Slashdot Mirror
Clinton Wants $497 Million for Nanotech Research
jimmcq writes "President Clinton on Friday proposed a $2.8 billion increase in research into elusive medical cures and high-technology breakthroughs like reducing information in the Library of Congress into a unit the size of a sugar cube. More info at Yahoo! News." Specifically, Clinton is advocating "as much as" $497 million for nanotech out of a $2.8 billion increase over last year's ~$38 billion federal allocation for scientific research. But don't get excited yet. Congress holds the budget pursestrings and may not go along with all or any of the President's proposals.
NO ONE CARES MOTHER FUCKER
Why wouldn't 3,4,5 parties work? sorry, don't see what you're getting at.
ALL taxation is theft.
This is taxation.
Therefore, this is theft.
Being from Canada, I thought you guys didn't make a distinction....
GOBBLE A DICK
BOTS CLICK HERE. Q MEANS QUEER - WHICH IS YOU. I AM EREETO.
just in case that "aya" is spam prot
Spending TAXPAYER MONEY on something that not all taxpayers want to contribute to amounts to no more than THEFT, and is anti-Libertarian.
How can you support something like this?
Nope FUCK YOU
In my experience, each time Clinton increases funding in one place, he cuts back much more significantly in another. With just about every NSF increase, he made a much greater ARPA civilian research cut. Labs get less money, but he comes out in the press as supporting research.
You need government funding because no corporation can afford to do enough basic research into fundamental concepts as contrasted with applied (patent- or product-oriented) research.
Tell me, WHERE in the hell in the Constitution does it say ANYTHING AT ALL about political parties? What the hell are you talking about? George Washington himself was opposed to political parties in America.
There aren't two parties now. There's one party, the Demoblicans (or Republicrats, whichever you think sounds more derogatory).
1. In German, the hard 'c' sound is always represented by the letter 'k' rather than 'c'. By making allusions to Germany, one makes allusions to Naziism, Hitler, and Socialism.
2. The Ku Klux Klan is one of the most famous 'k' groups in the world, and associating someone with them is sure to be derogatory.
3. k is generally un unpleasant letter, not used in many "nice" words at all.
God DAMN! I am SICK of this "Privte Industry is the only way to do science" stuff! Please, I want to know how many of /.'ers that advocate this are ACTUALLY scientists!
Private industries will NOT fund research that they (businessmen - not scientists) deem not to have significant short term investments! So much of science is finding out about our world, things which don't have an impact on how many CD's you can fit on a chip or how fast your next processor is! Business and consumers will only want research that benefits THEM! Imagine if inital DNA structure research int the 40's and 50's was not done mostly at publicly and governmently funded institutions -
"Sorry, Dr. Watson, Dr. Crick, we don't see any long-term profits or applications of the knowledge of DNA's physical structure so the shareholders are not funding you. Why don't you make more H-Bombs so we can nuke the USSR or new plastics tech. for American consumers!"
In addition, Federal Research programs have MORE accountability than private programs. Remember it was Dr. Richard Seed who wanted to go PRIVATE in his human cloning research while the US and Eurpoean governments were debateing about researching the topics in their own programs!
Yeah, let the U.S. people FULLY decide what get's researched and what doesn't! Then all research will be into longevity tech (which IS a worthwile subject area) and drugs for illnesses. Not that these areas are bad, but other important research areas with very long term benefits will be under-funded. Not to mention areas of science that provide simply knowledge. I am planning to go into research in neuroscience/computational neuroscience. Are you honestly telling me that the U.S. public will fund my research into the nature of cognition? I doubt that!
Views like this are some of the reasons why I consider myself a strong SOCIAL Libertarian but NEVER a fiscal libertarian.
Sincerely,
Kevin Christie
kwchri@wm.edu
DUMB SWEDE
What makes an animal like you, do the things you do? If you think slashdot sucks, why not just leave?
"He's got what every second-term president had going on. With no concerns about being voted out of office, he has the freedom to do what he feels is the Right Thing"
Or, alternatively... he is attempting to influence a demographic to vote for his proteg'e (sp?). Any publicity that reflects well on the sitting President usually pays dividends for the VP...
Actually, no. The naked and petrified guy probably wouldn't spam like I did.
That would not discourage me.
;)
It's VERY easy to make a new account.
Do this:
1) Go to www.mail.com
2) Register some crap email
3) Make a new account with that email
4) Spam with it
Jeesh, I could make a new account for each trolling session. Wouldn't bother me one bit. In fact, it might be better. That way I could at least have 1 by default and have an identity.
And considering my accounts would only last a day each, that 1 score was maintain.
Hey, good idea. Do it.
I mean, sorta public, yeah, so trolls can find it, but there are limits . . .
How many people read that thing, anyhow?
--80md
oh sheesh you people need to get a life
I am the CEO of a billion-dollar nanotech research organization. I am truly impressed by the extent of your knowledge and enthusiasm for nanites, and would like to hire you as a Creative Nanotech Consultant at an hourly rate of $10000.
If such a position piques your curiousity, by all means, please contact me at nanotechresearch@hotmail.com.
Yours Truly,
Dan Ite.
I vote in favor of the scheme above, off topic or not. Posts like we're seeing in this thread undermine the usefulness of /. and should be dealt with.
I too have an account and can't deal with the awesome annoyance powers of the Q.
It has become popular for evil(TM) corporations to file lawsuits so that they can subpoena web sites for the true identities of posters.
It's wrong to spend taxpayer money on this. They are STEALING money from people who might NOT want to spend money on this and FORCING them to use their money in the way the GOVERNMENT sees fit.
Join the Libertarian party and change all this:
http://www.libertarian.org/
Why the hell would you bother to mark me down as "offtopic" again in the same thread? It is not ontopic for this particular subject, but it is an ontopic reply for what the previous poster said. Anyone who is this far down in the thread is obviously interested in what is being discussed.
(This is binarybits, who doesn't want to lose any more karma for being "offtopic.")
Are libertarians opposed to steel currency now, too? Join the Libertarian party and join a bunch of pudgy overaged SF fans and pot farmers trying to get unelectable clowns on their local ballot!
2. "clinton" isn't the prime mover of the anti-encryption movement. Weakening encryption and requiring digital wiretaps is something that scary obscure security agencies like the NSA, and plain old FBI, want. They have a lot of pull with the president, obviously, but not apparently more or less than that paranoid old transvestite, Hoover, had over a whole generation of administrations.
In any case . . . ut doesn't MATTER whether a work is copyrighted or not if it's in a library.
As for your suggestion that hackers are some kind of force for technology and progress . . . SNORT. Openness and a LACK of secrecy drive progress.
Transmeta has already started the process with their "soft" processor. The design concepts and partnership with IBM have inexorably set in motion a series of steps which will bring us protein-based nanotechnology within 5 years, and an assembler probably by 2010.
