Advances in scientific understanding can be profitable in their own right. Universities have a definite interest in attracting the best and brightest, and one way to do this is through being at the cutting edge of scientific understanding. Have a bunch of professors who are Nobel laureates is bound to be profitable, and only scientists shaping fundamental understanding are capable of getting Nobel prizes, right? Funding can be acquired through loans, tuition fees, and donation. If a specific research project gets too expensive, this can be alleviated by teaming up with multiple universities.
Also, you assume that capitalism is inherently short-sighted. What is this based on? Now, what if this short-sightedness is simply the result of the unpredictabilities, uncertainties, and insecurities generated by government intervention. Someone else I talked to about this offered the following insight: "99-year bonds used to be common, but nowadays you're lucky if you get more than 30, and most of those are issued by stable governments. I find that a lot of people underestimate how important the concept of security of property really is."
You assume that capitalism is inherently short-sighted. What is this based on? Now, what if this short-sightedness is simply the result of the unpredictabilities, uncertainties, and insecurities generated by government intervention. Someone else I talked to about this offered the following insight: "99-year bonds used to be common, but nowadays you're lucky if you get more than 30, and most of those are issued by stable governments. I find that a lot of people underestimate how important the concept of security of property really is."
Also, advances in scientific understanding can be profitable in their own right. Universities have a definite interest in attracting the best and brightest, and one way to do this is through being at the cutting edge of scientific understanding. Have a bunch of professors who are Nobel laureates is bound to be profitable, and only scientists shaping fundamental understanding are capable of getting Nobel prizes, right? Funding can be acquired through loans, tuition fees, and donation. If a specific research project gets too expensive, this can be alleviated by teaming up with multiple universities.
Advances in scientific understanding can be profitable in their own right. Universities have a definite interest in attracting the best and brightest, and one way to do this is through being at the cutting edge of scientific understanding. Have a bunch of professors who are Nobel laureates is bound to be profitable, and only scientists shaping fundamental understanding are capable of getting Nobel prizes, right? Funding can be acquired through loans, tuition fees, and donation. If a specific research project gets too expensive, this can be alleviated by teaming up with multiple universities.
Also, you assume that capitalism is inherently short-sighted. Now, what if this short-sightedness is simply the result of the unpredictabilities, uncertainties, and insecurities generated by government intervention. Someone else I talked to about this offered the following insight: "99-year bonds used to be common, but nowadays you're lucky if you get more than 30, and most of those are issued by stable governments. I find that a lot of people underestimate how important the concept of security of property really is."
"Private industry needs returns on investments that can be measured in years. There's nothing wrong with that, people want to make money on their investment. Basic research, however, is absolutely critical to long-term scientific advancement. Those big, expensive particle accelerators that open up the secrets of the universe will never be built by private industry, because there's almost zero chance of any meaningful financially-rewarding application. And yet, in the timeline of decades or perhaps even centuries, basic physics research may open up technologies we can't really imagine now. Unless you turn it all over to the private sector, in which case it won't be Americans landing on Alpha Centauri or getting instantaneously transported from the Moon to Mars. Americans will be the people cleaning the ashtrays and vacuuming the floors."
First, you assume that capitalism is inherently short-sighted. Now, what if this short-sightedness is simply the result of the unpredictabilities, uncertainties, and insecurities generated by government intervention. Someone else I talked to about this offered the following insight: "99-year bonds used to be common, but nowadays you're lucky if you get more than 30, and most of those are issued by stable governments. I find that a lot of people underestimate how important the concept of security of property really is."
Advances in scientific understanding can be profitable in their own right. Universities have a definite interest in attracting the best and brightest, and one way to do this is through being at the cutting edge of scientific understanding. Have a bunch of professors who are Nobel laureates is bound to be profitable, and only scientists shaping fundamental understanding are capable of getting Nobel prizes, right? Funding can be acquired through loans, tuition fees, and donation. If a specific research project gets too expensive, this can be alleviated by teaming up with multiple universities.
"Then stop using the police, fire dept., roads, water/sewage infrastructure, monetary system, army, etc."
These could be done by private organizations as well. Fire brigades were originally private. The police and army are part of the military so they would need supporting but there's no need for the government to assume so many responsibilities for no real reason except that it gets people to vote for you if you promise to cradle them at the expense of forced taxation. If the government forced everyone to work an extra 10 hours a week for no pay, people would be pissed. Why they are not pissed that the government is forcing them to hand over the equivalent in money - money acquired as a direct result of their work - I am not sure. Force of habit, maybe. Inability to do anything about it, possibly. Flawed understanding of the economy, most likely.
"Private industry has no desire to do research simply to expand our understanding of the world--they only want knowledge that can be monetized quickly."
