ShakeZuma 585 Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 tl;dr: Science! Link to post Share on other sites
hblask 1 Posted October 5, 2010 Author Share Posted October 5, 2010 http://www.technologyreview.com/computing/21098/?a=f I saw this study, and this is pretty cool. One thing that I didn't see discussed in these articles but was in the one I read was that they were able to rotate it at tremendous speeds. The article I read didn't mention it, but to me the obvious use of this is energy storage. Scientists have been studying energy storage from wind and solar in giant magnetically levitated flywheels, but the main problem is that the flywheels break apart. This seems like the obvious solution....Also, if you put that picture at the top edge of your screen as you read text at the bottom, it looks like the sheet is moving toward you.TL;DR: Just because there is *some* success from basic research, that doesn't imply that there is a net gain from federally funded basic research after taking into account all the money and all the successes vs failures vs the opportunity cost.PS: I think I may have misused tldr there. i.e. LOL WTF e.g. Link to post Share on other sites
mk 11 Posted October 6, 2010 Share Posted October 6, 2010 TL;DR: GUV'NMENT BAD MMKAYfyp Link to post Share on other sites
ShakeZuma 585 Posted October 6, 2010 Share Posted October 6, 2010 fyptl;dr RHCP RLZ Link to post Share on other sites
akoff 0 Posted October 6, 2010 Share Posted October 6, 2010 No you just implied that less than 1% of all proposed studies have value.Also, please don't conflate the Nobel Peace Prize (won by Yasser Arafat among other jackasses) with the actual science prizes. There has been enough science ignorance in here for one day. The Peace prize is a joke, the other prizes are real.I don't think i implied it, i took VB's stat of requests and pretty much proved it. That being said many good things have come from studies there is just a tremendous amount of BS that goes with it. Link to post Share on other sites
mk 11 Posted October 6, 2010 Share Posted October 6, 2010 I don't think i implied it, i took VB's stat of requests and pretty much proved it. That being said many good things have come from studies there is just a tremendous amount of BS that goes with it.I TOO DEMAND FLAWLESS RESULTS FROM UNPRECEDENTED, EXPERIMENTAL EVENTS Link to post Share on other sites
SAM_Hard8 50 Posted October 6, 2010 Share Posted October 6, 2010 The thing of value that comes from from most studies is the teaching of how to do good studies. Link to post Share on other sites
CaneBrain 95 Posted October 6, 2010 Share Posted October 6, 2010 I don't think i implied it, i took VB's stat of requests and pretty much proved it. That being said many good things have come from studies there is just a tremendous amount of BS that goes with it.I dont think the word "prove" means what you think it means. You ignored the possibility that many worthwhile studies are shut out by a simple numbers game which is much more likely than what you implied. Link to post Share on other sites
dapokerbum 0 Posted October 6, 2010 Share Posted October 6, 2010 The thing of value that comes from from most studies is the teaching of how to do good studies.Well with all these studies being done, they should be experts ... Link to post Share on other sites
brvheart 1,757 Posted October 6, 2010 Share Posted October 6, 2010 I TOO DEMAND FLAWLESS RESULTS FROM UNPRECEDENTED, EXPERIMENTAL EVENTSMost of mk's posts in here are easily dismissible as super duper left wing crazy, but this point is extremely fair, and I don't have any idea why you covservatards are arguing about this. There is a ton of government waste, but science funding reform is pretty low on my list. Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted October 6, 2010 Share Posted October 6, 2010 Most of mk's posts in here are easily dismissible as super duper left wing crazy, but this point is extremely fair, and I don't have any idea why you covservatards are arguing about this. There is a ton of government waste, but science funding reform is pretty low of my list.But they spent money to standardize the speed of ketchup flow!And there is the little thing about not being a constitutional right to have funding for anything anybody who can write a good grant request form can have.There is a lot of logic in the argument that government funding is largely foolish funding.If there is a need / market, let the people who are going to get rich fund the research.Every time the dems would accuse Bush of not funding alternative energy I would go crazy. If you invent an alternative fuel, you will be able to hire Bill Gates and Steve Jobs to install your PS5 game console. Let's pretend that big companies don't want to risk any money to invent something that will give them enough money to buy the planet.But let's pretend that there instead is a conspiracy from the oil companies to stop any research into making a fusion engine. And lets add in there that the only really smart people are working on the government dole. Link to post Share on other sites
CaneBrain 95 Posted October 6, 2010 Share Posted October 6, 2010 But they spent money to standardize the speed of ketchup flow!you're welcome? Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted October 6, 2010 Share Posted October 6, 2010 you're welcome? Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted October 6, 2010 Share Posted October 6, 2010 Another $42 million well spent Link to post Share on other sites