That is laugh-out-loud ridiculous.
The reason we can't get rid of true AC accounts, is because even if it is securely logged, a companie can get a court order forcing CT and company to open the logs. (If they can convince a judge they have sufficient cause, which may or may not be all that difficult).
Thus, posters who have truly significant information that if it were publically known that it was they who were posting could well get fired...
It's just not a risk that some people are willing to take...
also OT...
"IM NOT SPAMMING AGAIN BTW ONLY DOING IT ONCE :)"
:-(
Idiot.
You are living in a dreamworld if you really believe all the scare tactics you just belched out have anything to do with scientific reality, or what will actually be funded.
First poster again: I'll agree that when you begin banning users, it opens up a can of worms. OTOH, banning people for spamming is NOT censorship, because the nature of spam means that there was no content in the first place. I'll be honest with you, the "Naked and pertified" posts annoy me, but I am NOT advocating banning those users. What you admit to doing is irritating, but it's NOT spam (and sometimes they can actually be funny). All I'm saying is that CmdrTaco, Rob, et al., should have the ability to identify and kick users whos sole purpose is to clog a thread and destroy conversation. I've seen what unfettered spamming has done to many other once-good discussion boards, and I'd hate to see /. lose more good posters because of chit like this (and cynicism aside, there are still a lot of good posters here).
Go read the the constitution front to back and tell me how you plan to make a 3(4,5,...etc.) party system work under it. Oh, wait - I bet you'd like to write a new constitution!
He probably is, and almost as bad regardless. As for you, why don't you suck my cock, you stupid moralizing fuckwit? I don't need to justify my posts to you or anyone else. I want you to reach down right now, and grab your dick. Now rip it off and feed it to yourself, and do the gene pool a favour. You stupid cumdrenched cocksucking piece of whore-fuckpie. Shove your fucking slimy hand where it belongs, which is up your ass, and give yourself an enema. Fuck you, fuck your left ear, and fuck your right ear too. Respectfully, AC
You fucking moron, you're even worse than those idiot crackers who break into places to "make them more secure". Do you think your little bout of civil disobediance is going to help make slashdot better at all? You're a case for retroactive abortion.
awwwww... what's the matter? did the big kids kick the piss out of little poopie in school again this week?
I know what you're all thinking right now, "Golly, Roblimo and Hemos knew this nanotech stuff was gonna be big way back when, I wish I could've jumped on the 'Popular Science' bandwagon back when they did - I'd be so cool"
But don't worry, really! I promise [smile like the president] that one day you'll all find some obscure discipline/hobby that only 0.0000001% of the population have even heard about - and only 0.0000000001% of those people with 3 or more Master's Degrees and a PhD understand.
Then you (if you cross your fingers) too can proudly bring up the subject when and if it ever becomes socially feasible before your 40 while bragging with your friends and send in story after story to slashdot; cuz' its the FUTURE man - and YOU HEARD ABOUT IT FIRST!
Breathtakingly bad example. Around 50% of IBM's R&D budget in that decade came from the government.
Agreed ... posted anonymously but while logged in (like this message) should be the only way to be an AC ... and those people who get moderated down enough times should be automatically be made aware to a "user moderation" comittee that has the ability to reject that user.
... possibly refusing the use of "yahoo.com" addresses for -validation- (but not for listing in their profiles) so that they can't just go create an account easily.
Also, all users should be required to validate via email before being given an account
Won't fix everything, but will help.
- Find the post.
- Draw up the legal papers.
- Submit them to the court.
- Get a decision.
- Serve Andover with the papers
By the time a subpoena reached Slashdot, all they'd have to say is "Sorry, that record no longer exists!" End of problem, end of story. If you were really paranoid you could advocate an even shorter duration, but then you run the risk of one of the Slashdot crew not checking in time and missing the log.Why is it that every time any call for spending is mad we see three groups start fighting. We see the party that called for the spending praising it, saying its the best thing since sliced bread. We also get the oposing part talking about where the money will come from, and we get those who opose all things goverment related. I see people complaining about things that they dont want to pay for in the goverment all the time. If we only paid for things that we all could agree on there would be no goverment to complain about. Granted, the goverment spends money on things that I personaly believe are stupid, but what about the guy that is being helped by this spending. We all gain by diferent portions of goverment spending. Today they are spending money on Education, yet my kids are home schooled. Why am I paying for this? Because, my portion of taxes goes to paying education costs for other peoples kids, while there tax money goes to pay for tech research that benifits me. If the goverment didn't fund anything other than the basic systems nobody would have a computer to type on, nore an efficient house to live in. Just because you dont agree specificly with one way of spending dosn't mean that its wrong all together. I believe that this plan is awsome because it opens the door for medical posabilities beyond your wildest imagination. It also is a good step into the next level of technology. Where would we be without the goverment funded ENAC or Enigma systems? Where would we be without goverment funded anti-viral funding? (Granted,I still think that taxes are a tad high for my tastes.)
BOTS CLICK HERE. I AM Z, YOU SUCK Q
In case you didn't know, Q = CraigMcPherson, the guy responsible for starting the naked and petrified posts. I am posting his identity because he deserves what he puts out. I found out who he was because he *admitted* in another post that he was responsible for starting the naked and petrified posts, and I knew CraigMcPherson was the one who started it.
Ooooh, look at me, I am posting a negative comment about Roblimo...
What, I got moderated down? Darn, well you know, I am sorry Roblimo. Really...I guess I'll just never ever ever post a comment again, mmmkay? Really, not another one ever...
..sniff...sniff...
Why doesn't anyone like me!
Because you are a freaking wuss Roblimo who can't handle all the lamer flamers out here and you have to go crying about it to everyone, dragging this site down b/c your feelings were hurt by people you don't even know. Sheeesh.
Whoo-hoo, nowthat we have heard from the granola brigade, we can all celebrate the diversity of this bboard.
In reality, dollars spent on military R&D not only have civilian and scientific benefits but it ensures that our civilization survives attacks by our many enemies in the world.
To the extent that biocomplexity and nanotech research helps our civilization prevail over others, I'm all for it but I do not trust this administration with any of our money due to their inherent and unchecked corruption vis a vis campaign financing.
When I viewed the story, the html formatting was all screwed up, and the page looked like I was viewing it through chimera or some other off the wall web browser.
we have to wait 4 years for a president to grow a real spine and do what he thinks is right. ...
I think he may have been too busy before now growing a real trouser-serpent and doing what we all know feels right, but lets face it, if it came down to this or their sacred drugwar both he and the crooks in congress wouldn't hesitate to defund nano (or any) tech in favor of more cops and jails and annoying shrinks. They're addicted.
oddsman
I hate it when disruptive piss ants like you try to justify what your doing. Do you think for one moment that I prefer spam to upwards moderation? Get real. You know what, I used to browse at -1 before all of this spam crap. I used to laugh once in a while at a funny troll or two, or be able to read unfairly moderated comments. Now I can't. My threshold is 1 because of crap like this.
