Slashdot Mirror

Meanwhile, an experiment in fusion by laser doesn't seem to be running into the same high profile funding problems just yet."

According to this article, NIF has cost $4 billion so far - almost four times the original estimate. What saved the NIF from cancellation was that its backers persuaded politicians that it was vital for Americas nuclear programme.

Science at this level is neither easy nor cheap.

They will not contain ads, they will BE ads, and nothing more. Every single aspect of the movie will only serve to advance the commercial(/political/ideological) interests.

This is already the situation for TV, radio, magazines, and newspapers. In all of these media, the real customer is the advertiser who pays for access to the audience who watches/listens/reads for "free."

Now I won't say that's a good thing. I think it's terrible. In my opinion, quality is clearly higher when it is made directly for the audience (as is the case for the BBC, PBS, NPR, or CBC radio, for example). To the extent that a changing media landscape is undercutting the advertising-supported model I am hopeful that direct payment for (and influence over) cultural works will become more widespread.

In the early days of radio, the manufacturers had a problem. Radio sales were extremely popular, but the people buying needed something to listen to. So the manufacturers created radio stations in order to drive demand for their products. It worked (though government licensing in favor of the networks also wiped out a wide range of independent and community services).

Today, the media industries argue that their production has a multiplier effect on the economy: each dollar invested in media produces many more dollars in related activity (transportation of books, sales of Star Wars toys, Macdonalds promotions, and so on). Some of this activity is really a cost of doing business, whose elimination would result in greater efficiency (e.g. it's more efficient to download a book than to ship it across the country), but much of it is new value. They present this as an argument for strong copyright[1]. In fact, it may be just the opposite: if the return on the dependent activity is greater than the cost of producing the original work, then there is an incentive to create the work even if it made no money directly. This is why Apple created iTunes, for example: not to make money from selling music, but to drive the (much more profitable) sale of iPods.

Or take Star Wars: the films earned $4.3 billion, but merchandise earned $13.5 billion. Widespread copying of the film would not touch the business case for making it, and at the beginning, when the venture was risky, wider distribution would only increase the likelihood of success (while possibly limiting the maximum possible scale of that success - to $13.5b in this case, rather than $17.8b).

We already live in a world where many movies are driven more by the model you describe than by ticket revenue per se. Producers care tremendously about ticket sales as a metric of popularity and because that's what keeps the films in the cinemas, not necessarily because that is their key revenue stream. As it happens, DVD sales recently became more profitable. So we have seen business model change on this scale extremely recently. It ain't the end of the world. (Though it might mean a lot more Star Wars-like films, which admittedly wouldn't make me thrilled: I'm not a fan.)

[1] In the recent copyright debate at The Economist, Dale Cendali, their May 8 guest made just this claim. She cited a study that found that the "IP industries" contributed "nearly 40% of the growth achieved by all U.S. private industry." Unfortunately for her argument, she failed to point out that under the category of "IP industry" the study included the whole automotive industry, big chunks of the transportation and retail sectors, a significant part of the petroleum industry, and so on. (You can see my detailed rebuttal if on page 5 of the May 8 comments.) Turned around, this appears to be evidence that IP is an input cost for many businesses, and there is a large incentive to create works regardless of copyright. (The actual economic claim is not that such works would not be produced, but that they would be underproduced. It's not clear to me that economic theory has a good answer for what the "best" (for whom?) level of production of Big Brother shows or Shakespeare plays is, or at what cost.)

I like the new income tax brackets you guys are installing now.

First £5,715 not taxed.
The next £760 is taxed at 11.5%.
The next £37,400 is taxed at 31.5%.
The next £56,125 is taxed at 41.5%.
The next £12,950 is taxed at 61.5%.
The next £37,050 is taxed at 41.5%.
Everything above £150,000 is taxed at 51.5%.

So if you earn £150,000 a year. You'll lose 39% of your income to income taxes. Since a VAT is basically applied to everything (I know there's exceptions, but I'm just saying that you pay 15% additional on every £ you spend), that's another 13% of your income that you lose to that (15/115=13%). So at $150,000 a year, you'll have less than 50% of your income to spend, even though it looks like you have over 60%.

£100,000 a year and you lose 35.1% for about 48.1% total.
£50,000 a year and you lose 28.8% for about 41.8% total.
£32,000 a year and you lose 25.3% for about 38.3% total.

