Gentoo Forums
Gentoo Forums
Gentoo Forums
Quick Search: in
Gore calls for carbon tax
View unanswered posts
View posts from last 24 hours

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next  
Reply to topic    Gentoo Forums Forum Index Off the Wall
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Bones McCracker
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1569
Location: U.S.A.

PostPosted: Mon Nov 19, 2012 9:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mcgruff wrote:
dmitchell wrote:
Well I'm not really for public research money.


Which brings us back to the question: what actions would a perfectly libertarian society take to avoid catastrophic climate change (>2 celsius)? How would they even know that the climate was changing without the massive (state) investment in basic science which, amongst other things, puts boots on the ground in Antarctica and satellites into orbit?

Stop being so obtuse. Libertarians are not against collective endeavor; they are merely against FORCED collective endeavor. You authoritarian, collectivist, statist zealots think that nothing happens unless the state rams it forcibly up everybody's asses, and that the authoritarian state is the font of all goodness and light. It ain't so, and you're a sucker for believing it.

A libertarian society would probably do a better job avoiding climate change that our current states (which are not doing a good job at all because of politics and bureaucracy) and would fund the same basic research through a combination of corporate collaboration and philanthropy (concepts Europeans don't really grok, because their tax-theft rate has all but effectively destroyed them in the interest of gobbling up greater and greater percentages of what must be done under the gargantuan, Byzantine, Kafkaesque labyrinth of the state, where its funding can be used for whatever evil the powers-that-be want to use it for). If you think climatology and meteorology are of no interest to corporations, then you're as dumb as a door-knob; they, along with the people, are far more interested in the truth than our politics-run governments are.

In the U.S., non-government-funded research still survives, and we have many, many charitable organizations involved in basic and directed research, most are largely funded by philanthropy. Others do a mixture of privately-funded (contract) research, philanthropically-funded research, and publicly-funded research.

In fact, there's a well-respected one pretty close to me, and I once almost took a job there:
http://www.trudeauinstitute.org/

I have also been a consultant (in the area of automation for program and financial management), for several Federally-run Research & Development operations (including several within the Department of Defense and the National Institutes of Health, and the National Science Foundation). I'll tell you this from first-hand experience: the government-run organizations waste money hand over fist, and function more as jobs programs and pork barrel spending than they do as results-producing research operations.
_________________
"The accumulation of all power, legislative, executive, and judiciary in the same hands...may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny."
--James Madison, Federalist 46


Last edited by Bones McCracker on Mon Nov 19, 2012 9:38 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Prenj
n00b
n00b


Joined: 20 Nov 2011
Posts: 13

PostPosted: Mon Nov 19, 2012 9:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

BoneKracker wrote:
mcgruff wrote:
dmitchell wrote:
Well I'm not really for public research money.


Which brings us back to the question: what actions would a perfectly libertarian society take to avoid catastrophic climate change (>2 celsius)? How would they even know that the climate was changing without the massive (state) investment in basic science which, amongst other things, puts boots on the ground in Antarctica and satellites into orbit?

Stop being so obtuse. Libertarians are not against collective endeavor; they are merely against FORCED collective endeavor.

A libertarian society would probably do a better job avoiding climate change that our current states (which are not doing a good job at all). It would fund the same basic research through philanthropy (a concept Europeans don't really grok, because their tax-theft rate has effective destroyed it). If you think climatology and meteorology are of no interest to corporations, you're ignorant; they're more interested in the truth than our governments are.

In the U.S., non-government-funded research still survives, and we have many, many charitable organizations involved in basic and directed research, most are largely funded by philanthropy. Others do a mixture of privately-funded (contract) research, philanthropically-funded research, and publicly-funded research.

In fact, there's a well-respected one pretty close to me, and I once almost took a job there:
http://www.trudeauinstitute.org/

I have also been a consultant (in the area of automation for program and financial management), for several Federally-run Research & Development operations (including several within the Department of Defense and the National Institutes of Health, and the National Science Foundation). I'll tell you this from first-hand experience: the government-run organizations waste money hand over fist, and function more as jobs programs and pork barrel spending than they do as results-producing research operations.