CaneBrain 95 Posted October 6, 2010 Share Posted October 6, 2010 Everyone knows you hit the 57, not the bottom. That's just crazy talk. Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted October 6, 2010 Share Posted October 6, 2010 Everyone knows you hit the 57, not the bottom. That's just crazy talk.Wait, is this true?Cause I've always hit the bottom, are you sure?Looks like the government needs to invest another $20million to check this out. Link to post Share on other sites
dapokerbum 0 Posted October 6, 2010 Share Posted October 6, 2010 Wait, is this true?Cause I've always hit the bottom, are you sure?Looks like the government needs to invest another $20million to check this out.Oh it's true Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted October 6, 2010 Share Posted October 6, 2010 Oh it's trueLet's not be so hasty to cut out the pork there buddy. Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted October 6, 2010 Share Posted October 6, 2010 In google mode and government waste images brought me this:I saw this on our British Island cruise in Liverpool and it was really cool, it rotates around and eventually sits perfectly in place.And it only cost about 3/4s of a million US dollars. Link to post Share on other sites
vbnautilus 48 Posted October 6, 2010 Share Posted October 6, 2010 If there is a need / market, let the people who are going to get rich fund the research.The only things that are valuable to society are those things that will make someone rich? Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted October 6, 2010 Share Posted October 6, 2010 The only things that are valuable to society are those things that will make someone rich?We already have the Bible for unmarketable things that enrich society.Look, I understand your position, you are much more in touch with 'positive' funding and have seen value there.Kind of like how I am much less upset with government subsidies for helium because it kind of helps me in a small way.But the problem is the fact that government is so inefficient and poorly run that the notion that they are in charge of handing money over to people just reeks of a bad idea, even if on occasion, and by accident, the money they hand over has a positive result. Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted October 6, 2010 Share Posted October 6, 2010 Let's say Little Jimmy becomes an engineering student at MIT, and is on a program that takes my tax dollars to research Lasers.After 2 years of studies, they make advancements and the funding grant ends.Jimmy then goes to Halliburton and says: "Hey I have transformed $50 million in tax dollars into a big jump forward of my understanding of lasers and if you hire me at a much inflated rate for my knowledge, I will figure out a really good laser that can kill someone from a long way away.Halliburton hires Jimmy and 3 times the normal rate, and Jimmy figures out the laser thing and receives a huge bonus. Hallibruton then markets this new laser to the Navy and sells them for a $trillion profit over the next 10 years.So my tax dollars made Jimmy and Halliburton rich, and except for having a Navy that can shoot Somalia pirates from 2 miles with a tiny risk of collateral damage, I got nothing.Why shouldn't Jimmy and Halliburton have to pony up the original $50 million if they are the ones that end up reaping the rewards? Link to post Share on other sites
dapokerbum 0 Posted October 6, 2010 Share Posted October 6, 2010 Let's say Little Jimmy becomes an engineering student at MIT, and is on a program that takes my tax dollars to research Lasers.After 2 years of studies, they make advancements and the funding grant ends.Jimmy then goes to Halliburton and says: "Hey I have transformed $50 million in tax dollars into a big jump forward of my understanding of lasers and if you hire me at a much inflated rate for my knowledge, I will figure out a really good laser that can kill someone from a long way away.Halliburton hires Jimmy and 3 times the normal rate, and Jimmy figures out the laser thing and receives a huge bonus. Hallibruton then markets this new laser to the Navy and sells them for a $trillion profit over the next 10 years.So my tax dollars made Jimmy and Halliburton rich, and except for having a Navy that can shoot Somalia pirates from 2 miles with a tiny risk of collateral damage, I got nothing.Why shouldn't Jimmy and Halliburton have to pony up the original $50 million if they are the ones that end up reaping the rewards?I'm sure that Halliburton pays a substantial amount in taxes on that Trillion dollars of profit. Even if the goverment somehow only see 1% of the trillion dollar profit, that is still 10 Billion, so I think in your example that is a great ROI for the government. Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted October 6, 2010 Share Posted October 6, 2010 I'm sure that Halliburton pays a substantial amount in taxes on that Trillion dollars of profit. Even if the goverment somehow only see 1% of the trillion dollar profit, that is still 10 Billion, so I think in your example that is a great ROI for the government. Strangely I am not okay with my taxes being used for this.But I understand the argument.When you coming to the desert to go golfing? Link to post Share on other sites
CaneBrain 95 Posted October 6, 2010 Share Posted October 6, 2010 Also in that scenario the world would be a little more safe as America's military superiority would be strengthened. Way to come up with a scenario that is full of win for everyone and call it bad BG. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now