That is all just in your VAT and income taxes too. God only knows how much additional excise taxes or what not you have to spend. The VAT is such a tax on the poor, it's not even funny.

http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13576151

if it's always sexism, how do you explain results like this, in which success on the trading floor correlates with exposure to testosterone, such that those with the highest developmental exposure earn five times more than those with the lowest?

In a somewhat related article, The Economist this week wrote an article about the startup of the National Ignitiion Facility.

If its a paradise as you say, why are you posting as an Anonymous Coward?
Let me quote from Economist a few facts:

Almost since it first came to power in 2002, Mr Erdogan's mildly Islamist Justice and Development (AK) Party has been under attack from Turkey's secular Ataturkist establishment, particularly the generals.

located in http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13446755

The generals and their allies believe that nothing less than the future of Ataturk's secular republic is at stake. Similar rumblings were heard when the now defunct pro-Islamic Welfare party first came to power in 1996. It was ejected a year later in a bloodless "velvet coup" and banned on similar charges to those now levelled at the AKP. But with each intervention the Islamists come back stronger.

Located at http://www.economist.com/world/europe/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11745570

Pressed for evidence of creeping Islamisation under the AKP, they point to the growing number of women who wear the headscarf, which is proscribed as a symbol of Islamic militancy in state-run institutions and schools.

The battle for Turkey's soul is being waged most fiercely in the country's schools. Egitim-Sen, a leftist teachers' union, charges that Islam has been permeating textbooks under the AKP. Darwin's theory of evolution is being whittled away and creationism is seeping in. Islamist fraternities, or tarikat, continue to ensnare students by offering free accommodation. The quid pro quo is that they fast and pray, and girls cover their heads.

In other words, the threat of radical Islam in Turkey may have increased thanks to the secularists' attack on the AKP.

Located at http://www.economist.com/world/europe/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11541234

Any more comments?

If its a paradise as you say, why are you posting as an Anonymous Coward?
Let me quote from Economist a few facts:

Almost since it first came to power in 2002, Mr Erdogan's mildly Islamist Justice and Development (AK) Party has been under attack from Turkey's secular Ataturkist establishment, particularly the generals.

located in http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13446755

The generals and their allies believe that nothing less than the future of Ataturk's secular republic is at stake. Similar rumblings were heard when the now defunct pro-Islamic Welfare party first came to power in 1996. It was ejected a year later in a bloodless "velvet coup" and banned on similar charges to those now levelled at the AKP. But with each intervention the Islamists come back stronger.

Located at http://www.economist.com/world/europe/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11745570

Pressed for evidence of creeping Islamisation under the AKP, they point to the growing number of women who wear the headscarf, which is proscribed as a symbol of Islamic militancy in state-run institutions and schools.

The battle for Turkey's soul is being waged most fiercely in the country's schools. Egitim-Sen, a leftist teachers' union, charges that Islam has been permeating textbooks under the AKP. Darwin's theory of evolution is being whittled away and creationism is seeping in. Islamist fraternities, or tarikat, continue to ensnare students by offering free accommodation. The quid pro quo is that they fast and pray, and girls cover their heads.

In other words, the threat of radical Islam in Turkey may have increased thanks to the secularists' attack on the AKP.

Located at http://www.economist.com/world/europe/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11541234

Any more comments?

If its a paradise as you say, why are you posting as an Anonymous Coward?
Let me quote from Economist a few facts:

Almost since it first came to power in 2002, Mr Erdogan's mildly Islamist Justice and Development (AK) Party has been under attack from Turkey's secular Ataturkist establishment, particularly the generals.

located in http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13446755

The generals and their allies believe that nothing less than the future of Ataturk's secular republic is at stake. Similar rumblings were heard when the now defunct pro-Islamic Welfare party first came to power in 1996. It was ejected a year later in a bloodless "velvet coup" and banned on similar charges to those now levelled at the AKP. But with each intervention the Islamists come back stronger.

Located at http://www.economist.com/world/europe/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11745570

Pressed for evidence of creeping Islamisation under the AKP, they point to the growing number of women who wear the headscarf, which is proscribed as a symbol of Islamic militancy in state-run institutions and schools.