And this is a very narrow view of the private industry. Growth and expansion of opportunity come through innovation, so while businesses are likely to keep most of their money internal to continue supporting the demand, they will want to supply some amount to fundamental research that can lead to new approaches capable of sweeping the market in the future. The work done at AT&T Bell Labs, for example, made computers possible and companies like AT&T and IBM have profited greatly from this.
"Not to mention that private funding will always focus on the topics that will lead to business-applicable technologies soonest, as opposed to general research that will open up entirely new segments of science altogether, which is a long term benefit."
Are you saying that fundamental research would never lead to a technology capable of sweeping the market, or that businesses are so short-sighted as to never realize that as a possibility?
"But the knowledge is important, and in time has led to real advancements in our knowledge and our technology."
Are you also suggesting businesses have no interest in genetics? Is it that private funding is not available, or that government funding is so easily available as to give private industry no reason to offer funding for fundamental research?
Which candidate is the most in favor of science privatization? In other words, they see no need for the government to fund programs through taxation when the private organizations are capable of seeing where public demand exists and filling that demand through scientific research. While I'm a huge fan of NASA and space exploration, I believe the space station in particular has been a huge waste of money. Almost no scientific research is done. Has anything besides the Tempurpedic Sleep System (certified by the Space Foundation!) come out of these billions of dollars of people's money?
I recently had a horrible experience with a seller with only positive feedback. Bought and paid for a book, sent them a message. Sent them another email. And another, and another. A month passed. They responded that they didn't know anything about it, adding "LOL". They offered to ship expedited or issue a refund. I sent 2 more messages asking them to ship expedited. Another couple weeks went by, I sent another message asking to ship expedited, and they immediately canceled the order and refunded with no explanation.
As this was the worst experience I've encountered on eBay, I left negative feedback: "1 month later said they didnt ship it, offered to ship exped., then refunded!?!?"
They immediately left negative feedback on me: "Communicated poorly; did not express what he wanted."
I decided the best thing would be to save my perfect feedback record and mutually withdraw the feedback. They immediately agreed.
Now if only they would have been as quick to respond with my shipment as they were with the negative feedback...
"But, he's gone from knocking on doors in the projects to fighting a political machine in his district to convincing both rural and urban Illinois to inspiring a generation."
All that shows is he has more connections than the rest of them. I say we hit the reset button and try again.
Two parts of this article do not make sense together:
"...he signed a contract stating he had come by the correspondence through lawful means."
"Anderson allegedly "hacked" into TorrentSpy's e-mail system and rigged it so that "every incoming and outgoing e-mail message would also be copied and forwarded to his anonymous Google e-mail account," records show."
I believe with Sprint they let you know that you got a message, but you have to accept payment before you can view it. I haven't used it enough to know for sure.
If only he had simply committed perjury, obstruction of justice, and treason, he could've gotten off scott-free (provided he also had a group of high-society blank-check braindeads to pay any fines for him).
They could explain how that movie could be any shittier. What a let down. On the same level as AVP. I'm just glad I didn't have to pay for it. What the hell was with them spending so much time on random crap; 20 minutes devoted to finding the glasses in the house; another 30 minutes devoted to bringing this expert hacker into the picture, as well as the unnecessary Sector 7 with that dumbass leader (although he's good in other movies). All that time could've been spent on actually having some sort of mission and goals, and more kick ass fight sequences (almost all the action shots are already in the trailers).
It's like the director had a general idea of where they were going to shoot a scene, and who would be in the scene, but they didn't have anything for the characters to do or say. "Go that way! Go up to the top of that building and give the cube to the military! Who the fuck knows why, it's just something to do!" No motivation for anything that was done or said.
The autobots only get one line of character development each, and I still thought they were more developed than any of the other people in the movie.
Even the action scenes were crap; not even an attempt to do the usual "good guy starts out ahead, bad get gets upper hand, then good guy comes back finally to win". Just random punches spliced between clips of Shia LaBeouf running away.
"I think by-and-large the public selects candidates based on the most important issues, particularly the character of the nominee."
As I said, people select based on unimportant issues. Candidates today are so carefully groomed for public appeal that we cannot presume to correctly determine someone's "character" based solely on a couple public appearances. And even if we could, the candidate's "character" is not important. How the candidate stands on education, security, economy, etc, and what his/her plans are in these areas are the important issues.
Slashdot Mirror
Advances in scientific understanding can be profitable in their own right. Universities have a definite interest in attracting the best and brightest, and one way to do this is through being at the cutting edge of scientific understanding. Have a bunch of professors who are Nobel laureates is bound to be profitable, and only scientists shaping fundamental understanding are capable of getting Nobel prizes, right? Funding can be acquired through loans, tuition fees, and donation. If a specific research project gets too expensive, this can be alleviated by teaming up with multiple universities.
