grogen

As a data point, from their last annual report: "Our home robots revenue represented 91% of our total 2014 revenue compared to 88% in 2013. We anticipate that our revenue for the next few years will be primarily driven by our rapidly growing home technology business and that our home robots revenue will comprise approximately 90% of our total revenue in the near term"

It appears that they do not expect too much revenue in that area any time soon.

I have tended to feel the same way but arguments can be made that allowing unrestricted doping would force those who want to compete to take something potentially/increasingly dangerous to their long term health in order to do so at the top tiers (as if you didn't, there would certainly be someone who would be willing to burn the candle at both ends for the fame and money).

Even in the case where you were to break things out into a doping/vs. non-doping leagues, I have a feeling that in the ultra-competitive world of top athletes, there would be a temptation to get an edge in the non-doping league by similar means as are used today thus buying nothing (except, perhaps, an additional league of super-human athletes who I suspect would get more recognition, fame, and money than their counterparts and therefore push more athletes into a doping arms-race).

As a data point on the topic, Kery Mullis, who won the Nobel Prize for PCR, claimed that LSD was a source of inspiration for that work.

Fair distribution is one of the situations in which rationality breaks down. See the ultimatum game: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimatum_game

I did a short stint in Sony's robotics lab working on the humanoid Qrio (the successor to Aibo) at that time. From what I understand, Sony started getting poor financial results around that time. The Aibo and Qrio were viewed largely as R&D (Aibo was not a major product and Qrio was still years out) and as such, were on the chopping block for cost savings when times got tight.