The battle for Turkey's soul is being waged most fiercely in the country's schools. Egitim-Sen, a leftist teachers' union, charges that Islam has been permeating textbooks under the AKP. Darwin's theory of evolution is being whittled away and creationism is seeping in. Islamist fraternities, or tarikat, continue to ensnare students by offering free accommodation. The quid pro quo is that they fast and pray, and girls cover their heads.

In other words, the threat of radical Islam in Turkey may have increased thanks to the secularists' attack on the AKP.

Located at http://www.economist.com/world/europe/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11541234

Any more comments?

It would take a miracle worker to run the State of California - http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displayStory.cfm?STORY_ID=13649050as can be seen many places.

There was a recent article in The Economist about how in democratic countries the politicians are mostly lawyers and doctors by profession, while in dictatorships it's mostly technically oriented people. Ah yes, here it is.

1) Rich people need cash and cash equivalent/liquid accounts, too. Besides, there are other federal protections on capital assets, e.g. SIPC.

SIPC is designed for instances of outright fraud by brokerages it does not in any way cover normal loses. Of course rich people need liquid accounts but I doubt very many have 100K in their checking accounts. That's just a waste of potentially profitable capital, you dont get rich by just letting capital sit around.

5) How many minimum wage jobs don't require literacy? Seriously, you are delusional if you think public education doesn't provide a more capable work force. You didn't ask me to argue that our current public education is the most _efficient_ way to educate the masses, I am not sure it is. I just know that this country would not experience the productivity it does without education that is currently funded by taxes, and productivity benefits the wealthy IN PROPORTION to their capital deployed.

Honestly the vast majority of the education system in the US is nothing more than baby sitting until you're 18. The students who are learning in public school would be learning outside of school just as well. Access to information is so trivial now that you can teach yourself anything you could want to learn from freely available materials. The public education system provides nothing more than a means of protecting society from a few million teenagers.

More adults being driven to minimum wage jobs has more to do with the diminishing middle-class, which in turn is the result of regressive tax policies.

Really? The reason for the shift in the middle class is because of tax polciy? It couldnt possibly have to do with the huge shift in wealth to outside of the united states caused mostly by the outsourcing of labor? nah

Apparently according to TFA one of the UK tabloids posted topless photos, which in America would be "Mature content" and hidden in newsstands next to porn.

Oh, America, land of the free puritans and perverts.

more specifically, the hypothesis is that cancer is caused by stem cells. http://www.economist.com/science/displayStory.cfm?story_id=12202589 is a decent popular science article.

People aren't going to Ireland.

There, fixed that for you.

If you were the Italian government wouldn't you rather go after 4 guys running a website than the mafia?

Especially so since the Italian government now is the Mafia.

WTF is wrong with these people? How do these astroturfers live with themselves? Is there nothing more important than the size of your paycheck or your corporate rank?

Everyone's surely seen through this and it goes without saying, but yes, this is pure anti-nn astroturf, and it's being shoveled out now because of TWC's recent actions.

http://www.broadbandreports.com/shownews/The-Exaflood-Myth-Just-Wont-Die-102202

http://www.economist.com/science/tq/displayStory.cfm?story_id=12673221

http://www.savetheinternet.com/blog/2007/11/20/suckered-by-astroturf/

Dirtbags. "Research", my ass.

Fortunately they're some of the broadest and most permeable in history; class mobility is high, predicated on education and possession of money [...] It's called the American dream, asshole

That's the American myth, sucker.

        "There might also be an argument in favour of wealth disparities if social mobility was high and the sons and daughters of office cleaners could fairly easily rise to become chief executives. But America and Britain, which follow the Anglo-Saxon model, have the highest intergenerational correlations between the social status of fathers and sons."

Ironically, the Economist misses an important piece of the puzzle. It writes:

TEN years ago this week a black box was demonstrated at a broadcastersâ(TM) convention in Las Vegas. TiVo's digital video recorder (DVR) was expensive: the cheapest model cost $499. But it was hailed as revolutionary.

The 1999 CES awarded the "Best of Show" video category to ReplayTV, with Tivo as the runner up.

Marc Andreessen, Netscape Communications co-founder and recently named Replay-Networks board member, calls ReplayTV "just about the coolest thing I've ever seen."

The man who made the Internet accessible to millions of people worldwide thinks ReplayTV and Replay Network Service will fundamentally change how people watch and interact with television. "Replay could do for television what Netscape did for the Internet," Andreessen said.