Well said. Most disturbing aspect of big government huggers is that they seem to have very low self-esteem, and project that on everybody else, hence the conjecture that without big government (daddy) to tell us what to do, we would simply revert to barbarism and chop each other heads off with a hatchet. Seems very infantile.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
McGruff
Tux's lil' helper
Tux's lil' helper


Joined: 28 Dec 2004
Posts: 147

PostPosted: Mon Nov 19, 2012 11:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

How many earth-observing satellites have philanthropists launched? Just a rough guess; no need to be precise - to the nearest hundred will do.

"Philanthropists" like Koch do support a variety of right-wing stink-tanks. Unfortunately all the money is spent attacking climate science and not a dime on actual scientific research.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dmitchell
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 17 May 2003
Posts: 1159
Location: Austin, Texas

PostPosted: Tue Nov 20, 2012 12:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

That doesn't make any sense, mcgruff. It's like someone in the USSR asking how much bread the free market is producing now?
_________________
Your argument is invalid.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bones McCracker
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1569
Location: U.S.A.

PostPosted: Tue Nov 20, 2012 12:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

mcgruff wrote:
How many earth-observing satellites have philanthropists launched? Just a rough guess; no need to be precise - to the nearest hundred will do.

"Philanthropists" like Koch do support a variety of right-wing stink-tanks. Unfortunately all the money is spent attacking climate science and not a dime on actual scientific research.

If I answer, are you going to lose control of your emotions again and call me an "idiot" like you did yesterday, you haggis-eating bog-monkey? :P

Philanthropy has actually contributed greatly to space flight and climate research. It also contributes more to medical research than the combined governments of the world do. If something is important to people, they will voluntarily pay for it. If something is important to companies, they will voluntarily pay for it. If this can only be done effectively as a collaborative effort, then they will collaborate.

The main reason we have done so little about climate change is not that people are ignorant or selfish, it's that the issue has become politicized and people don't trust politicians to tell the truth. The stupidest thing the global warming scientific community ever did was let Al Gore get anywhere near them. They still haven't fully recovered from the damage he did to their credibility just by his association with the issue, not to mention his ass-hattery and bullshit.

In this hypothetical anarchy you speak of, there would be no politics. People would be individually and collectively responsible for their own well-being on a purely voluntary basis. This does not mean they would stick their thumbs in their butts and do nothing. That's what Socialists do, with their learned helplessness that Mommy Government will do whatever needs to be done, no matter what. If a pure anarchy were feasible, what you'd see would be people collaborating to do what's necessary.
_________________
"The accumulation of all power, legislative, executive, and judiciary in the same hands...may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny."
--James Madison, Federalist 46
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bones McCracker
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1569
Location: U.S.A.

PostPosted: Tue Nov 20, 2012 12:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

dmitchell wrote:
That doesn't make any sense, mcgruff. It's like someone in the USSR asking how much bread the free market is producing now?

That's beyond his capacity to grasp. You're going to have break the analogy down and explain it to him.
_________________
"The accumulation of all power, legislative, executive, and judiciary in the same hands...may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny."
--James Madison, Federalist 46
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dmitchell
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 17 May 2003
Posts: 1159
Location: Austin, Texas

PostPosted: Tue Nov 20, 2012 2:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

BoneKracker wrote:
That's beyond his capacity to grasp. You're going to have break the analogy down and explain it to him.

Give him a chance. :lol:

I like your line about what Socialists do, btw. "Learned helplessness" is a good term. 8)
_________________
Your argument is invalid.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
McGruff
Tux's lil' helper
Tux's lil' helper


Joined: 28 Dec 2004
Posts: 147

PostPosted: Tue Nov 20, 2012 3:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/30490500.jpg
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bones McCracker
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1569
Location: U.S.A.

