Slashdot Mirror


New Russian Science City Modeled On Silicon Valley

Hugh Pickens writes "Russia's rich scientific traditions and poor record of converting ideas into marketable products are both undisputed, cited as causes for the Soviet collapse and crippling dependence on mining and petroleum. Now the NY Times reports that the Russian government, hoping to diversify its economy away from oil, is building the first new scientific city since the collapse of the Soviet Union modeled, improbably, on Silicon Valley and jokingly referred to as Cupertino-2. 'The whole country needs some sort of breakthrough,' says Viktor F. Vekselberg, the Russian business oligarch appointed co-director of the project. 'The founding of the innovation city, in form and substance, could be a launching pad for the country as a whole.' The new town is intended to advance five scientific priorities — communications, biomedicine, space, nuclear power, and energy conservation — and to encourage cross-fertilization among disciplines. Property will not be owned, but rented, and the government will offer grants for scientists who struggle to find private financing. Once developed, the city is intended to incubate scientific ideas using generous tax holidays and government grants until the start-ups can become profitable companies. Its backers in government and the private sector describe it as an effort to blend the Soviet tradition of forming scientific towns with Western models of encouraging technology ventures around universities. 'In California, the climate is beautiful and they don't have the ridiculous problems of Russia,' says Andrey Shtorkh, publicist for the new venture, adding that to compete, Russia will form a place apart for scientists. 'They should be isolated from our reality.'"

43 of 213 comments (clear)

  1. Five Year Plan by PeterBrett · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Well, I hope that this centrally-dictated economic activity works better than the 20th century ones did.

    1. Re:Five Year Plan by Cryacin · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Science is one thing that if done right under socialism works best. I definitely do not promote a Socialist or Communist political environment as being overall good/bad/otherwise, merely that science does not have definite returns, and if it does, the timeframe is very rarely visible/correct on prediction.

      This means that generally there is too much risk for a commercial enterprise to indefinitely fund research into something that may or may not provide payoffs, and if it does, perhaps not into their current vehicles. I.e. fusion power may be discovered by a deep sea mining company, meaning that they would need to form a completely new company and structure.

      If science is a socialist thing, then it is about the research and the ability to do something, rather than the added complexity of having what you find to be applicable to your sponsor. This will definitely be an interesting space.

      --
      Science advances one funeral at a time- Max Planck
    2. Re:Five Year Plan by Trepidity · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yeah, it's interesting how much that's true even in the mainly capitalist US. The most significant private-sector research was at quasi-governmental regulated monopolies, like the heydey of Bell Labs. Most research these days ends up being funded by the National Science Foundation, National Institutes of Health, or similar government body. Certainly most fundamental research is: I don't know of any significant physics research that's come out of the private sector since the Bell Labs days.

    3. Re:Five Year Plan by countertrolling · · Score: 2, Funny

      Science is one thing that if done right under socialism works best.

      Cable is another..

      --
      For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
    4. Re:Five Year Plan by fpitech · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I think it's more about the death of basic research than private versus public funding. Companies nowadays don't want to invest in basic research because they are risky and long term investments. In my opinion, companies in general are rather investing in marketing and short-term projects that only rarely result in radical innovations, but are marketed as "innovative" despite not offering significant benefits compared to old products.

    5. Re:Five Year Plan by mjwx · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yeah, it's interesting how much that's true even in the mainly capitalist US. The most significant private-sector research was at quasi-governmental regulated monopolies, like the heydey of Bell Labs. Most research these days ends up being funded by the National Science Foundation, National Institutes of Health, or similar government body. Certainly most fundamental research is: I don't know of any significant physics research that's come out of the private sector since the Bell Labs days.

      I think the operative words in the GP's post was "science done right under communism". A socialist agenda may be more conducive to this but I believe the operative term is still "done right".

      We need only look at the advances to come out of organisations like CSIRO in Australia or NASA in the US to see that government backed research yields good results in the long term. I'm certain there are dozens of other organisations we could name and this is before we look at the contributions of universities, which at least in Australia receive significant backing from the government.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    6. Re:Five Year Plan by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 2, Informative

      Well, I hope that this centrally-dictated economic activity works better than the 20th century ones did.

      It doesn't work when corruption is rampant all the way up to the top, and there is no institutionalized mechanism of repression as there was in USSR (where large scale economic crimes could carry death penalty). Which is the case in today's Russia.

      It's not the first time they tout something as a "Russian Silicon Valley", either. There was a project in Siberia, and then there was Dubna. They've actually built some infrastructure in both cases, and both ended up as failures.