ReplayTV was the DVR to own during the analog era. It offered built-in autoconfiguring ethernet, automatic user-oblivious commercial skip (using detection heuristics similar to those now employed by MythTV) and the ability to exchange show recordings over the internet. The last two features were potentially massively disruptive to the TV/movie industry and landed the ReplayTV people in court. The protracted legal battles drained the company's finances and attention, and in the end they consented to remove the coolest features from their newer units. By then Tivo, which always played well the media conglomerates, had taken most of the market by offering units with significantly less disruptive potential.

From reading the Economist, I've the impression that clean coal isn't actually that great. Check out these two articles:

The illusion of clean coal

Trouble in store

Despite all this enthusiasm, however, there is not a single big power plant using CCS anywhere in the world. Utilities refuse to build any, since the technology is expensive and unproven. Advocates insist that the price will come down with time and experience, but it is hard to say by how much, or who should bear the extra cost in the meantime. Green pressure groups worry that captured carbon will eventually leak. In short, the world's leaders are counting on a fix for climate change that is at best uncertain and at worst unworkable.

Aside, the WSJ isn't really giving us any new information, is it? Obama was advocating CCS during the election, so is it really surprising that his secretary is now advocating it?

From reading the Economist, I've the impression that clean coal isn't actually that great. Check out these two articles:

The illusion of clean coal

Trouble in store

Despite all this enthusiasm, however, there is not a single big power plant using CCS anywhere in the world. Utilities refuse to build any, since the technology is expensive and unproven. Advocates insist that the price will come down with time and experience, but it is hard to say by how much, or who should bear the extra cost in the meantime. Green pressure groups worry that captured carbon will eventually leak. In short, the world's leaders are counting on a fix for climate change that is at best uncertain and at worst unworkable.

Aside, the WSJ isn't really giving us any new information, is it? Obama was advocating CCS during the election, so is it really surprising that his secretary is now advocating it?

Buying products that are made/grown in closer proximity to you has many advantages:

In general I support buy local but local products can be inefficient. A few years ago the "Economist" published a summary of a study on international trade; cost; and efficiency, both economic and energy. One of the examples it gave was with sheep. Despite sheep grown in New Zealand needing to be shipped to Britain for consumption it was more efficient than raising the sheep in Britain. Googling I found study: "Food Miles - Comparative Energy/Emissions Performance of New Zealand's Agriculture Industry [pdf]". It says sheep shipped to England compares favorably with sheep shipped from elsewhere. "The results of this analysis show that NZ products compare favourably with lower energy and emissions per tonne of product delivered to the UK compared to other UK sources. In the case of dairy NZ is at least twice as efficient; and for sheep meat four times as efficient. "

Falcon

You could also increase the number of pirates.

I would argue that their data is wrong and we have a lot more pirates.

Particularly cause they DO plan to launch a few more.

http://www.economist.com/world/asia/displayStory.cfm?story_id=13432014&source=features_box_main

For weeks, American military intelligence, using its own satellite images, had followed launch preparations at the Musudan-ri missile site near North Korea's eastern seaboard. Given that a brand-new missile complex is nearly finished on the western seaboard from which the next Taepodong-2 launch had been expected, the timing and place of these preparations caused some experts to scratch their heads. Yet South Korea is due to launch its first satellite into space this summer, so from the North's viewpoint, a space race is on. Other international factors probably played a part, of which the most important was to test President Barack Obama's new administration. Marginalisation ranks high among the regime's fears.

Makes one wonder if they perchance don't have another one ready to be launched from the new launch site?

Re: Coal fires. Very interesting article in the Economist a week or so back about subterranean fires in old coal mines.

How about thousands of years? Almost every country in Europe has its own language. That can't last long, I'm sure they're all about to switch to English any day now.

Firstly, the countries in Europe aren't enclaves -- none of them are completely surrounded by hundreds of miles of English speakers, as Quebec is.

Secondly, they're switching to English anyway. As someone who has lived in Europe for the last six years I can say from my own anecdotal experience that the more the world gets connected, the more people speak English. (I predict that we'll end up in a world not too linguistically different from Firefly)

The Economist is the only British news periodical that's any good.

And yeah, I'm middle class classical liberal scum.

Actually these days The Economist seems to have the whole print edition online, for free. Kind of cool, because it's hard to get in some places.

"If i didn't know any better, I'd suspect the cause maybe downloading too much pron?"