PostPosted: Tue Nov 20, 2012 4:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

They are already doing it, as I showed you, Dunce Cap. (See "Trudeau Institute" example above, which just happens to be the nearest example to me that I'm aware of.)
_________________
"The accumulation of all power, legislative, executive, and judiciary in the same hands...may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny."
--James Madison, Federalist 46
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
McGruff
Tux's lil' helper
Tux's lil' helper


Joined: 28 Dec 2004
Posts: 147

PostPosted: Tue Nov 20, 2012 4:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

There are a handful of causes which attract donations because they are the kind of thing ordinary can people understand and they feel strongly about. Medicine is one of these, for obvious reasons (just don't get me started on the pharmaceutical industry).

What about climate science? You didn't tell me how many satellites philanthropists have put into orbit to measure temperature, ice distribution, etc?

If we left it to the mercy of voluntary donations, real science would be grossly underfunded and wouldn't be able to compete with the propaganda dollars poured into the anti-scientific Heartland Institute, et al.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bones McCracker
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1569
Location: U.S.A.

PostPosted: Tue Nov 20, 2012 5:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

mcgruff wrote:
There are a handful of causes which attract donations because they are the kind of thing ordinary can people understand and they feel strongly about. Medicine is one of these, for obvious reasons (just don't get me started on the pharmaceutical industry).

What about climate science? You didn't tell me how many satellites philanthropists have put into orbit to measure temperature, ice distribution, etc?

If we left it to the mercy of voluntary donations, real science would be grossly underfunded and wouldn't be able to compete with the propaganda dollars poured into the anti-scientific Heartland Institute, et al.

Most of those dollars being poured into places like the Hearthland Institute are entirely motivated by politics. Did you not know that the Koch brothers are even more heavily invested in green industry than Al Gore? They own entire companies entirely focused on things like wind power and solar power. So if it's not politics, then explain the motivation behind their support of such entities?

I have no idea how many satellites philanthropists have put into orbit to measure temperature. How many university departments (i.e. "colleges") devoted entirely to the advancement of nano technology have governments started? Huh? How many?

I'm still waiting. Do you not understand the significance of nanotechnology? It will literally revolutionize the entire human experience and change virtually everything we know and deal with. It promises things like limitless free energy, limitless free food, no more scarcity of anything, vastly extended lifetimes, superhuman augmentation, transhuman evolution, liquid machinery, etc., etc., etc. It's far more important than global warming, but you wouldn't know that, because you're just a socialist government hand-puppet, who couldn't even begin to to get the idea to wonder why governments aren't as heavily investing in nanotechnology research as philanthropically-funded and private entities.

If we left it to governments to research nanotechnology, we might get the .05 mm lead pencil in 80 years. They're more interested in whatever is going to get them votes and allow them to suck the most blood out of the neck of the populace. They're not interested in anything that might actually produce radical change, especially change to fundamental economics they use to keep the populace dependent upon them and under their authoritarian thumbs.

But global warming, hell yes. They'll invest in that. "Oh noes! It's the end of the world! We must all sacrifice, impoverish, and weaken ourselves, and band together under the authority of the collective!" :roll:

You still haven't answered how many university departments (i.e. "colleges") devoted entirely to the advancement of nano technology have governments started. No, I didn't ask that. I'm not interested in blah blah blah. I asked you how many university departments (i.e. "colleges") devoted entirely to the advancement of nano technology governments have created, without substantial philanthropic involvement (not chipping in a little grant here or there, but started, and fully funded themselves).