      The reason is very simple. If you define "Russian Silicon Valley" as the place for IT innovation and business where Russians work, then it already exists - it's U.S. (and other western countries). Why stay if you can move to a place with a higher standard of living?

    7. Re:Five Year Plan by Hognoxious · · Score: 3, Funny

      Kangaroos. With frickin' stinger missiles!

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    8. Re:Five Year Plan by mjwx · · Score: 3, Informative

      Excuse me? Like what?

      I don't respond to AC's normally and I don't really need the Karma for this but...

      Do you mean "what is CSIRO"?

      Australian Commonwealth Scientific and Research Organisation.

      Or did you mean what are CSIRO's accomplishments (and I hope you're on Wifi being eaten by mosquito's for this one because Wireless LAN and Aeroguard are on that list).

      CSIRAC was the forth stored program computer ever made and one of only two first generation computers still intact.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    9. Re:Five Year Plan by icebike · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The whole country needs some sort of breakthrough,' says Viktor F. Vekselberg, the Russian business oligarch appointed co-director of the project.

      The new boss, same as the old boss.

      Silicon valley was not a government project. And starting a state run program to create what happened spontaneously elsewhere in an environment where competition and markets prevailed is doomed to failure.

      Great way to build a moon rocket or a hydroelectric Dam, and to copy other technology, but hardly the way to spark creativity and new inventions.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    10. Re:Five Year Plan by LWATCDR · · Score: 3, Informative

      I think you are mistaking socialism with a mature and financially stable company.
      Bell back in the regulated monopoly days was with out a doubt mature and financially stable. They could do research that might not pay off for 30 years because they knew they would be around in 30 years to benefit from it. They also built infrastructure that would last for decades even if it cost more for that same reason.
      IBM still produces a lot of basic science for that same reason. They believe that they will be around for another 100 years. GE, DuPont, and Dow chemical used to and probably still do a lot of basic research for that same reason. They are mature and frankly a lot of their profitability is based on science so they benefit from research.
      Even folks like Chrysler back in the 50s got into some pretty wild stuff. Did you know the rocket that launched the first US satellite and the first Mercury sub orbital flight was made by Chrysler?
      Intel is probably reaching the level of maturity and long term profitably that they will start doing a lot of long term research.
      The problem is that the best research will come from companies that do some kind of manufacturing which the US is doing less and less of.
      Take Apple for example. They are not a manufacturing company they are closer to a fashion design house combined with a software developer. Nothing wrong with it but they just don't make stuff. They make pretty packages that they pay other people to fill with stuff Intel and others make. I honestly don't expect anything really ground breaking from them.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
  2. I won't be impressed by Jeian · · Score: 4, Funny

    ... unless they pack it into one giant building and call it an arcology.

  3. Hard to build a diverse technology zone by CRCulver · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Though I couldn't link to it now, several weeks ago I read an analysis of this plan that was rather pessimistic. Earlier Russian scientific communities were, for all the lip service paid to science, really dedicated to furthering atomic weaponry. There was never a great diversity of scientific exploration going on within them, and Russia thus has no experience with establishing communities that can actually create profitable technologies that will boost the country's economy.

    1. Re:Hard to build a diverse technology zone by Yvanhoe · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Earlier Russian scientific communities were, for all the lip service paid to science, really dedicated to furthering atomic weaponry. There was never a great diversity of scientific exploration going on within them, and Russia thus has no experience with establishing communities that can actually create profitable technologies that will boost the country's economy.

      Another way of saying is just that they missed the IT train. But to dismiss their level in aeronautics, space, physics (tokamaks anyone ?) is a bit exaggerated. I think that through this plan they will try to come back on the IT scene and that they have good opportunities for that. We all know about the Russian hackers, it means that they have a wealth of capable and educated people there.

      --
      The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
    2. Re:Hard to build a diverse technology zone by SolitaryMan · · Score: 5, Interesting

      As a programmer living in Russia I can tell you that nobody here believes in this plan. Forget the plan, nobody believes that intentions of this project are other than getting budget funds and sharing them among fellow "companies".

      Besides, this is not the first time (4rth, IIRC) the "Silicon Valley" is being built here, so nobody seems to give a crap anymore.

      --
      May Peace Prevail On Earth
  4. biggest challenge by ridgecritter · · Score: 2, Insightful

    They have intelligence and creativity. Their biggest challenge will be isolation from the corruption that seems endemic to Russia in this time. Corruption is pure poison to economic systems intended to be based on merit in markets. Like adding >300% to your company's overhead...how do you compete, even with fantastic ideas/tech?