Also, you assume that capitalism is inherently short-sighted. What is this based on? Now, what if this short-sightedness is simply the result of the unpredictabilities, uncertainties, and insecurities generated by government intervention. Someone else I talked to about this offered the following insight: "99-year bonds used to be common, but nowadays you're lucky if you get more than 30, and most of those are issued by stable governments. I find that a lot of people underestimate how important the concept of security of property really is."
You assume that capitalism is inherently short-sighted. What is this based on? Now, what if this short-sightedness is simply the result of the unpredictabilities, uncertainties, and insecurities generated by government intervention. Someone else I talked to about this offered the following insight: "99-year bonds used to be common, but nowadays you're lucky if you get more than 30, and most of those are issued by stable governments. I find that a lot of people underestimate how important the concept of security of property really is."
Also, advances in scientific understanding can be profitable in their own right. Universities have a definite interest in attracting the best and brightest, and one way to do this is through being at the cutting edge of scientific understanding. Have a bunch of professors who are Nobel laureates is bound to be profitable, and only scientists shaping fundamental understanding are capable of getting Nobel prizes, right? Funding can be acquired through loans, tuition fees, and donation. If a specific research project gets too expensive, this can be alleviated by teaming up with multiple universities.
Advances in scientific understanding can be profitable in their own right. Universities have a definite interest in attracting the best and brightest, and one way to do this is through being at the cutting edge of scientific understanding. Have a bunch of professors who are Nobel laureates is bound to be profitable, and only scientists shaping fundamental understanding are capable of getting Nobel prizes, right? Funding can be acquired through loans, tuition fees, and donation. If a specific research project gets too expensive, this can be alleviated by teaming up with multiple universities.
Also, you assume that capitalism is inherently short-sighted. Now, what if this short-sightedness is simply the result of the unpredictabilities, uncertainties, and insecurities generated by government intervention. Someone else I talked to about this offered the following insight: "99-year bonds used to be common, but nowadays you're lucky if you get more than 30, and most of those are issued by stable governments. I find that a lot of people underestimate how important the concept of security of property really is."
"Private industry needs returns on investments that can be measured in years. There's nothing wrong with that, people want to make money on their investment. Basic research, however, is absolutely critical to long-term scientific advancement. Those big, expensive particle accelerators that open up the secrets of the universe will never be built by private industry, because there's almost zero chance of any meaningful financially-rewarding application. And yet, in the timeline of decades or perhaps even centuries, basic physics research may open up technologies we can't really imagine now. Unless you turn it all over to the private sector, in which case it won't be Americans landing on Alpha Centauri or getting instantaneously transported from the Moon to Mars. Americans will be the people cleaning the ashtrays and vacuuming the floors."
First, you assume that capitalism is inherently short-sighted. Now, what if this short-sightedness is simply the result of the unpredictabilities, uncertainties, and insecurities generated by government intervention. Someone else I talked to about this offered the following insight: "99-year bonds used to be common, but nowadays you're lucky if you get more than 30, and most of those are issued by stable governments. I find that a lot of people underestimate how important the concept of security of property really is."
Advances in scientific understanding can be profitable in their own right. Universities have a definite interest in attracting the best and brightest, and one way to do this is through being at the cutting edge of scientific understanding. Have a bunch of professors who are Nobel laureates is bound to be profitable, and only scientists shaping fundamental understanding are capable of getting Nobel prizes, right? Funding can be acquired through loans, tuition fees, and donation. If a specific research project gets too expensive, this can be alleviated by teaming up with multiple universities.
"Then stop using the police, fire dept., roads, water/sewage infrastructure, monetary system, army, etc."
These could be done by private organizations as well. Fire brigades were originally private. The police and army are part of the military so they would need supporting but there's no need for the government to assume so many responsibilities for no real reason except that it gets people to vote for you if you promise to cradle them at the expense of forced taxation. If the government forced everyone to work an extra 10 hours a week for no pay, people would be pissed. Why they are not pissed that the government is forcing them to hand over the equivalent in money - money acquired as a direct result of their work - I am not sure. Force of habit, maybe. Inability to do anything about it, possibly. Flawed understanding of the economy, most likely.
Were I to teach a class on logic, this post would be an excellent example of question begging.
"Private industry has no desire to do research simply to expand our understanding of the world--they only want knowledge that can be monetized quickly."
And this is a very narrow view of the private industry. Growth and expansion of opportunity come through innovation, so while businesses are likely to keep most of their money internal to continue supporting the demand, they will want to supply some amount to fundamental research that can lead to new approaches capable of sweeping the market in the future. The work done at AT&T Bell Labs, for example, made computers possible and companies like AT&T and IBM have profited greatly from this.