Huh? How many? I'm still waiting.
_________________
"The accumulation of all power, legislative, executive, and judiciary in the same hands...may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny."
--James Madison, Federalist 46
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Prenj
n00b
n00b


Joined: 20 Nov 2011
Posts: 13

PostPosted: Tue Nov 20, 2012 6:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Not to mention the infamous governmental efficience (or lack of). Whenever there is a grant for something, there is 1000 pencil-pushers waiting in line to latch on to governmental tit and accomplish nothing. When the time for review has come and question is asked "where are results" they chirp in unison "we need more funds".
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
juniper
l33t
l33t


Joined: 22 Oct 2004
Posts: 759
Location: EU

PostPosted: Tue Nov 20, 2012 10:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Old School wrote:
What is this argument about Libertarians and roads? Libertarians pay road, gas, registration, and licence fees, all of which are designated to road construction and upkeep.


they are against publicly funded roads. therefore they shouldn't use them (the argument goes). But I don't buy it for the reasons you point out. Similarly, I think it is a consistent position to want taxes to be raised, but still pay the minimum tax you can get away with (not agreeing with dmitchell's reasoning).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
juniper
l33t
l33t


Joined: 22 Oct 2004
Posts: 759
Location: EU

PostPosted: Tue Nov 20, 2012 11:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

dmitchell wrote:

BK wrote:
Why don't you just be honest with yourself. You had to take the job because it's what was available, and you hate that it's a government-funded job. I 've already provided you with a better rationalization that does not require you to prostitute your values: "Getting back some of what the Government steals neither validates the theft nor makes protests against it hypocritical."

I agree with your rationalization.


He is welcome to amend his values and come and argue for the DARK SIDE for full consistency.

I also think you are rationalizing a bit, but it seems to me that it is expected and what some of us have said all along. Pure libertarian philosophy has buckled in the face of (your personal) economic reality.

But dmitchell has a point too. He clearly disagrees most with tax money going to violence and any money not going there is welcome. Of course, if the budget is to stay constant, putting less into the military and more into science would be great.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
McGruff
Tux's lil' helper
Tux's lil' helper


Joined: 28 Dec 2004
Posts: 147

PostPosted: Tue Nov 20, 2012 12:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

BoneKracker wrote:
I'm still waiting.


You're always hanging around waiting. The reality bus left you behind long ago.

Worldwide, in the last decade, governments have invested almost 100 billion dollars in nano - incidentally authoritarian China recently overtook the US government. There is also at least as much corporate-funded research.

Trouble is though, markets only invest where they expect to make a profit within a reasonable timescale. This is a very different driver compared to the simple desire to find out about the natural world. Priorities are skewed towards the most profitable opportunities rather than the most important science. Pure research with no immediate application gets ignored.

Corporate research is also jealously secretive. This stifles the free exchange of ideas which is so important to the culture of science. The rate of scientific progress is greater if you can look at what other people are doing and build on their knowledge.

Open-ness is also vital for truth in science. Publishing and peer review keeps everyone honest. Contrast that with, for example, the pharmaceutical industry which routinely conceals research showing adverse reactions or lacklustre efficacy of new products.

If you want to return to the old trade of hunter-gatherering, that's fine. If you want to live in a modern, industrial economy then you have to spend generously on scientific research. Research priorities must be set by experts not philanthropists and market forces. Curiosity-driven scientists not corporate lawyers must be in charge of the exchange of ideas and they must assert the primacy of publishing and peer review over corporate propaganda.

In short, libertardianism sucks donkey balls.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
big dave
n00b
n00b


Joined: 03 Jul 2009
Posts: 0
Location: land of first world problems

PostPosted: Tue Nov 20, 2012 1:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

hey mcgruff, i can't seem to recall... who is making that driverless car that's now drivable in 3 states, and has driven over 300k miles, and the only accidents it's been in were clearly caused by humans?

and now that government walked away from its monopoly on space, how many companies have publicly started working on shuttles?

mcgruff wrote:
Corporate research is also jealously secretive. This stifles the free exchange of ideas which is so important to the culture of science. The rate of scientific progress is greater if you can look at what other people are doing and build on their knowledge.

yes, because stamping national security stamps all over everything, or requiring subscriptions to ridiculously overpriced academic journals, just to access taxpayer funded research, is really tantamount to the free exchange of ideas.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
McGruff
Tux's lil' helper
Tux's lil' helper


Joined: 28 Dec 2004
Posts: 147

PostPosted: Tue Nov 20, 2012 2:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

big dave wrote:
and now that government walked away from its monopoly on space, how many companies have publicly started working on shuttles?