  5. Silicon Valley by Rapsey · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Was never built. It grew.

  6. Naive to say the least by EEPROMS · · Score: 2, Insightful

    putting a group if geeks in one spot and throwing money at it wont work, the Japanese did the same and it failed miserable. You have to have not only bright scientists but people who know how to manage and sell the ideas that are created by these people. Im an ideas man in my company but I will be the first to admit without good assistance from those around me I would have given up on many of my concepts within the first hour.

  7. Achilles heel by copponex · · Score: 2, Insightful

    A major defect of capitalism is that it will tend to cater to the lowest common denominator. If everyone invests in the idea that science (evolutionary bioengineering, alternative energy development, vaccines, space exploration) is bad, then the whole economy and culture is going to go south pretty quickly. When China owns the factories and the intellectual property, things won't be looking so good.

    And if Palin and Huckabee end up bickering over which day should be Jesus Day, all I can say is, good game America. It was fun while it lasted.

  8. Why is Silicon Valley successful? by rsborg · · Score: 3, Interesting
    This article says:

    I think you only need two kinds of people to create a technology hub: rich people and nerds. They're the limiting reagents in the reaction that produces startups, because they're the only ones present when startups get started. Everyone else will move.

    Personally, I think there need to realistically be three things, in proper order

    1. A place people like to live
    2. Universities
    3. Military and research installations

    These three conspire to attract rich people and nerds as the article states. That SUN (Stanford University Network), HP and Google are directly from Stanford, and that Oracle got it's start as a government project are quite good examples.

    --
    Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
  9. Lysenkoism makes your argument look foolish. by xmark · · Score: 5, Informative

    Specifically, I'm referring to your argument that "Science is one thing that if done right under socialism works best."

    Under capitalism, science is often bent to the needs of the patron/employer/investor.

    Under socialism, science is often bent to the political needs of the "people" as interpreted and enforced by the government.

    Neither case must necessarily lead to a poor outcome. However, it's naive to think science can be completely unfettered from the society that supports it. All forms of government and economy concentrate power into the hands of a few at the expense of the many. Those few then use that power to shape the actions of others to suit their own needs and beliefs.

    Gloss: Lysenko was the director of the Lenin All-Union Institute of Agricultural Sciences, who decreed as a matter of state ideology (among other bizarre rubbish) that desirable traits in plants were not heritable, but instead could only spread through grafts and nongenetic methods. In short, he was a Lamarckian who could ruin a scientist's career, or worse, for daring question the validity of official state science.

    Under Lysenko, agricultural science in the USSR was, from the late 1920s until 1964, based on ideology rather than the scientific method, and this led to uncounted misery for Soviet citizens due to massively underperforming or failed crops.

    Wikipedia has a decent article about it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism

    1. Re:Lysenkoism makes your argument look foolish. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You are conflating the flaws of the early USSR (Stalin mania) with socialism. Socialism is not what that time in the USSR was, and even the Communist Party of the SU acknowledged that the time of Stalin left a lot to be desired.

      "Anti-Communism" and McCarthy's idea of being a patriotic citizen of the USA is the other example of ideological hysteria dressed up as keeping society afloat.

    2. Re:Lysenkoism makes your argument look foolish. by Trepidity · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Has anyone written about why agriculture was so different from other areas? It seems like an interesting thing to investigate. Was it just because Lysenko was personally powerful? Or because it didn't lend itself to solid, hard-to-fudge experimentation as easily? Or did similar things happen in other areas? My impression is that in physics, math, astronomy, and chemistry, Soviet research was considered top-notch, even by the west.

    3. Re:Lysenkoism makes your argument look foolish. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No true scotsmialism.

    4. Re:Lysenkoism makes your argument look foolish. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Agriculture held a special place in USSR governance and economic decision making (grain yields and so on). Gorbachev was helped by his experience in agriculture, among other things, on his way to 1986.

      I forgot what I read on it, but it had to do with the USSR not producing enough grain and having to continually import it (with exceptions of course). They tried all sorts of solutions, including non-biological ones such as the farm legal structure and legality of growing crops for private sale. This problem would last for the entirety of the USSR's existence.

    5. Re:Lysenkoism makes your argument look foolish. by Anenome · · Score: 5, Informative

      Yes, there is an answer for why communism in the farm fails.