You are lying to yourself if you think you are doing any good. Admit it, you are probably one of the people posting crap, and you enjoy it. You enjoy being disruptive. Antisocial fucks like you enjoy it because you're starved for attention, because people in the real world won't give you an ounce of it, and justifiably so.
Even if an article deviates *slightly* from the moderators moral, religious or personal convictions, you get moderated down.
That is unfortunate, but that is why we have thresholds. I can bring it down and be able to read it. Spamming now prevents me from doing so. Your actually helping the moderator who unfairly marked down a comment to his or her end - preventing anyone else from reading it.
the hardest problems in tech are social not technical. 1. clinton extended copyright ownership from 70-something to 90-something years, thus ensuring that the contents of the library of congress will be open to FEWER people.. no matter how 'cool' they are stored. 2. clinton is behind the whole encyrption/clipper/big brother government movement that has been inimical to hackers everywhere, hurting technology and hurting progress
Actually, I do believe I said ereeto
Then turn off your computer and throw it away. It probably wouldn't even exist without the enormous amount of money the government pumped into development of the relevant technologies in the 50s, 60s, and 70s.
I am all for increasing science funding in general (need to decrease the irrationality of common culture and religion which is a great danger in itself) but... There is a dark side to nanotech which will be hard to avoid IF it can match up to the hype given its supposed capabilities. Terrorists. Once you have nanotech perfected to the extent of having a bunch of mini-construtors of anything, you also have the technology for mini-disassemblers. Terrorists and hostile nations WILL latch onto this tech and release disassemblers that COULD get out of control and, theoretically, end up disassembling everything. It WILL happen once the tech reaches a certain point. There is danger in this that MUST always be considered, pondered, and controlled for (as far as possible).
"In reality, dollars spent on military R&D not only have civilian and scientific benefits but it ensures that our civilization survives attacks by our many enemies in the world."
Try "helps to ensure" rather than "ensures", there's a bit more to defending a country (guess that what you meant by civilization?) then just pouring money into R&D.
So, your the little fuck? Oh, is everyone moderating your Q's away...
Typically, a "hacker" (not that this is a hack, or a crack, just a script kiddie) leaves their handle, so if this is your way of coming out, fine, we know now...
Go back to AOL, wanker.
Hallo, I'm not "Mr. Q" or "Mr. FUCK YOU!!!", but I am the "AC" who until recently posted messages about petrified women. Now, I'm only posting messages about petrifed MEN to promote gender equality and get the feminazis off my back, but that's beside the point.
What IS the point is that I DO have an account, in fact all of the major trolls do have accounts. The "Post Anonymously" button has been *THE GREATEST* boon for trolling in the history of Slashdot!
Before the "post anonymously" button, I had to manually log out, post my message, and then log back in. Now, it takes a fraction of the time and I find myself sometimes posting dozens more trolls per day. I've trolled with the "Post Anonymously" button HUNDREDS of times, so I don't really see how that's supposed to prevent spamming, trolling, flamebaiting, et all.
So you say you want the people in charge of Slashdot to look at the usernames of people who post anonymously, and start banning some of them?
First, the people in charge of Slashdot have said that the moderation system works fine, and they don't want to ban people or restrict free speech. Now, when someone SPAMS, it's hard for simple moderation to work, because there are so many darn messages.
What *I* liked is the feature we saw a while back where only one reply could come from an IP per minute. I think this is a good idea and should apply to EVERYONE. No one legitimately needs to post more than one message per minute.
Why was that feature removed? I'd like to see it brought back.
Actually banning people is just asking for trouble. What happens when people are banned just for having viewpoints that go against the dominant atheistic paradigm? Banned for promoting an OS other than Linux? Don't say it won't happen. It will. As you well know, people doing such things are labeled "troll", whether they're trolling or not.
And I disagree that "undesired" posts keep good posts from being moderated up. I'm sorry. There ARE no good posts moderated up, ever, just karma-whoring junk. I think the ability to moderate posts up is almost useless, 90% of the stuff modded up is the same banal mindless karma-whore junk.
Peace out.
Unfortunately, we cannot trust the Clinton-Gore administration to properly administer anything. Most likely, the money will end up in the hands of 1) DNC contributors 2) People's Liberation Army of China 3) Both
> The idea that computers would not exist without
> government support is ludicrous. By the fifties,
> IBM and other companies were already pioneering
> commercial uses of computers, and private
> universities were engaging in research.
The naïveté of licensarians never ceases to amaze me. Just who do you think IBM's only customer for those "giant brains" was going to be?
That's right--the Government--you know, the people who funded the original research so we could beat the Nazis and the Japanese, then funded a *much* bigger effort so we could beat the Communists.
Read some history that wasn't written by that moron L. Neil Smith and his ilk. It'll do you good.
What part of "A well regulated militia" do you not understand?
Unfortunately, this is not a given! For example, pharmaceutical companies get millions (billions?) of tax dollars each year for their research. Then they own the drugs we paid them to create. Then they sell them for what the market will bear (think: life-or-death situations, and wealthy insurance companies), rather than what it costs to produce them (likely minimal in bulk). Then they let people die who can't pay market price.
We shouldn't let the same thing happen with this nanotech research, or any other tax-funded research for that matter. Be wary of politicians who want to put too much in the hands of corporations-- they are likely just giving our goods to their friends and campaign contributors.
Heh. I've fired off the same sorts of post, too... I hope I didn't come across as a flame, I just wanted to get my point out.
:)
Well, yeah, my statements about Congress and the president were somewhat wishful thinking. If we get lucky, maybe some of them will trip across those statements and get flattered into spending more money on science.
There are quite a few cases where Congress has really shown that it pays attention to science, though. The example on the top of my head is from when the Republicans took over the House in the early nineties. (1994, right?) Anyway, the freshmen Republicans went about slashing and burning as much government spending as they could, under the assumption that all government spending was wasted money. They tried to gut science funding as well.
However, if I remember correctly, the elder statesmen of both parties pulled them aside, and filled them in on how important science funding is, in economic, defence, and social value. I don't remember how well they fared, and if they succeeded in preventing a lot of the cuts. (I was in college at the time, and didn't get to follow the details of the debate.) Previous to that, though, I had assumed Congress had very little interest in science. I believe now that they are at least keeping an eye on scientific progress.
I'm glad to see the president talking about science funding, and wish the presidential candidates would, too. I fully intend on holding my representatives responsible for their votes and actions related to science.
John Karcz
Anyone want to wager that Slick Willy thinks he's an incarnation of Dirk Pitt? (or at least Pitt's libido... :-)
I find it amusing that Clinton advocates this just a few weeks after Clive Cussler's newest novel is released.