A market created by government investment in pure science, defence and the pursuit of political goals. We wouldn't have gone to the moon without government-funded science. Without that, where do you think IT technology would be today?

mcgruff wrote:
requiring subscriptions to ridiculously overpriced academic journals, just to access taxpayer funded research, is really tantamount to the free exchange of ideas.


Profiteering, market-driven publishing companies? Thank you for helping to make my point. This model is widely criticised by the scientific community and likely on its way out in favour of open-access journals.

Markets will cherry-pick certain types of research which appear to offer rich rewards and philanthropists will cherry-pick projects which have some kind of emotional impact. That is not enough. Nowhere even close.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
juniper
l33t
l33t


Joined: 22 Oct 2004
Posts: 759
Location: EU

PostPosted: Tue Nov 20, 2012 3:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

BoneKracker wrote:

A libertarian society would probably do a better job avoiding climate change that our current states (which are not doing a good job at all because of politics and bureaucracy) and would fund the same basic research through a combination of corporate collaboration and philanthropy (concepts Europeans don't really grok, because their tax-theft rate has all but effectively destroyed them in the interest of gobbling up greater and greater percentages of what must be done under the gargantuan, Byzantine, Kafkaesque labyrinth of the state, where its funding can be used for whatever evil the powers-that-be want to use it for). If you think climatology and meteorology are of no interest to corporations, then you're as dumb as a door-knob; they, along with the people, are far more interested in the truth than our politics-run governments are.


and yet, if you take the percentage of children with poor to no healthcare in most of europe and compare to the US, you get that big state eurofags have the edge.

Somehow, all that american philanthropy can't seem to give every child basic healthcare. Somehow.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
McGruff
Tux's lil' helper
Tux's lil' helper


Joined: 28 Dec 2004
Posts: 147

PostPosted: Tue Nov 20, 2012 4:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

And that's one of the more emotive, donor-friendly causes too...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dmitchell
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 17 May 2003
Posts: 1159
Location: Austin, Texas

PostPosted: Tue Nov 20, 2012 5:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

juniper wrote:
and yet, if you take the percentage of children with poor to no healthcare in most of europe and compare to the US, you get that big state eurofags have the edge.

Somehow, all that american philanthropy can't seem to give every child basic healthcare. Somehow.

I'd say you are making the same mistake as mcgruff (the one I identified with my remark about the USSR). There is good reason to believe that medical care would be much more affordable.
_________________
Your argument is invalid.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
juniper
l33t
l33t


Joined: 22 Oct 2004
Posts: 759
Location: EU

PostPosted: Tue Nov 20, 2012 7:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

dmitchell wrote:
juniper wrote:
and yet, if you take the percentage of children with poor to no healthcare in most of europe and compare to the US, you get that big state eurofags have the edge.

Somehow, all that american philanthropy can't seem to give every child basic healthcare. Somehow.

I'd say you are making the same mistake as mcgruff (the one I identified with my remark about the USSR). There is good reason to believe that medical care would be much more affordable.


is there? the gap between how much america spends on the next nation is pretty large. it could probably c cheaper if you kill some insanity, but keep in mind that we (uk) spend 1/3 what you do for broadly the same outcomes and 100% coverage (we happen to be relatively efficient).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bones McCracker
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1569
Location: U.S.A.

PostPosted: Tue Nov 20, 2012 8:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mcgruff wrote:
BoneKracker wrote:
I'm still waiting.


You're always hanging around waiting. The reality bus left you behind long ago.

Worldwide, in the last decade, governments have invested almost 100 billion dollars in nano - incidentally authoritarian China recently overtook the US government. There is also at least as much corporate-funded research.

Trouble is though, markets only invest where they expect to make a profit within a reasonable timescale. This is a very different driver compared to the simple desire to find out about the natural world. Priorities are skewed towards the most profitable opportunities rather than the most important science. Pure research with no immediate application gets ignored.