      Read the eminent economist and commentator Thomas Sowell's book, "Knowledge and Decisions" for an explanation of why socialism/communism failed in the farms, and why the same reasons it failed there cause it to fail or be continually less efficient than capitalism in every other enterprise.

      If you think a publicly-owned anything can do better than a private organization, you have to explain how it will use coercion to do that, because public org's ability to coerce is the only difference between them. Both public and private companies are simply groups of people. People denigrate private orgs for having personal stakes in the outcome, but what turns out to be worse is the indifference of those with no stake in an enterprises outcome such as we find in communal/public organizations.

      Ultimately, what Sowell's thesis comes down to is that communal organizations face a distortion of incentive structures. If something breaks on a farm that's owned by the farmer he fixes it. If a machine breaks on a communist farm he expects someone else to fix it--he doesn't own it. He neither profits by fixing it nor loses by not fixing. Thus, the owner has incentive to do what maximizes efficiency. The communal farmer does not, and could actually be punished for trying.

      But farming doesn't have a lot of room for error. And if you're drastically inefficient enough people start starving. See China and Mao's "Great Leap Forward" (into starvation apparently) which resulted in the deaths of some 20+ million Chinese.

      --
      "I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist"
    6. Re:Lysenkoism makes your argument look foolish. by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Agricultural research != farming. GPP was talking about the former, and you jumped in with a rant about the latter ... or rather, used the latter as an excuse for an ideological threadjack. Nice move. It's too bad in a way that the Soviet Union isn't around any more, because people like you were highly employable there.

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    7. Re:Lysenkoism makes your argument look foolish. by rhakka · · Score: 3, Insightful

      ability to coerce is *not* the only difference between a private and a public organization.

      First, you disregard any ability by the people to decide anything through socialism, that is.. democracy. so while you may consider the participation of the minority "coercion", such as your paying taxes for a road system, it's not coercion without any feedback loop. so in fact to call it coercion is a bit disingenuous. You could just as easily call it "group decisionmaking". especially under a more ideal democratic system, since we're dreaming up a theoretical situation here.

      Secondly, efficiency is not the key element that is important in research. research is, almost by definition, inefficient. it requires an organization to blindly spend money to achieve an unnamed benefit. that will never happen for long under a private enterprise specifically because it is inefficient, and there will always be more efficient and sure ways to generate a return on investment than a capital-holding entity can capitalize on. examples abound in this very discussion.

      note that's research, not development. but even development is constrained by apparent market value instead of public good. So, for example, drugs to treat elective illnesses experienced by the rich receive preferential attention from for-profit drug manufacturers (Viagra, hair loss) instead of actual cures for illnesses that may be much more severe but either less widespread or primarily among poor populations. "Inefficient" development could and does still yield better outcomes for public good.

      The free market caters to money, not people. "Efficiency" is simply code for "best financial return". But those two concepts are not truly synonymous, and in research, it's not a core value. It's not even a particularly important one. If you want to figure out how to make the Widget X that everyone needs, the free market is good for that IF there is a return on investment in financial terms.

      what's good for capital is not always what is best for people. especially when fewer and fewer people hold more and more of the capital, as has been the progression here in america, at least, for the last 50 years.

    8. Re:Lysenkoism makes your argument look foolish. by blanck · · Score: 2, Informative

      USSR not producing enough grain and having to continually import it (with exceptions of course).

      While there were certainly droughts and other organic factors that affected output, the main reason for lack of grain in the 1930s was Stalin's forceful drive to convert the USSR from a primarily agricultural economy to an industrial one. Through collectivization, grain was gathered from the peasantry and traded abroad for heavy industry. This led to an industrial boom in the cities, at the immense cost of mass starvation in the countryside. Ukraine was a notable victim of this process.

  10. I ask you... by deathtopaulw · · Score: 5, Funny

    Is a man not entitled to the sweat of his brow?
    "NO" Says the man in Washington, "It belongs to the poor."
    "NO" Says the man in the Vatican, "It belongs to God."
    "NO" Says the man in Moscow, "It belongs to everyone."

    I rejected those answers. Instead, I chose something different. I chose the impossible. I chose...

    Rapture!