In Atlantis Found nanotechnology plays a key role in a plot to destroy civilization as we know it.
Coincedence? I'd bet not.
--Kit
Former Inmate, VA Linux Sanitarium
Isn't Hemos supposed to be posting this stuff?
Rob, let Hemos out of his cage, please.
For the record, I'm a different person than the original poster, and I just didn't bother to change the subject.
Who says we want a 3-party system? We're out to replace one of the existing major parties.
Look Thomas Edison, or the famed Bell Labs. These are not cruel, heartless researchers, but rather geniuses, wishing to advance science, who would like to feed their families at the end of the day.
Sure, just ask Nikola Tesla (in reference to Edison of course).
Instead of spending BILLIONS of dollars on researching tiny harddrives, perhaps it would be a better idea to take care of the thousands of people who do not have a home in America? Then again, that's just a thought that crossed my mind....
I may be mistaken, since I usually don't pay much attention to normal news, but it seems like we now have a budget surplus (although we still are deeply in debt)
indierock / punkrock band photos and more... http://www.digitaldefection.net
Vik :v)
Yeah sure, let the government have control of developments in nanotech. Who here doesn't think the President's military advisors aren't drooling over nanotech's bio-warfare potential?
Okay, that's enough X-Files paranoia for now =)
Arguing about vi versus Emacs is like arguing whether it's better to make fire by rubbing sticks or banging rocks.
"yahoo.com" was mentioned as an example and I didn't re-edit ... it should be for any free webmail site that allows unregulated multiple accounts per person.
It is more productive to voice thoughtful opinions (reply) than to judge (moderate) others.
I know of a lot of people that agree with your viewpoint---that government shouldn't meddle with scientific reason, primarily because if something gets discovered, that the government really wants, it gets classified, and then it is never seen again except on one of those documentaries on PBS or something. However, society doesn't exactly work that way. In order to do research, you need funding. However, a lot of companies that fund scientific research fund things that probably will benefit society in some huge way (cure for AIDS, cancer, etc...), not just because something is cool. But, the government has money to spend on up and coming research and they aren't like a business where they need to turn a profit each year (but I guess if you consider Amazon..never). I'm in favor of less government, but I think that the government is still a damn good source of money.
Oh, I'm also a student at Caltech (where Clinton spoke). Unfortunately I wasn't able to see him live because a select number of student tickets were handed out "semi-randomly" or whatever the hell that means (I think they primarity handed them out to students in student govt. and minorities as just a hunch). And also I was just wondering if anyone saw the huge sign that some students made and unfurled outside the auditorium that had a picture of Clinton, but then said "Impeach Nixon!". I'm out.
Is it just me, or does every mention of 'nanotech' remind me of The Diamond Age?
I admit, my reply was rather dashed off to a poorly worded statement. (Might have something to do with not having slept yet... )
I admit, my reply was rather dashed off to a poorly worded statement. (Might have something to do with not having slept yet... )
I further agree that funding needs to be improved all around, and- astronomy has significant ability to contribute to science/tech on many fronts. I also agree that the scarcity model for funding sucks!
The only area that I'm likely to quibble with is
"I think the president and Congress both understand how good of an investment science is, and that the effort has to be spread around to advance the state of the art on as many fronts as possible.
I think that they also are very aware that the country will receive economic and spriritual returns commensurate with whatever level of funding they they provide for the sciences. "
This is not at all apparent to me. I believe it is quite possibly the case with some individuals in Congress, but the majority don't have the vision nor insight for that type of thinking... (alas, I wish it were otherwise...)
LetterRip
(I do promise to not make quite a fool of myself next time tho... or at least pay more attention to my sleep deprived brain)
"Statements like, "President Clinton, only the second ever to be impeached, and whose character was impugned by astonishing revelations of improper and crass behavior..." are NOT what he has in mind for schoolkids to learn years from now."
Ouch, is that really the sort of thing they put in school history books in your country? I should have thought a decription of what he was accused of, how he defended himself, what was found, how that affected his ability to govern, that sort of thing, not "astonishing revelations of improper and crass behaviour" - that's value judgment for the reader not part of a history text.
Umm, did you read the first paragraph? I believe that we can't save ourselves by ignorance, and that we should always look to new ways to solve the new problems created by technology. If it turns out that technology lets gets us to the point where we erradicate ourselves, then so be it. I'm 100% in support of Nano-tech, nuclear research, cloning, bio-engineering, and anything else that we can think of.
But I wasn't arguing my opinion, just making an observation...
-
We cannot reason ourselves out of our basic irrationality. All we can do is learn the art of being irrational in a reasonable way.
> I just blew all 5 of my moderation points trying to get rid of that morons "Q"'s and F*** You's
I hear you. It seems to me that there are two strategies being used by moderators, which revolve around level 0:
Strategy 1: Mark down AC spam to -1, under the theory that some readers will want to read with a filter level of zero. The downside is, this can use-up a lot of moderator points if there is a lot of spam to remove.
Strategy 2: "Abandon" level 0 to the spammers, don't mark anything down, mark up all worthwhile AC posts from 0 to +1 (or higher), so that everyone except moderators can read at +1 (or higher). The downside is, AC posts which are only "average" remain at 0.
It would be better if everyone used the same strategy, otherwise some points will not be used efficiently. Personally, I favor strategy 2, for the following reasons:
a) The situation is not symmetrical: It is a lot easier for an AC to post spam than to post a worthwhile message.
b) Moderating is a bit of a pain, and I don't think moderators should make the effort to read everything and then have to waste their points on spam.
> So why not require ALL users to register
Say Slashdot does a story on a company, and someone in the company wants to make a quick comment, but wouldn't bother if they had to take the trouble to register.
Ah, but wait until some DoD scientist injects people with nanotech that creates Borg implants and extreme motivation to assimilate... :-)
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
As long as
a) the research doesn't wander into certain
morality issues, like involving fetal-tissue
research or cloning
b) there's a budget surplus and the science
doesn't cost THAT much
c) it doesn't strike people as blatantly silly
There probably won't be that much opposition.
Were tax revenues NOT so unexpectedly high c/o the booming economy, then there might be griping about cost-effectiveness.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
This may be a really inane question, but I'm curious. Why do you spell Clinton with a 'K'? Is it supposed to be an insult of some sort? Not that I defend Clinton at all, it just seems kind of petty.
damn. i'd put some money on them being the first to market on any nanotech.
Dr. Ralph Merkle, crypto-god, is now working for them and no doubt played a big part in getting this funding for nanotech (which Zyvex will no doubt see some of). - Uberdog
There is lots of private money going around for private research, and there would be more if the government wasn't pumping so much money into it.
Bringing in Private Funding is bad.
1. The science research will only be about getting the company more money. So, would the company allow its data to be spread out in the world (open-source) or would they hoard it, making their competitors have to use money to find out the same info.