Corporate research is also jealously secretive. This stifles the free exchange of ideas which is so important to the culture of science. The rate of scientific progress is greater if you can look at what other people are doing and build on their knowledge.

Open-ness is also vital for truth in science. Publishing and peer review keeps everyone honest. Contrast that with, for example, the pharmaceutical industry which routinely conceals research showing adverse reactions or lacklustre efficacy of new products.

If you want to return to the old trade of hunter-gatherering, that's fine. If you want to live in a modern, industrial economy then you have to spend generously on scientific research. Research priorities must be set by experts not philanthropists and market forces. Curiosity-driven scientists not corporate lawyers must be in charge of the exchange of ideas and they must assert the primacy of publishing and peer review over corporate propaganda.

In short, libertardianism sucks donkey balls.

Blah blah blah. You still haven't answered how many university departments (i.e. "colleges") devoted entirely to the advancement of nano technology governments have started.

You're also a hypocrite. Here you blather on about "corporate propaganda", when the vast majority of research in nanotech has been corporate. Blah blah blah. Sky falling ZOMG teh Scyents! For Wodin's Buttocks, put a bloody cork in it, would you? :roll:
_________________
"The accumulation of all power, legislative, executive, and judiciary in the same hands...may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny."
--James Madison, Federalist 46


Last edited by Bones McCracker on Tue Nov 20, 2012 8:13 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
aidanjt
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 20 Feb 2005
Posts: 1102
Location: Rep. of Ireland

PostPosted: Tue Nov 20, 2012 8:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

dmitchell wrote:
I'd say you are making the same mistake as mcgruff (the one I identified with my remark about the USSR). There is good reason to believe that medical care would be much more affordable.

What reason is that? Besides reality and evidence-contrarian pie in the sky ideology.
_________________
juniper wrote:
you experience political reality dilation when travelling at american political speeds. it's in einstein's formulas. it's not their fault.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dmitchell
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 17 May 2003
Posts: 1159
Location: Austin, Texas

PostPosted: Tue Nov 20, 2012 8:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

juniper wrote:
is there? the gap between how much america spends on the next nation is pretty large. it could probably c cheaper if you kill some insanity, but keep in mind that we (uk) spend 1/3 what you do for broadly the same outcomes and 100% coverage (we happen to be relatively efficient).

It seems to me that the government has done almost everything in its power to destroy any semblance of a market in health care in this country, from tax codes that tie health care to your job, to licensing, to regulation, to cronyism for huge insurance providers, to shutting down health care innovators, and on and on like that. I have a high degree of confidence that rolling back these impediments would result in a vibrant, competitive market for health care, a buyer's market, with higher quality care available at lower prices. You can already see this in industries that are less burdened by regulation, like cosmetic surgery and lasik, where cost have fallen and quality risen. Will we ever get to put this theory to the test in the larger health care market? Probably not.
_________________
Your argument is invalid.


Last edited by dmitchell on Tue Nov 20, 2012 8:39 pm; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
McGruff
Tux's lil' helper
Tux's lil' helper


Joined: 28 Dec 2004
Posts: 147

PostPosted: Tue Nov 20, 2012 8:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

BoneKracker wrote:
Blah blah blah. You still haven't answered how many university departments (i.e. "colleges") devoted entirely to the advancement of nano technology governments have started.

You're also a hypocrite. Here you blather on about "corporate propaganda", when the vast majority of research in nanotech has been corporate.


I told you: in the last decade governments have spent almost 100 billion dollars on nanotech. That is an enormous subsidy.

I am aware that there is also a large amount of corporate funding but you are choosing to ignore, or do not understand, that markets cherry-pick areas of research which promise rich rewards and philanthropists cherry-pick donor-friendly projects. On its own, that doesn't even come close to being an adequate research policy. You need a strong, healthy state funding core research as well as contributions from a competitive market.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic    Gentoo Forums Forum Index Off the Wall All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
Page 6 of 8

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum