4 ms·

Amazing that 15 years ago I was watching primates do these things and more with neural implants. Perfect instance where the idea is amazing and revolutionary bu

by robg 12y ago

Amazing that 15 years ago I was watching primates do these things and more with neural implants. Perfect instance where the idea is amazing and revolutionary but the reality is so hard it takes decades if not longer to accomplish.

innguest 12y ago
The reality is if we dumped as much tax money on it as we dump on spaceships landing on comets, we'd be all done with this in 1 year and headlines like this would be old news.
- randyrand 12y ago
  What would be the point of dumping tax dollars into amputee research? We invest in space because we think it is worthwhile, and still mostly unprofitable (that's changing). That is not the case with prosthetics. It makes sense to let the market decide how much to invest in this research acoording to the size of the amputee prosthetic market. It frees up the government to work I. Other things and gets rid of the HUGE inefficiencies when it comes to the government trying to accomplish anything.
  - innguest 12y ago
    > What would be the point of dumping tax dollars into amputee research? Helping real people that need help now. > We invest in space because we think it is worthwhile, and still mostly unprofitable (that's changing). That doesn't help real people that need help now. Remote-controlled robots on comets, versus more affordable and better prosthetics for all. If the whole country could vote I doubt they'd choose the former over the latter. So who is "we" in "We invest in space because we think it is worthwhile"? I'll turn your next line around: It makes sense to let the market decide how much to invest in this research acoording to the size of the space exploration and satellite launching market. It frees up the government to work on other things and gets rid of the HUGE inefficiencies when it comes to the government trying to accomplish anything. I like how you say "and still mostly unprofitable (that's changing)." You're deluding yourself if you think new industries go through a "not yet profitable" stage where they need help from the government and then afterwards they can be set free.
  - DanBC 12y ago
    Many amputees are (ex) military. The government probably should fund cost of treating amputees if they lose limbs in service of their country.
- jotm 12y ago
  You're right - NASA gets way too much money! Almost 3% of what the defense budget is! What the hell, they should split their budget with research for prosthetics - dying a cyborg on Earth is way better than visiting some rock in space. /s
  - innguest 12y ago
    Why doesn't NASA grow up from the government's training wheels and becomes a for-profit offering its satellite placing services like everyone else is doing to turn up a buck? Why do I have to subsidize this when they could be making their own money? If 3% of the defense budget is very little then give it to my industry so I can work without having to deliver any tangible product just like the folks at NASA. If they can deliver they can sell it. If no one wants to buy it then we should not be funding an enterprise that produces goods and services that no one wants. I do think turning the disabled into cyborgs would be a much better investment of money than placing a glorified remote-controller toy car in a rock far away from Earth. Talk about inconsequential! But yes you're right, NASA goofing off with our money might pay off 100 years from now. That's much better than being able to replace my limbs today if I get into an accident. /SARCASM
    - jotm 12y ago
      A bit of a late reply, but NASA (established by the US government) is not allowed to turn a profit. Probably so that it does sell innovative high tech to the highest bidder.
- robg 12y ago
  Not true, real biological impediments that take time to overcome.

by robg 12y ago

innguest 12y ago

The reality is if we dumped as much tax money on it as we dump on spaceships landing on comets, we'd be all done with this in 1 year and headlines like this would be old news.

randyrand 12y ago
What would be the point of dumping tax dollars into amputee research? We invest in space because we think it is worthwhile, and still mostly unprofitable (that's changing). That is not the case with prosthetics. It makes sense to let the market decide how much to invest in this research acoording to the size of the amputee prosthetic market. It frees up the government to work I. Other things and gets rid of the HUGE inefficiencies when it comes to the government trying to accomplish anything.
- innguest 12y ago
  > What would be the point of dumping tax dollars into amputee research? Helping real people that need help now. > We invest in space because we think it is worthwhile, and still mostly unprofitable (that's changing). That doesn't help real people that need help now. Remote-controlled robots on comets, versus more affordable and better prosthetics for all. If the whole country could vote I doubt they'd choose the former over the latter. So who is "we" in "We invest in space because we think it is worthwhile"? I'll turn your next line around: It makes sense to let the market decide how much to invest in this research acoording to the size of the space exploration and satellite launching market. It frees up the government to work on other things and gets rid of the HUGE inefficiencies when it comes to the government trying to accomplish anything. I like how you say "and still mostly unprofitable (that's changing)." You're deluding yourself if you think new industries go through a "not yet profitable" stage where they need help from the government and then afterwards they can be set free.
- DanBC 12y ago
  Many amputees are (ex) military. The government probably should fund cost of treating amputees if they lose limbs in service of their country.
jotm 12y ago
You're right - NASA gets way too much money! Almost 3% of what the defense budget is! What the hell, they should split their budget with research for prosthetics - dying a cyborg on Earth is way better than visiting some rock in space. /s
- innguest 12y ago
  Why doesn't NASA grow up from the government's training wheels and becomes a for-profit offering its satellite placing services like everyone else is doing to turn up a buck? Why do I have to subsidize this when they could be making their own money? If 3% of the defense budget is very little then give it to my industry so I can work without having to deliver any tangible product just like the folks at NASA. If they can deliver they can sell it. If no one wants to buy it then we should not be funding an enterprise that produces goods and services that no one wants. I do think turning the disabled into cyborgs would be a much better investment of money than placing a glorified remote-controller toy car in a rock far away from Earth. Talk about inconsequential! But yes you're right, NASA goofing off with our money might pay off 100 years from now. That's much better than being able to replace my limbs today if I get into an accident. /SARCASM
  - jotm 12y ago
    A bit of a late reply, but NASA (established by the US government) is not allowed to turn a profit. Probably so that it does sell innovative high tech to the highest bidder.
robg 12y ago
Not true, real biological impediments that take time to overcome.