Governments are notoriously inefficient
2. That is true because governments are a lot more effective. The gov't wil try to find the entire effects of research (effects on enviorment, people, etc). While companies don't want to use so much money on studies that could be pointless.
think a much better use of that money is an accross-the-board tax cut.
I don't want to get into this, but poor families that work very hard for little money should get priority in tax cuts.
Well i wanted to write more, but i need to go.
Only dead fish swim with the stream...
Did anyone mention that Clinton's speech was at Caltech? It was very cool. They locked down the whole building where the speech was, crazy security. I have pictures of the Secret Service snipers that they put on top of some of the buildings :).
And darn, they had to cancel classes friday morning because of it.
This is just the latest clinton-wants-to-spend-federal-money-for-X story.
He's desparatly trying to put his hand into
the public till while he still can, trying
to get some lasting, good thing associated with
him to wipe out memories/associations of...well...
what do you think of first when you of
"Bill Clinton and..." ?
---Eludom
With no political power, and the knowledge that he will be gone soon, Billy boy has about as much pull is washington as a dead cat. There's a reason the call the last year of a term the "Lame Duck" year.
_________________________
_________________________
There's already a startup with the name Zyvex that is already working on building a functioning replicator. Their time scale is over a decade and their attracting some of the better people in the field. Some people think that the impressive nanotech stuff will happen sooner rather than later.
hes funding this doing that even though he isnt going to get back into office. i wonder if he and algore have something going on...
icq:=22921393;
Perhaps I could slip my name onto a couple checks
Who would notice, really?
Seriously though, Why should the government invest anything over a million $$ in this?
I'm not saying It's unimportant, I'm just wondering what good money will do for the process
-- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
... and Viagra? Or does the Clinton and the CIA know more then we think :)
I mean, SOMETHING must have motivated Bill into dumping $2.8 billion dollars onto it's research.....
BTW: The "Q" boy is back... little lamer.
"Please, oh god pleae do something?"
"Sorry, Mr Torvalds is out to lunch."
Besides, I do find some of the trolls mildly amusing so it wouldn't be such a hardship IMO but it may act as a good filter for the mindless waste-of-time trolls/spam.
Rich
Ergo, we have the government making a long term investment for the public good. You know what's the first of three biggest lies? "I'm from government, and I'm here to help you". What you stated, i.e. the government is supposed to work for public good is propaganda for naive only (Ronald McDonald -- we do it just for you). The government is approximately as selfish as corporations are. Corporations just aren't that hypocritical. The only and single purpose of Clinton funding nanotech generously with your money, err, government's money, is to be able to get credit for eventual success of nanotech. Al Gore tried the same thing with funding Internet related research. The money that Clinton can put in nanotech research is hardly decisive wrt eventual success of failure of nanotech. There is too big stake for corporations to evade this chance. Corporations are going to work on this anyway, just like they have worked in the past on developement of computers -- take a look at the past of computers for an example. The money for nanotech by Clinton is only window dressing that is supposed to be background of Clinton himself to smile in front of nanotech and get interviewed in the tone "I made it happen!".
What is 'The Diamond Age'?
"What is freedom of expression? Without the freedom to offend, it ceases to exist." Salman Rushdie
This point doesn't seem to mix well with a common /. mindset, unfortunately. Like in the discussion of the race to patent human genes there seemed to be little understanding that the Human Genome Project is funded by goverments specifically to "open source" the info and make the benifits of it avalible to all. If everyone gets a tax cut and a pharmacutical co uses their huge portion of it to produce a proprietary treatment that they can charge me whatever the market will bear on, my extra 100 bucks a year isn't gonna help me that much. On the other hand, if the government is making scientific advances avalible to all and the resulting treatments are widespread and less expensive, everyone benifits, including those who don't make enough money for tax cuts to mean anything to them.
While companies don't want to use so much money on studies that could be pointless.
In one of his books, Carl Sagen talks about the then current aversion to anything resembling "pure research" in government science funding. He made a fairly good argument that many of our greatest technological advancements were based on research that at its start would have been dismissed as non-technologically driven and practically useless.
...will work for Chick tracts...
Can't we balance the budget first?
Sheepdot: Open Source good, Closed Source baaaaaaad!
Your forgetting that large sums of money are not thrown into the military for actual war, but furthering scientific research into making better weapons. Though I could care less about multi billion dollar methods of killing other humans, there are lots of times when the military gives its technology back to the people. For instance, an underwater air tank/rebreather system that was developed either for the SEALs or Marines (I don't remember), which allows closer studies of marine life and their behavior.
And without military spending, we wouldn't have other more notable weapons such as the atomic bomb, which actually furthered our understanding of nuclear physics.
However, I still would rather see more money being spent directly into scientific research, instead of waiting for the side effects of military developments.
I think it's fantastic that our gov't is finally seeing the importance of science and learning...more money should go into science and the pursuit of knowledge than to guns and warfare...but then again..nothing makes money like a good war :)
If you're not a Liberal in your 20's, then you have no heart.If you're still a Liberal in your 30's you have no brain.
Since when has he had any use for her BRAIN?? ;-)
"There is no shot you can take that I cannot simply deny." - Ertai, wizard goalie
too bad nanotech doesnt make those nanoites like on star trek tng. that would be sweet
roche
Bah Humbug!
I concur.
Most people don't realize this, but Eric Drexler, the main person promoting nanotech, briefed Al Gore in a private audiance about the possibilities of nanotech years ago, as described in his second book, Unbounding the Future.
I love the idea of nanotechnology. I love the idea of limitless resources, perhaps using hydrogen fuel to generate elecrtic power, and nano to do our manufacturing and medical care. I'm not too terribly worried about a nano-war, as it is much easier to destroy than create and agressive nanotechnology assembers would have to create duplicates of themselves as they went along, giving the defenders the advantage.
I *AM* scared of the "government", i.e., a totally closed environment developing nano, because I just know the elitist fools in power will decide that nano is too much power for the masses.
Granted, the societial change caused by genuine working nano-assemblers would be dramatic. Barring assine copyright stupidity, etc, material goods of all sorts will be next to nothing. Who cares that China can build stuff now with their manufacturing capability? Nanotech will eliminate that nasty problem. But what will happen when everyone who wants one can have, say, a jet airplane? Talk about congestion..
But I digress. I'm afraid of nano being invented in a closed government lab, only to be repressed, and then false stuff planted in the scientific literature to persuade everyone else in the world that nano is unfeasable. Unbelievable? I don't know. I don't know if the authorities would ever be able to cope with the people having that much power. And, there's not too many businesses I'd trust with nano either. Therefore, I propose creating a new company to develop nano, with the following setup:
1. Clone Richard Feynman. Feynman, arguably the second most intelligent man of the century (we all know that Dennis Miller is the first)was the first to propose nano...and then sort of made fun of it, even going so far as to critize Drexler for "wasting your time on this nano stuff when there's more interesting things out there." Oh, come on. Feynman worked on the Manhattan Project. He knew you can't stop science, he also knew that maybe we weren't quite ready for nano...so he sort of trivialized it in the hopes of not encouraging nano research until we as a race were a bit better. Anyhow, we'll make Feynman the CEO of our private little company, but we gotta clone him 'cause he's been dead for like 13 years.
