: just wait 1,000 years. (Maybe it'll be a collector's item ;)) History suggests that the gold bubble will last longer than the bubble propping up any specific government's checks, but nothing lasts forever. The last two people on earth will have little reason to accept gold from one another in exchange for anything.

Expertise won't get you anywhere. Think about it as if you're being hired by a five-year-old. He doesn't know C. He doesn't know what RAM is. All he knows is whether you make him cry or laugh. All your advanced knowledge of the state of the art in cryptographic algorithms is useless when you are being judged by a five-year-old. All that matters is how well you kiss ass. Anyway, that's the worst case. If you're quite lucky, you'll get someone who has the competence to recognize your contribution (if he reads the source code: which itself is unlikely). But seriously, that is pretty rare. Think about it: have you any clue who is responsible for the Linux kernel? If you're honest with yourself, you admit that you know Linus Torvalds and maybe Andrew Morton or Alan Cox -- but really, you have no clue. Too many anonymous contributors, far too much to review. So it goes. Your boss will equally have little idea who is truly responsible (whether for the good or the bad).

A better characteristic descriptor would probably be "socially clueless". I know a lot of guys who come across harsh - myself included. They are usually some of the most open people I've known; they're also very amiable - but havent' a clue how to relate to others unlike themselves.

Most people haven't a clue how to relate to others unlike themselves. It's just that for most people, the unlike are a minority (who are unimportant and can be ignored). For the unusually intelligent, the unlike are a majority (who have all the power). Since the majority has the power to define the problem, the problem has to lie within the psyche of the intelligent minority: it is always the minority which must adjust itself and learn to relate to the majority. There is no reciprocity here.

It's true that gold has its uses, but these are not what determine its market price -- it was just as expensive long before such uses were discovered. Indeed, if gold were economical to use, the majority of it would be used; instead, the majority of it is kept in vaults, in the form of bullion. It is valued -- and priced -- according to an expectation of future trade, rather than an expectation of use. And such expectation of trade is realistic enough, if the last two millenia are anything to go by. (Maybe not.)

Gold can be traded for many things, since it is so highly regarded by certain powerful humans, but rocket fuel can be converted into mechanical force with great efficiency, independently of anyone's opinions. The former fact is the consequence of certain social circumstances which are at least somewhat fragile; the latter fact is a consequence of the basic principles of physics. That's all I mean.

(I freely admit that if a man says he prefers shiny things to mechanical power, there's no factual error involved.)