Raise your hand if you think this is a good idea - Page 3 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

mgburg · #31 01-06-2009, 02:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hill

No Katherine the great said "OOOH Wilbur"

THEN she said "How's it hanging, Big Boy?"

OldPokey · #32 01-06-2009, 10:24 AM

Yeah. Gravity wells suck.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmac2012

If we could fly the space shuttle to the surface of Mars and back (we can't), and if bricks of pure gold were stacked up next to the perfect landing and departure point, and did we bring such a cargo back we'd have 50,000 lbs of gold -- at $850 an ounce, $680,000,000. Do you think we could mount such a trip for that price? Asteroids would be easier as there's not nearly as much gravity to overcome on departure but, let's face it, pure ores that we might want are not going to be out there. It would cost 838 ska-zillion dollars to process ore on an asteroid or other planet. And we'd still have to land a huge payload safely on earth to make it pay.

This is pure fantasy. The sooner we let go of it, the better.

rwthomas1 · #33 01-07-2009, 01:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

You make some good points concerning "pure" science and I also agree with your general definition.

It seems to me that we have the luxury of engaging in pure science only because we have a society with excess wealth. If our culture's wealth was limited by sustenance then science, if practiced at all, would focus on the immediate needs of the culture. This is not unlike treatment of the handicapped. If we were more hand-to-mouth then we would probably be more tolerant of say, infanticide against the infirm.

So to that degree, the practices of pure science are a luxury.

My comment concerning NEA and NEH were facetious. However, the point about those particular programs is not unlike the point concerning pure science -- these are luxuries that are affordable only because we have excess wealth. My argument would be for greater parsimony even in times of plenty. This is a corollary to the argument, "Because we can, doesn't mean we should."

So, to the main argument. Why should the government fund anything that is not of tangible and direct benefit to the taxpayer?

Correct, I agree with all you have said, but now to the last point. Should the Gov't be funding anything not of tangible and direct benefit? Well, yes and no. Funding of fields related to energy, defense, agriculture, medicine would be a good idea. There are so many myths concerning "breakthroughs" that could save humanity, etc. that are quietly bought up to preserve the status quo, that part of me wants some research being done divorced from the profit motive. An example would be "cold fusion" Probably science fiction but if it actually is possible a private firm figuring it out would make them fantastically wealthy and benefit society little regarding decrease in energy costs. Granted, this starts begging the question, what exactly is "pure science" again? I know that lots of ideas come out of the defense/DARPA type programs and find their way into all sorts of other applications. Its hard to put a label on it, that we can agree on. RT

Medmech · #34 01-07-2009, 01:36 PM

Here's a thought without getting too deep into the matter, right now China's elected President tolerates the US what will happen if the inevitable new leader has a mindset like Hugo Chavez?

Botnst · #35 01-07-2009, 01:42 PM

In no sense am I certain of my opinion concerning gov funded basic research.

there are some areas of science where gov involvement is just about the only way to garner wide acceptance of results. Like energy, for example. Or pollution. Nobody trusts private companies to do this kind of work and I doubt that anybody would trust most NGO's for the exact same reason but opposite perspective. So if we can't trust Mobile EXXOn and can't trust Greenpeace, what is left?

In my estimation, when gov does a pretty job of science on these controversial subjects can be determined by how widespread the condemnations are. If they are one-sided then I sniff for bias. If everybody likes it then I sniff for incompetence. But if Greenpeace and EXXOn both hate it, the science probably ain't bad.

Then there's the DARPA/intelligence community type research. In this instance we may wish to have draconian control over who has access to the knowledge. This is anathema to good science, but some shyte is just too dangerous to become widely known.

The way we fund a lot of fed research is freaking stupid. Some university president talks to some congressman about needing some new widgets and a building so congressman lowbrow line-items research for widgets into the budget and specifies it must be done by this or that university. That's historically how Ivy's got major tax dollars. Land grants figured in out eventually and so they got on the grub line, too. Then the university names a building after congressman lowbrow's greatest contributor.

Your tax dollars at work.

B

pj67coll · #36 01-07-2009, 01:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Howitzer

Here's a thought without getting too deep into the matter, right now China's elected President tolerates the US what will happen if the inevitable new leader has a mindset like Hugo Chavez?

The Chinese probably aren't that stupid. The have experienced the poisoned fruit's of real communism and decided to dump it and join the real world. In that they need the US more than the US needs them. Essentially their economy is dependent on the US market, even in it's screwed state.

- Peter.

Medmech · #37 01-07-2009, 02:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pj67coll

The Chinese probably aren't that stupid. The have experienced the poisoned fruit's of real communism and decided to dump it and join the real world. In that they need the US more than the US needs them. Essentially their economy is dependent on the US market, even in it's screwed state.

- Peter.

I don't think your wrong and do agree with you to an extent but I think that intertwining too much military type tech with a country like China is not worth the risk with such little benefits they have already demonstrated their will to steal out technology so why would we give it to them?

Botnst · #38 01-07-2009, 02:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Howitzer

I don't think your wrong and do agree with you to an extent but I think that intertwining too much military type tech with a country like China is not worth the risk with such little benefits they have already demonstrated their will to steal out technology so why would we give it to them?

Not to mention their cyber assaults.

Medmech · #39 01-07-2009, 02:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

Not to mention their cyber assaults.

Not to mention knocking out planes out the air, planting spies in our military, planting spies in our most secret laboratories...with friends like that who needs friends?