2. Make Steve Wozniak Head of Research.
3. Bring Steve Case in as head of Marketing. Yes, we all know that AOL is the work of Satan (the demonic entity, not the Unix tool), not Steve Case, but still, the guy knows how to market stuff.
4. Bring in Jessie Ventura as Head Lobbyist. Congress will think the nano movement is a bunch of nutcases, and consequently not bother passing a bunch of stupid laws regulating nano. (although I will concede that if any a technology needed intelligent regulation, it's nano - which can be both an incredibly liberating and incredibly oppressing technology)
5. Give Paul Allen a job at the company, because he needs one.
6. Give Linus Torvalds a job at the same company, for the same reason. Laptops that can last for a day on a 9-bolt battery? Who cares! We want laptops that can build themselves, and then eat their surroundings and turn into pepperoni pizzas when they're done!
7. Appoint Hedy Lamarr head of PR. Sure, she's dead, but she's also quite nice to look at on camera, sassy enough not to take crap from reporters, and she understands technology. Plus, she might mate with Linus and they can father beatiful nerd children. We'll just have to go to backup and find a Hedy from, say, circa 1940.
8. Bomb Seattle. Sure, it won't help advance nanotechnology any, but it'll prevent Microsoft from trying to acquire the rights.
9. Put Drexler to work in a lab, supervising a bunch of biologists trying to make protein structures that can be altered and a bunch of geeks with scanning tunneling microscopes. One of the groups will make an assembler. Feed both groups regularly with beer and cheeze puffs.
10. Hire a bunch of patent lawyers and feed them raw meat, and take away their sexual partners. This should also produce results.
There we go. If these steps are taken, I am confident that we shall have free nanotechology soon, live forever, and be happy.
Great. More money down the drain. At least this research (assuming it isn't a cover for something else) may actually do some good... I guess we should be thankful they're not spending it on a study of cow farts this time...
There is a way to convince people of the benefits that basic research brings. Be specific, give specific examples and stories of past success. Remind people that humans are not born with PCs in their laps. Be fully creative in your approach and smile, darn you, smile! KBSS
I realize that this is OT for this thread, but I'm a little bothered right now because I see the same spamming idiot is posting in this story. I just blew all 5 of my moderation points trying to get rid of that morons "Q"'s and F*** You's in the robot thread. Those were 5 moderation points I would have normally used to score up GOOD articles (I prefer to moderate up, not down). So here's my suggestion, take it or leave it.
:) So why not require ALL users to register, and have Slash record a secure log so that ONLY /. staff can identify (and kick) the users causing the problems? If you wanted to secure it even more, Slashdot could also add in a bit of code limiting new registrations to a few posts per thread for a limited period of time after signup, and prevent Slash from registering more than one account per email address, per month or so. I realize that nothing can absolutely stop morons like these, but you can at least make it difficult for them.
/. needs to get rid of the "true" AC account. The classic objection to doing this has been the fact that not everyone can comfortably post if they can be easily ID'd. Well, look at me right now. I'm an AC, but I'm also a regular user with an account...the "Post Anonymously" checkbox is my friend
And if anyones wondering why I'm posting AC, it's because I don't really feel like dealing with a mailbomb just because I admitted to moderating him down. I feel embarrased at hiding my identity because of an annoying little s**t, but it's not worth the hassle to reveal myself.
The use of this spam *is* to get moderator's to waste points. Why? Because me and many others are extremely pissed at the number of UNFAIR moderations going on. Even if an article deviates *slightly* from the moderators moral, religious or personal convictions, you get moderated down.
This is the only way we can fight back.
Just watch, this very post will get moderated down.
It's so good to hear fellow /.'ers expressing Libertarian views, especially without making it blatanly clear that one is doing so, like I always feel the need to ;)
It's so hard to convince people that gov't funding is always bad. We say, "the gov't shouldn't be funding nanotech research." And people say, "What, you're opposed to nanotech development?!" as if we're some kind of heretics. But that's not what we said! The issue is that the gov't is stealing (yes, taxes = theft) copious amounts of money from us constantly, and it doesn't matter WHAT they spend it on, the mere fact that they have it at all is completely unethical and, in the words of Frederic Bastiat, "a perversion of the law".
If you're not a member already, I suggest you join the party! http://www.lp.org
MoNsTeR
The previous poster's example about mapping the solar system was poor, but so is your analysis about which science is the most productive to invest in.
:)
:) of biophysics. The various branches of chemistry are employed, and materials science and nanotechnology are developed by NASA for astronomical exploration, too.
:)
You can't simply claim that one is "the best bang for the buck," since they're all intertwined!
Astrophysics and astronomy advance science (and technology) on multiple fronts, too. Astrophysics involves basically all aspects of "pure" physics: High energy physics, condensed matter physics, plasma physics, etc. etc, with the possible exception (so far
I agree that nanotechnology must be heavily studied, too. I also see, though, that nano investment is a field much more prone to heavy private funding, in addition to government funding, since there is so much perceived short term gain.
However, there's no reason for us to quibble about such things, because no science (or technological endeavor) should have to fight for funding with any other. We should all be funded to the hilt.
I think the president and Congress both understand how good of an investment science is, and that the effort has to be spread around to advance the state of the art on as many fronts as possible.
I think that they also are very aware that the country will receive economic and spriritual returns commensurate with whatever level of funding they they provide for the sciences.
For all of you reporters out there, could you please write some stories on this? For the senators (former and current) who are running, what are their voting records on scientific and engineering matters? (I'm not interested in, "So-and-so wants a moratorium on net taxes." We've heard tons about the net, computers, and health care policy (which isn't science), but we've heard very little about pure science and the like.)
Here are a few questions I'd love to hear at a debate:
Those are the sorts of questions I'd love to see asked. I don't expect them to be an expert at any subject, I'd just like to know that they are interested in the scientific and engineering progress of the country, and that they have some rough picture, at least, of where the nation is headed.
Anyway, I'd love to hear any information people have on the candidates' views on science.
John Karcz
(*) If Bush says, "I discovered Jesus," I won't be terribly surprised.
The government funds research in practically every branch of knowledge, so it's not surprising that they helped fund the development of the computer.
But the question is not: has government funding led to useful research? The question is: would society be better off if the government had not funded that research. I think there is a case to be made that it did.
The idea that computers would not exist without government support is ludicrous. By the fifties, IBM and other companies were already pioneering commercial uses of computers, and private universities were engaging in research. It is possible (although I think unlikely) that it would have taken longer for the computer revolution to occur, but I rather doubt it. And since the mid-seventies, the PC industry has taken off with essentially no government support.
