Nice.

You guys missed the point. I wasn't listing Wikipedia as a factual authority, rather a source of common perception. Most people hold that chili is chili whether or not it contains beans. This isn't just my opinion. It's also the opinion of every chili manufacturer at any market and any restaurant you visit

"Chili con carne (chili with meat), more commonly known simply as chili, is a spicy stew containing chili peppers, meat (usually beef), tomatoes and often beans." -Wikipedia, 2013.

If you weren't serious, why did you preface your last paragraph with the words "But in all seriousness"?

I've always been under the assumption that inertial dampeners are a separate system from gravity control. I'm not uber-tech, so I haven't read that anywhere, but I want to say I've seen episodes where gravity is offline, but dampeners are still in effect.

Dude, most of the early starship designs had heavy armor plating. Until you have proven the efficacy of the ships hull and shielding, you want a thick skin. Given that this would be our first starship, thicker is better.

Can't we just use 3D printers for most of the parts we need? Those are cheap right?

Not necessarily. Aircraft use lighter materials to minimize weight and maximize maneuverability. These things aren't really an issue in space. The thicker plating would be useful against things like radiation, micro-debris, and of course, phaser blasts.

Inertial dampeners may also be important. Otherwise, everyone will end up as goo on the rear wall of whatever room they're in.

Given that 95% of the cost is lifting the components into space, wouldn't it be vastly cheaper to assemble it completely on land and let it launch itself into space, something we do all the time?

Hmmm...no mention of Edgar from Electric Dreams.

Omega System idea could have been later recycled into the Omega molecule and Omega directive that Janeway had to deal with.

When did the basic essentials of life become scientifically-regulated processes?

Agreed. You probably have more chance of getting burned by hot coffee than dying from it.

Not sure I followed all that math, but your computer and monitors shouldn't use any power (<1w) when they're shut off. So you're back to your $34.56 for modem and wifi, which translates to just under $3 per month, and that depends on where you live.

I think that happens a lot in discussion threads. People are as often as not arguing the same point, but getting lost in the details and personal experiences. I am certainly guilty of that. G'day.

You are correct. I did misread her initial statement and thought she was just talking about the modem. But I still maintain my original argument.

If you can notice a difference in your monthly energy bill (say $5-10 per month) due to one appliance being shut off, then savings on a new appliance will likely cover the cost in under a year, since most appliances don't cost more than $100.

If your appliances are so old and inefficient that cutting power makes a noticeable difference in your energy bill, then yes, buying new makes perfect sense. (And not just for stand-by mode.)

Not exactly true. There are some cable companies that only use certain modem brands. That disappointing fact comes from personal experience, and the loss of $100. They should check with the company first.