  11. The Charm School for Russian nerds? by AHuxley · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The Charm School was a 1988 thriller novel by Nelson DeMille.
    A training facility was set up in Russian so spies could be trained to infiltrate American society by living in a fake US town.
    Could copying/dreaming about/improving US communications, US biomedicine, Russian space hardware, Russian nuclear power, and EU/Asian energy conservation really geek up young Russians?
    Surly a picture of Putin with Alexander Lebed above the communal lab and the hint that Moscow U/city papers could be
    canceled if grades drop would be enough to motivate any young Russian.
    If your really really good, no Obama style City Year near Mayak for you :)
    Geeks and nerds like the free range freedoms of the USA not gilded gulags.
    Learn from China and send them to the USA and get them educated for free, then as they get homesick debrief them.

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    1. Re:The Charm School for Russian nerds? by qc_dk · · Score: 2, Funny

      Geeks and nerds like the free range freedoms of the USA not gilded gulags.

      I think you've been misled/brainwashed by US propaganda. Geeks and nerds love the gilded gulag of their mom's basement.

  12. For energy, it might work. by Animats · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It's not a silly idea. Russia is positioning itself as an "energy power", and energy projects need heavy industrial infrastructure. The USSR was good at that.

    Fusion would be a good goal. Or thorium reactors. That's a problem that may yield to organized, determined effort and money. The USSR still has a big nuclear program, and resources to draw upon.

  13. Russian high-tech is hindered not by lack of money by S3D · · Score: 2, Insightful

    or place to sit. It's hindered by widespread corruption and still quite criminalized economy. Tax breaks will be used for tax evasion by unrelated businesses and grants will be stolen by corrupted officials. Right now high-tech, which is by its nature quite transparent and vulnerable for extortion can not compete with different shady and semi-shady businesses. The way to grow hi-tech in Russia is not to pour money into it, but clean corruption from the government, especially local authorities. Do it and high-tech will flourish without any outside interventions.

  14. Graham also thinks it might be possible... by dido · · Score: 2, Informative

    Paul Graham also writes that it might actually be possible to buy a Silicon Valley, or something very close to it, by investing a billion dollars or so in a city with the right environment that will be conducive to the growth of startups. Perhaps someone in Russia read Graham's article and decided that they had the kind of political will (which Graham says is so unlikely) to pull it off.

    --
    Qu'on me donne six lignes écrites de la main du plus honnête homme, j'y trouverai de quoi le faire pendre.
  15. don't believe the hype by roman_mir · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This will be another manner, in which government money will be pumped into the pockets of the government officials.

    It has been proposed by the government there that in order to 'promote' innovation, the firms, who will be allowed to enter the zone will be selected by government officials. In the zone they will not have to pay taxes I think but the most important aspect of this is that whoever is in the zone will be getting government contracts WITHOUT any competition. So that tells you everything you need to know about what will happen. The firms selected will be the ones close to the government officials selecting them and they will get the contracts for any 'innovations', which in reality will not promote any innovation, except one type of innovation: an easier way to siphon money for the politicians and their friends/relatives/people with the right attitude towards doing business, if you know what I mean.

  16. Comment from a Russian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I have an IT background and a decade of experience working with/for Russian government IT-related agencies.

    There're several cities in Russia with strong academic traditions which were the analogue of Silicon Valley during Soviet times (Novosibirsk is the best known of all).
    There're cities near Moscow which even have high-tech-production infrastructure (Zelenograd, a "microchip city" of Soviet times) - they are not being used.

    What government does is building "Silicon Valley" in a empty field near Moscow - easier to launder money this way.

    I'm willing to bet a thousand bucks that there are only three possible outcomes:

    1) 90% of funding laundered to offshore banks, 10% is spent on administrative expenses (shiny sport cars for management), project is silently closed and written off;

    2) 90% of funding laundered to offshore banks, 10% is spent on administrative expenses (shiny sport cars for management), scape goat it found and publicly spanked (but not too hard), project is closed and written off;

    3) 90% of funding laundered to offshore banks, 5% is spent on administrative expenses (shiny sport cars for management), 5% is spent to build a couple of buildings and hire 10 scientific-looking guys. They are made into media stars to show how great new "Silicon Valley" is. Project is declared a huge success. After a year the funding is cut, project is silently closed and written off.

    There's no other possible outcome given the amount of corruption in Russia and this government track record.

  17. Ooooh! by hey! · · Score: 2, Funny

    A city with the sprawling suburban charm of San Jose with ... Russian weather?

    Where do I sign up?

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  18. Re:Russian Field of Dreams by Hognoxious · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If the next Google is founded there and their yearly income is measured in billions, do you think Russian regulators will still extol the virtues of tax holidays?

    They'd most likely change the tax laws retroactively, send you a huge bill (plus penalties, plus interest, plus interest on the penalties) totalling ten times the entire world's GNP[1], seize the company and then sell it in an open auction with only one bidder who happens to be one of Putin's puppets.