One of the primart effects of research funding of the computer industry today is simple corporate welfare. For example, the US has been encouraging the formation of "partnerships" between US semiconductor firms, and these "partnerships have been supported with lots of Federal money. The result of these kinds of subsidies has simply been to entrench the established players in the industry.
We see what government money has helped to create. We do not see what would be if the government had not spent that money. The fact that some government money went to fund important research does not mean that other research wasn't wasteful, or that on average private funding would have gotten better results.
In one of his books, Carl Sagen talks about the then current aversion to anything resembling "pure research" in government science funding. He made a fairly good argument that many of our greatest technological advancements were based on research that at its start would have been dismissed as non-technologically driven and practically useless.
Which may be why so many corporations hire people to do basic research. They realize that while they can't see a future in it at the moment, the payoff should a breakthrough be made would be enourmous. I will again point out the example of "IBM" being written on Xenon atoms. This clearly doesn't improve IBM's bottom line in the short run, but by funding this type of research, they are giving themselves a leg up if nanotech proves to be as powerful as some people think it is.
The science research will only be about getting the company more money. So, would the company allow its data to be spread out in the world (open-source) or would they hoard it, making their competitors have to use money to find out the same info.
This is demonstrably not true. There are many corporations that pay their researchers to do basic research, in the hope that they will stumble on something that will lead to a product down the road. These corporations may "hoard" their data in some cases, but they also need to keep their researchers happy. In scientific circles, one's prestige is largely determined by one's published work, and so many researchers will insist on the right to publish before they will accept a position.
Also, "private funding" does not necessarily mean "corporate funding." Private Universities and private charities are also a factor. Look at the American Heart Association, or the other analogous organizations for other diseases. And a big tax cut will allow more of this kind of funding to exist, since the wealthy will have more money to give to charity.
That is true because governments are a lot more effective. The gov't wil try to find the entire effects of research
That's not what I meant. What I meant was tht it is inefficient in that it is wasteful in its use of funding, both in excessive paper-pushing, and in making poor choices about who is to get funding. It is very easy to make poor choices when you are giving away other peoples' money and you have lots of it. Private foundations are founded by people who care specifically about what is being researched, and they have to convince their donors to give them money. That means that they have much more incentive to ensure that the grants are being used for worthwhile purposes.
I don't want to get into this, but poor families that work very hard for little money should get priority in tax cuts.
I think everyone should get a massive tax cut, rich and poor alike. And I don't think anyone should get "priority." The point of a tax cut is returning to taxpayers the money they earn, not social engineering. If the tax burden if 10% of the economy rather than 40%, it is much less of a big deal who has to pay for it.
Not likely that nanotech can end society; it may end society as we know it. But then, the personal computer has ended society the way our parents knew it. If you haven't read it, check out Neal Stephenson's book The Diamond Age. It's a great thought-experiment on nanotech, as well as a pretty good sci-fi read.
As for copy protection, manufacturing won't disappear, because of basic economics of technology: the manufacturers will be developing fast, cheap mass-production nanotech facilities (really just storage warehouses with hundreds of matter compilers) that can outdo any single, home-use matter compiler. Prices will go down, profits will be huge (companies pay for seawater, pumps, and a few programmers to run the matter compilers), and home units will still be grossly expensive. Much like stereo component CD-burners, the industry lobby will doubtless come up with a scheme to keep the prices of home-use compilers high until they've developed the next generation.
Eventually, home-use will take over, but the manufacturers will have plenty of time to pack up and get inside before it rains.
As for the benefits:
medical technology like arterial plaque cleaners; information technology like a dispersed smog of weather nanites that beam back position, velocity, and air pressure to NOAA;
diamond windows cheaper than glass;
stronger and lighter materials revolutionizing spaceflight and all material intensive engineering;
and more...
Don't be scared, it's just the future. Make friends while he's still a puppy.
--jurph
American People, this is YOUR MONEY Clinton is
so happily waving around and trying to spend.
A 2.8$ billion increase, well that's somewhere
in the neighborhood of 10.76$ each citizen.
So the Federal government comes along and takes
10.76$ out of your pocket, and all of you shout
'Thank you sir may I please have another!'.
Federally sponsored science programs are one of
the most ineffective and inefficient ways to
do science. In a private scenario, there is more
accountability, and more competition to do
science in the best way.
If you really want to support science, invest
in the companies that are doing the kind of
research you are interested in, and take the
power of government back into your own hands.
Let me leave you with a quote:
"The American Republic will endure, until
politicians realize they can bribe the people
with their own money."
-- Alexis de Tocqueville
L
A good thing. I saw this announcement on CNN last night, and after the Clinton clip, the reporter stated that as per a study (i forget the name), scientific research is THE BEST investment of the government dollar that there is. I only wish they increased funding for physics explpicitly. As to whether the Republican Congress will go along with it, it might seem rather suprising, but in the last budget, they actually increased the president's science budget by a bit. CNN also had a clip of a Republican Congresswoman on the science committee commending the president's initative.
YAY SCIENCE!!
A wealthy eccentric who marches to the beat of a different drum. But you may call me "Noodle Noggin."
Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati
...we don't have to worry about everything we know being invalidated by the complete change nanotech would bring about.
If he comes through with the money, it will kill nanotech progress as effectively as NASA has killed space exploration and travel.
"is to be able to get credit for eventual success of nanotech"
I wasn't speaking to motivation when I said for the public good, I was refering to end effect. If Al Gore wants credit for the internet, or Clinton for nanotech, who cares? As long as the end result is more basic research being done which achieves the long term interests of the people.
LetterRip
As unpopular as it may be, I'm totally against this funding. Do I want to see science advanced? Are nanobites cool? Of course. But why in the world do we want to have them funded by the government? Why is that the government's responsibility (or privelege)?
All this is is Big Papa Clinton giving all of his children another toy to keep them happy and loyal. This country was founded on the principle that (federal) government should be responsible for a few very important things, such as national defense and commerce laws between states, but largely since the great depression and FDR, that focus has changed for some reason.
If the government is providing the money (of course, they aren't, it's really our money, but that's another issue), the government will also be controlling the results to some extent. You can argue that if you want to, but it's true.
Why is it evil for the private sector to do research? Look Thomas Edison, or the famed Bell Labs. These are not cruel, heartless researchers, but rather geniuses, wishing to advance science, who would like to feed their families at the end of the day.
The one handing out the money has the power. Why centralize the power?
TerraAlien
-----
Does Clinton want to be known for having started a second Manhattan project (I suppose it is a lot better than what he will most likely be known for)?
If your position is that we shouldn't explore something that's dangerous, you picked a piss-poor example in the Manhattan project.
