Cutter wrote on Jan 25, 2013, 18:44:

sauron wrote on Jan 25, 2013, 10:27:
Good article on Neil Degrasse Tyson's speech. A lot of it is true - government can fund basic science like nobody else. Other organizations always have a specific goal - curing a disease or making money.

Interestingly, the NIH has deliberately shifted towards translational research over the last 5 years. That means research focused on addressing human disease. For people like me, that's fine since I work on diseases of the brain and spinal cord. But if I was working on fly or worm development or something basic, I'd be in trouble.

You may not think that fly and worm development are very important, but most of the genes we know about today that are linked to human disease originally came from exactly those studies. It just takes a while for the studies to go from flies, to mice, to humans.

If what he said was true private enterprise would be all over it. It's not though so it's just another entitlement plea so that someone else pays for him to do stuff he wants to do. Get a real job. I'm not saying it isn't interesting or important it's just not John Q. Taxpayer's job to pay for it when his major concern is keeping a roof over his head, 3 squares a day and retiring without becoming homeless.

Government's only job - apart from basic oversight - should be to keep religious kooks from meddling in science's affairs. Think about how far stem research would be by now.

crypto wrote on Jan 26, 2013, 08:27:
werd, there is no evening edition which is fine if there is none but a fresh page shows only 6 comments in this section but on opening the section there are 31, this being 32... is something wrong?

Cutter wrote on Jan 25, 2013, 18:44:
I'm not saying it isn't interesting or important it's just not John Q. Taxpayer's job to pay for it when his major concern is keeping a roof over his head, 3 squares a day and retiring without becoming homeless.

Cutter wrote on Jan 25, 2013, 23:30:
If you think it's necessary than you pay for it. Stop putting your hand in my pocket.

Dragonborn DLC for Skyrim is 19.99! WTF!?

Cutter wrote on Jan 25, 2013, 23:30:
If you think it's necessary than you pay for it. Stop putting your hand in my pocket.

Redmask wrote on Jan 25, 2013, 23:13:

Cutter wrote on Jan 25, 2013, 21:52:
So no, you can't convince me that that there's the need to spend even 1 penny of tax dollars on research science.

It's a good thing for our sake (and yours even though you don't know it) that you have no choice in the matter.

Both the private sector and the government research incubate each other, we could go back and forth on cause and effect all day. They both have very positive effects on society as a whole and that's why I'm glad people with some vision are making the decisions. I don't personally care for the majority of the arts funding but I recognize their influence on society and our subsequent benefit. I don't like how every penny of my tax money is spent but I don't sit there and miser it either, some things are just necessary.

Cutter wrote on Jan 25, 2013, 21:52:
So no, you can't convince me that that there's the need to spend even 1 penny of tax dollars on research science.

Cutter wrote on Jan 25, 2013, 21:52:

jdreyer wrote on Jan 25, 2013, 19:23:
That's not true at all. There are lots of reasons to have government funding science research:
- If a particular field of research or project has no immediate profitable application, like the Hubble telescope or Large Hadron Collider
- If a particular research field won't return profit quickly enough, like fusion.
- Research projects that need to be applied to everyone, but won't be affordable to everyone if market based solutions are used, like vaccines.
- Projects that are simply too large, complex, or expensive for any corporation to handle, like the moon landings or Manhattan project

And on and on. In fact, the device you're entering your communication on (your computer) and transmitting it to the rest of us (the internet) are both the product of governmental research programs.

Wrong on all counts. It's pure sophistry to say all the advances related to government funding wouldn't have occurred without them. Most advances occur without government. Not one thing you mentioned was at all necessary, much less profitable. The moon was ego. the A-bomb is defense related anyway. The LHC and Hubble are interesting but aren't essential to anyone. Vaccines would be provided cheap because the alternative is too costly. And ENIAC was also related to defense and it was based on the abacus. In fact none of this government related stuff would have occurred without it occurring in the free market first. Telescopes were paid for by private patrons. And on and on it goes. So no, you can't convince me that that there's the need to spend even 1 penny of tax dollars on research science.

jdreyer wrote on Jan 25, 2013, 19:23:
That's not true at all. There are lots of reasons to have government funding science research:
- If a particular field of research or project has no immediate profitable application, like the Hubble telescope or Large Hadron Collider
- If a particular research field won't return profit quickly enough, like fusion.
- Research projects that need to be applied to everyone, but won't be affordable to everyone if market based solutions are used, like vaccines.
- Projects that are simply too large, complex, or expensive for any corporation to handle, like the moon landings or Manhattan project

And on and on. In fact, the device you're entering your communication on (your computer) and transmitting it to the rest of us (the internet) are both the product of governmental research programs.

Cutter wrote on Jan 25, 2013, 18:44:
If what he said was true private enterprise would be all over it. It's not though so it's just another entitlement plea so that someone else pays for him to do stuff he wants to do. Get a real job. I'm not saying it isn't interesting or important it's just not John Q. Taxpayer's job to pay for it when his major concern is keeping a roof over his head, 3 squares a day and retiring without becoming homeless.

Government's only job - apart from basic oversight - should be to keep religious kooks from meddling in science's affairs. Think about how far stem research would be by now.

sauron wrote on Jan 25, 2013, 10:27:
Good article on Neil Degrasse Tyson's speech. A lot of it is true - government can fund basic science like nobody else. Other organizations always have a specific goal - curing a disease or making money.

Interestingly, the NIH has deliberately shifted towards translational research over the last 5 years. That means research focused on addressing human disease. For people like me, that's fine since I work on diseases of the brain and spinal cord. But if I was working on fly or worm development or something basic, I'd be in trouble.

You may not think that fly and worm development are very important, but most of the genes we know about today that are linked to human disease originally came from exactly those studies. It just takes a while for the studies to go from flies, to mice, to humans.

The cold snap hereabouts is getting worse, rather than better, with the temps frequently below zero when the wind chill is taken into account. Seems like this going to be the case all weekend, and there is snow in the forecast for later on top of all this,

xXBatmanXx wrote on Jan 25, 2013, 14:30:

Yea, it is Untouchables with a different back story. Instead of Chicago, it is LA.