Your confusing having problems with Vista and being unable to see that Vista has major problems. Seems like you are more likely the pr0n freak in this case ;-)

And for the record, you can stop adding the disclaimer if I didn't know better, since the fact that you use Vista is prima facie evidence that you don't know better.

It isn't always as simple as protectionists often try to make it.

Have you ever read The Economist ? These guys are economic conservative, and social liberals. Pretty much the opposite of Fox News: they advocate gay marriage, abortion...

I find in particular that they try to separate facts from opinions, and to be reasonably pragmatic.

Sample of articles for this week:

Mr. Obama's first 2 months: http://www.economist.com/world/na/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13362078

Religious people and death: http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13315834

Funding impacting a research paper: http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13361480

Online dating and the crisis: http://www.economist.com/business/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13381506

Have you ever read The Economist ? These guys are economic conservative, and social liberals. Pretty much the opposite of Fox News: they advocate gay marriage, abortion...

I find in particular that they try to separate facts from opinions, and to be reasonably pragmatic.

Sample of articles for this week:

Mr. Obama's first 2 months: http://www.economist.com/world/na/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13362078

Religious people and death: http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13315834

Funding impacting a research paper: http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13361480

Online dating and the crisis: http://www.economist.com/business/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13381506

Have you ever read The Economist ? These guys are economic conservative, and social liberals. Pretty much the opposite of Fox News: they advocate gay marriage, abortion...

I find in particular that they try to separate facts from opinions, and to be reasonably pragmatic.

Sample of articles for this week:

Mr. Obama's first 2 months: http://www.economist.com/world/na/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13362078

Religious people and death: http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13315834

Funding impacting a research paper: http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13361480

Online dating and the crisis: http://www.economist.com/business/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13381506

Have you ever read The Economist ? These guys are economic conservative, and social liberals. Pretty much the opposite of Fox News: they advocate gay marriage, abortion...

I find in particular that they try to separate facts from opinions, and to be reasonably pragmatic.

Sample of articles for this week:

Mr. Obama's first 2 months: http://www.economist.com/world/na/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13362078

Religious people and death: http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13315834

Funding impacting a research paper: http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13361480

Online dating and the crisis: http://www.economist.com/business/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13381506

There has been an article on Economist website about the end of the free lunch. The article itself is rather simplistic but what can you expect from economists - anybody that reads news recently should know that they ain't that smart either. They maybe onto something though - majority of web services will need some other revenue than advertising or it will collapse. Whether this eliminates the whole business model I doubt but we are going to see anyway.

Getting really offtopic, but I thought I'd share this interesting Economist article regarding Atlas Shrugged.

Atlas felt a sense of deja vu
Feb 26th 2009
The economic bust has caused a boom for at least one author

BOOKS do not sell themselves: that is what films are for. "The Reader", the book that inspired the Oscar-winning film, has shot up the bestseller lists. Another recent publishing success, however, has had more help from Washington, DC, than Hollywood. That book is Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged".

http://www.economist.com/finance/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13185404

P.S. You might be interested in reading a little about India and its endemic problems before you start spouting off about issues you either know nothing about, or simply refuse to acknowledge.
I've left off several very good Wikipedia articles, since I anticipate your (misguided) objections to its use as a source.

Here are a few links:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_supply_and_sanitation_in_India
http://www.economist.com/world/asia/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11751397
http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSDEL218894
http://www.gits4u.com/envo/envo4.htm#The%20most%20polluted%20places%20in%20India

Here's an Economist article from back in November. There have probably be more details released recently, but I haven't done that much research into it.

Much remains unclear about the implementation of the stimulus plan-even its size. According to Sherman Chan, a Sydney-based economist with Moody's, the real size of the package may not be as large as the government has described. "Some of the measures announced in the stimulus package appear to have been already introduced or even implemented earlier. Hence, the size of this stimulus package-which is expected to be in the form of additional spending- may have been overstated," Chan wrote in a research note.

Economist

Okay....

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/21/health/21canc.html
http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12202589
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080409130711.htm
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2009/02/18/embryonic-stem-cell-therapy-causes-cancer-in-teenage-boy/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4465717.stm

However, new information was released this week. There are scientists who think they've found a way around the cancer problem with stem cells:

http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/03/virusfreeips.html
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13384-stem-cell-breakthrough-may-reduce-cancer-risk.html

And, BTW, beer only requires about 250 litres per litre; it's much more environmentally friendly than coffee!