    If you're lucky.

    [1] GGP?

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  19. Short term vs long term thinking : issues ! by OeLeWaPpErKe · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The problem, however with government-funded basic research is the lack of useful applications. A centrally-funded scientist has no reason -at all- to convert his discovery into an actual invention, so this will generally not happen.

    Perhaps an example : in the 20th century cars were invented. The basic principle of the explosive engine, however, had long been demonstrated by "patronized" scientists (scientists working for royalty), and was generally well-known. Actual test explosion-based engines had rotated (a few times) 150 years before the invention of the car (granted, due to lack of useable fuel they weren't practical, but still. One such engine was built into some of the first machine guns).

    So it seems to me the answer is somewhere in the middle, on the one hand provide generous subsidies, on the other hand forcing scientists to go into the private sector. Perhaps a time limit on employment at universities would provide the right incentives ? Make it generous, say 16 years. But after 16 years, every cent of subsidy stops, and they have to find a private investor.

    The same problem poses itself in general problem solving. The time horizon that is a property of rational thought. What is rationally optimal for the next 3 seconds will generally be a very different beast from what is rationally optimal for the next 10 years. And, while perhaps only relevant for the catholic church and evolution, is radically different from rationally optimal stuff with a 500 year time horizon.

    Let's take global warming and having children, and compare the optimal actions depending on time horizons :
    3 seconds : optimal course is to ignore global warming, children are not even theoretically possible
    10 years : optimal course is to ignore global warming (except that it might relieve social pressures, or gain one power, but you cannot scientifically defend it), children are not advisable
    50 years : moderate actions to prevent global warming would seem to be rational. Children might be nice to have.
    100 years : large costs to prevent global warming seem justified, although one should also take into account that oil will be gone long before this time passes. In this time period, obviously it is absolutely essential to have sufficient children to carry on after you're dead. The more, the better.
    500 years : ignore global warming (after all, wel WILL run out of oil in less than 50 years, so what's the big hubhub all about ?). Instead, focus on lots of children, but keep in mind that the ideology must survive : so limit the amount of children high enough to expand, but low enough so that each can get a good education.

  20. Russian Tradition? by Poodleboy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The "Russian tradition of building secret towns?" Towns like Oak Ridge, TN, or Los Alamos, NM, or Hanford, WA, maybe? Explain again how this project is doomed to fail as a government effort to make a technological leap. On the contrary, our own experience is great success doing this sort of thing. Nor is this an American peculiarity--the Germans very successfully built an entire town at Peenemunde to develop and construct V-2 rockets. In fact, here in America we capitalized on this success by moving its authors, notably Werner von Braun, to Huntsville, AL where we created yet another failed government experiment to land men on the moon...

    I'm thinking that people should read a bit less Ayn Rand science fiction and a bit more actual history.

  21. Re:Fixing central plainning with central planning? by home-electro.com · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Relax, they do not hope to create a new Silicon Valley. They are not that dumb. Putin, for one, is pretty smart guy and he knows it's not going to work. It's not the first time, you know. There were a host of other so called 'national projects' before this. (Nanotechnology, anyone?) What this really is a way to siphon government money into private pockets of government officials, create some impression of work they do, and boost morale and pride of the general populace as a bonus side effect. It's much easier, you know, than address and fix the real problem -- total corruption of every government institute, starting from traffic patrol and all the way up the president himself.
    We've been there, seen that. Nothing new, really... Move along, people -- just another day in Russia....

  22. I think he has it backwards... by grasshoppa · · Score: 2, Interesting

    'In California, the climate is beautiful and they don't have the ridiculous problems of Russia,' says Andrey Shtorkh, publicist for the new venture, adding that to compete, Russia will form a place apart for scientists. 'They should be isolated from our reality.'"

    While I certainly won't disagree that California seems to be isolated from everyone else's reality, I think he has it backwards in that scientists should be isolated. The hell they should! Scientists need to be in society to see what problems it faces and be inspired to find solutions for them. By isolating them, you are effectively removing some of the best stimulus available for them.

    Not only that, but the economy is the best way to determine the feasibility of a product. So what they've done here is to guarantee every crack pot scheme ( and face it, fellow scientists, we have a lot of them. Even if they seem AWESOME to us at the time, we do come up with some doosies ) gets an equal shake with a genuine idea.

    I don't see this ending well for them, but I hope I'm wrong.

    --
    Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!