If the US hadn't poured a whole bunch of money into that project in a hell of hurry, somebody else would have gotten it first, and the world would be in way worse shape than it presently is.
You can't fight something unless you understand it, and you can't fully understand it unless you can build it from scratch.
I think a much better use of that money is an accross-the-board tax cut. There is lots of private money going around for private research, and there would be more if the government wasn't pumping so much money into it. Governments are notoriously inefficient, and I question whether government should be in the business of funding research.
There is also a fundamentally anti-scientific element to having a centralized source for all of the research funding. A scientist with a wacky idea is far more likely to get funding if there are dozens of private sources than if most of the money comes from one source.
Certainly there are worse things the government can do with a billion dollars, but I'd much rather see it returned to the people who earned it.
Well, yes, we will have.
Anyway, the article doesn't go into a lot of detail. It's entirely possible that some of the proposed funds would go to astronomy. Want to increase the odds of that? Contact your gov't reps.
What abunch of Luddites.
:v)
Look guys, we're grown up enough to get over the "Gray Goo" scenarios of killer, runaway nanobots. We have the damn things already, with names like "Ebloa", "HIV, "Hepatitis" and "Termites". The only reason we can't currently beat them is because we don't have control of a suitably advanced technology.
Nanotechnology is THE advanced technology. It is the only technology we would be able to counter a deliberate nanotechnology offensive with - if anyone were able to build a serious nanotech weapon, and that is not as simple as it seems.
The alternative is to wait - either not doing much, or actively banning nanotechnology, it doesn't matter much - until they develop nanotechnology in Switzerland, Brazil, Japan or whatever. Once someone builds a single functional assembler, it will not be hard to distribute copies or cross national boundaries.
Transmeta has already started the process with their "soft" processor. The design concepts and partnership with IBM have inexorably set in motion a series of steps which will bring us protein-based nanotechnology within 5 years, and an assembler probably by 2010.
I've rounded up the details and links on http://olliver.peng uinpowered.com/launchpad/transprocessor.html
Vik
Research in nano is nice, because it advances technological fronts on many sides- materials science/manufacturing, chemistry, molecular biology, medicine, computer science
A mapping of the near earth objects/space is of little return (short term). Also, by waiting a few years technological improvements could greatly increase the search speed. (recall the article about waiting to start on computer intensive projects because of moores law?)
Thus a nano/related investment is probably the best bang for the buck...
LetterRip
There is a world of difference between basic nanotechnology, and a full scale autonomous replicator. Probably on the order of 20 to 50 years of reasearch difference, minimum. Early nano allows for better basic materials sciene- ie fewer flaws in metals, plastics, silicon, which increases strength, reduces resistance, and basically improves properties all around.
This is very early level stuff, your talking at least twenty years off for the applications you speak of (and much more likely closer to 100...)
LetterRip
Things like Astronomy have been languishing for years. You'd think that with the recent hoopla over asteroids, we'd at least be spending megabucks on a complete mapping of the local area of the solar system. Nope, just the same token investments through NASA as always.
:-(
/., so he can say his peace), but there are plenty of other sciences that the US is ignoring, and other countries are mostly following our lead.
This, not to mention the tremendous value in such things as solar research which could help us better understand our climate and the dangers that might be posed to us by our own "life-giving" sun.
Nah, nanotech is cooler. If we shrink the space used for the Library of Congress, we'll have *really* accomplished something.
I'm picking on astronomy because I have a friend in the field (who also reads/posts to
I am teaching a college astronomy course again for the first time in about 15 years. It is astonishing to me to see how more information we have been able to accumulate in that time, and the effect that our nearly instantaneous access to that information is having on the way I can teach. So much of this change seems to be because the access to the information allows groups to informally come together to share resources and work together in problem solving. (e.g. One fundemental insight into a solution is quickly shared and implemented when you can just knock together a webpage and post it rather than waiting for the peer-reviewed journals to publish your short paper.)
Nano tech devices that would allow for raw information to be distributed more effeciently would increase the rate of progress.
The only downside to this announcement is that ~500 million of a 2.8 billion dollar budget isn't really nearly the kind of investment we should be making in fundenmental research.
There must be some sort of mechanism (other invoking "Tang" and "Blister packaging") to convince people of the benefits that investing basic research brings.
In illa quae ultra sunt
When you create an account, you also get given an "anonymous user" account.
Now here's the clever bit
There is no link whatsoever between your normal user account and the Anonymous user account. You can use either to post but slashdot keeps no information to link the accounts. Also, there is nothing to distinguish one Anonymous User from another. (Note that a side effect of this is that an individual anonymous user cannot accumulate karma since this could identify someone with high karma (although it might be good to allow karma to be used if the anonymous user wants to)
The good thing is that anonymous cowards drop below the event horizon (unless they get moderated up) but people with genuine comments they may not wished to be attributed to their real personas get to post. If someone abuses their AU persona, it is banned. True they can get another one by re-registering as a new real user but at least that requires some degree of effort and is more likely to discourage the casual spammer.
Rich
Research is, obviously, a Very Good Thing. But let's remember Clinton promises everyone that they'll get special treatment in the budget next year. He doesn't actually push for everything, since if he did, we'd be back in debt. So he just blames Congress instead. We can only hope that science is one of those things he's willing to actually do more than talk about.
After Clipper Chip/CDA/etc, I'm not too optimistic.
i found these two links from the A-Infos Radio Project:
this is an MP3 interview with the Professor
and this is his essay on Nanosocialism
basically he talks about the social aspects of nanotechnology, building on some of the promise resident in the molecular and massively mirco scale.
I'm not someone who advocates trying to resist the progress of technology, I believe we have to embrace it and change our lives accordingly, but its interesting that Nano-technology research is not more controversial considering the possible dangers involved.
The "dangers" involved in debated and even banned areas such as human cloning, bio engineering, and true AI are really pretty small compared with Nanotech, where one invisibly small nanomachine, programmed to multiply and destroy its host could eradicate life on earth and still not stop. Does Clinton want to be known for having started a second Manhattan project (I suppose it is a lot better than what he will most likely be known for)?
And the prospect of Nanotech has some _very_ interesting implications on the current RIAA, MPAA, and other "evil forces of the world" situation with the freedom of Information. When nanotech comes along, will we have a Copyright Act that forbids programming nanomachines to work-around "nano-scan protection systems"? Will Ford sue me for writing a Nano-assembler that can make a copy of your neighbors Mustang? Will Coca-Cola go after me for having bought one bottle and then copied it to all my friends at the party? And most importantly, if its true as the Copyright defenders say, that copy protection is necessary for the economy to work, will society then end with Nanotech? Maybe all the companies that produce physcial items ought to be out lobbying congress to not spend another cent on Nano-research, which could cripple their bussiness!!!
-
We cannot reason ourselves out of our basic irrationality. All we can do is learn the art of being irrational in a reasonable way.