The Japanese satellite Ibuki has been in orbit since January.

obligatory: Let the sun shine in

The Economist has its annual Innovation Awards (since 2002). Besides listing the several categories it gives selection criteria. What's not directly applicable to answering the question should at least serve as a parallel example. The recipients are to be individuals rather than corporate, even though the innovation from those individuals may result in a corporate entity.

http://www.economist.com/science/tq/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10676339

most people already have computers

Really? Have an eyeopening look here:

http://www.economist.com/research/articlesBySubject/displayStory.cfm?story_id=12758865&subjectID=348909&fsrc=nwl

Computer ownership is really very low worldwide. Even the US has only 76 computers per 100 people. Keep in mind that includes people like myself who, between work and home use, have 4 computers alone.

Some other socking figures:
Italy 36 computers per 100 people
Mexico 13 computers per 100 people
Spain 26 computers per 100 people
Japan 67 computers per 100 people
Russia 12 computers per 100 people

And the billions of people in China and India don't even make the list.

Seems to me that there are a lot more computers Intel could be selling in the future. The market is far from saturated.

I don't see how this is "the center of gravity shifting". Rather, the examples given appear to indicate a diversification of Operating systems rather than a general downward trend. e.g. While there may be a smaller OS X revision, the desktop revision gets larger with every release.

Really?

Less is Moore
http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09%2F01%2F28%2F1829251&from=rss
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12932356

Thin client
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thin_client

Netbook
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netbook

LTSP
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_Terminal_Server_Project

Multiseat
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiseat

Economist chart on thinking evolution is true/correct.

Threatening the UK with withdrawing intelligence cooperation if the UK government hands evidence in a torture case to the courts.

Actually what happened here is that the UK government is concerned that the US might withdraw cooperation if the evidence makes it to court. There hasn't been word one from the US on this, let alone a statement or directive from the Prez. I'm not saying that the concern isn't legitimate, but to say that Obama has threatened to withhold intelligence is simply false.

As usual, The Economist has a good article on the matter.

Because any climate scientist who isn't in agreement suddenly finds he has no govt funding,

Ever heard of Bjørn Lomborg? He is a nutcase who published a book, The Skeptical Environmentalist, in which he (who has only one peer-reviewed publication in an unrelated field) said that all environmental scientist were were wrong about pretty much everything.

So, what happened to his career? While he was denounced by Scientific American and Nature, he was defended by The Economist, not exactly a climatology publication. The Danish government gave Lomborg the chair of a newly created "Environmental Assessment Institute", he published further books, and ended up in TIME's list of the 100 most influential people of 2004.

So, that's what happens when one is not in agreement with the scientific consensus, but says things that governments want to hear: lots of money, media attention, skyrocketing career. Lomborg was just a mediocre associate professor with only one peer-reviewed paper from 1996, who was looking at a very boring and uneventful career. By cherry-picking and fabricating data, he's a world star of climate-change denial now (note that last time I checked, he did not deny climate change outright, or even that it is anthropogenic, only that it is "inefficient" to do something about it, in practice reaching the same conclusion as deniers).

If anything, it amazes me that so few scientists do the same.

we are currently suffering from a slight water shortage

You mean with the Murray-Darling Basin? I wouldn't exactly call that a "slight water shortage". The second driest continent, according to the Economist, is becoming drier.

Falcon

How are they going to do that? Protecting the US market to IBM? That will only make IBM charge more and become less competitive, tanking the US.

Lehman is dead. All employees have been fucked in the behind. If IBM dies, all employees are out of work, not only a handful. That's the thing about protectionism. In the long run, you become a closed, fucked-up economy.

Oh well, fuck it. It's your country anyway. Why should I give a crap?

That's only with extreme protectionism.

Our economy grew exceedingly well with mild protectionism which prevented the kind of labor exploitation happening now.

Lehman is dead. All employees have been fucked in the behind. If IBM dies, all employees are out of work, not only a handful. That's the thing about protectionism. In the long run, you become a closed, fucked-up economy.

Oh well, fuck it. It's your country anyway. Why should I give a crap?

No, the idea works because there is the perception of a police state.

Actually, a study did show that a bad-looking neighborhood will increase the prevalence of at least petty crimes. See this article for more explanation.

Please, if you're going to make accusations, at least base them on credible scientific research.