"Not to mention that private funding will always focus on the topics that will lead to business-applicable technologies soonest, as opposed to general research that will open up entirely new segments of science altogether, which is a long term benefit."
Are you saying that fundamental research would never lead to a technology capable of sweeping the market, or that businesses are so short-sighted as to never realize that as a possibility?
"But the knowledge is important, and in time has led to real advancements in our knowledge and our technology."
Are you also suggesting businesses have no interest in genetics? Is it that private funding is not available, or that government funding is so easily available as to give private industry no reason to offer funding for fundamental research?
Which candidate is the most in favor of science privatization? In other words, they see no need for the government to fund programs through taxation when the private organizations are capable of seeing where public demand exists and filling that demand through scientific research. While I'm a huge fan of NASA and space exploration, I believe the space station in particular has been a huge waste of money. Almost no scientific research is done. Has anything besides the Tempurpedic Sleep System (certified by the Space Foundation!) come out of these billions of dollars of people's money?
"For once, might the patent system actually be doing what it's supposed to?"
Clearly not, if these people had to fight Intel for 7 years and still haven't gotten a cent for licensing.
"As the profit of the universe..."
Funny, I never received my check...
Err, I'm going to have to see more evidence to believe this one.
I recently had a horrible experience with a seller with only positive feedback. Bought and paid for a book, sent them a message. Sent them another email. And another, and another. A month passed. They responded that they didn't know anything about it, adding "LOL". They offered to ship expedited or issue a refund. I sent 2 more messages asking them to ship expedited. Another couple weeks went by, I sent another message asking to ship expedited, and they immediately canceled the order and refunded with no explanation.
As this was the worst experience I've encountered on eBay, I left negative feedback: "1 month later said they didnt ship it, offered to ship exped., then refunded!?!?"
They immediately left negative feedback on me: "Communicated poorly; did not express what he wanted."
I decided the best thing would be to save my perfect feedback record and mutually withdraw the feedback. They immediately agreed.
Now if only they would have been as quick to respond with my shipment as they were with the negative feedback...
"But, he's gone from knocking on doors in the projects to fighting a political machine in his district to convincing both rural and urban Illinois to inspiring a generation."
All that shows is he has more connections than the rest of them. I say we hit the reset button and try again.
The only time I wasn't watching TV was when I would pass out from exhaustion every couple days and sleep for a few hours. It hasn't affected my attent
[5 hours later]
Oops, forgot to submit.
Two parts of this article do not make sense together:
"...he signed a contract stating he had come by the correspondence through lawful means."
"Anderson allegedly "hacked" into TorrentSpy's e-mail system and rigged it so that "every incoming and outgoing e-mail message would also be copied and forwarded to his anonymous Google e-mail account," records show."
I believe with Sprint they let you know that you got a message, but you have to accept payment before you can view it. I haven't used it enough to know for sure.
"This is kind of a cool idea; it's a way for direct commentary from the people involved without a journalist's filter."
Yes, rather than journalists filtering, it's Google doing the filtering. We only know what they post, not what they don't.
I didn't say "convicted of", I said "committed".
If only he had simply committed perjury, obstruction of justice, and treason, he could've gotten off scott-free (provided he also had a group of high-society blank-check braindeads to pay any fines for him).
But Pimsleur doesn't have "English for Cybertron natives" tapes. Are they working for the government too?
If only everything posted on the internet could be continually updated to reflect modern expectations.
My favorite question is, if the autobots learned english through the internet, how did Megatron learn english?
They could explain how that movie could be any shittier. What a let down. On the same level as AVP. I'm just glad I didn't have to pay for it. What the hell was with them spending so much time on random crap; 20 minutes devoted to finding the glasses in the house; another 30 minutes devoted to bringing this expert hacker into the picture, as well as the unnecessary Sector 7 with that dumbass leader (although he's good in other movies). All that time could've been spent on actually having some sort of mission and goals, and more kick ass fight sequences (almost all the action shots are already in the trailers).
It's like the director had a general idea of where they were going to shoot a scene, and who would be in the scene, but they didn't have anything for the characters to do or say. "Go that way! Go up to the top of that building and give the cube to the military! Who the fuck knows why, it's just something to do!" No motivation for anything that was done or said.
The autobots only get one line of character development each, and I still thought they were more developed than any of the other people in the movie.
Even the action scenes were crap; not even an attempt to do the usual "good guy starts out ahead, bad get gets upper hand, then good guy comes back finally to win". Just random punches spliced between clips of Shia LaBeouf running away.
"I think by-and-large the public selects candidates based on the most important issues, particularly the character of the nominee."
As I said, people select based on unimportant issues. Candidates today are so carefully groomed for public appeal that we cannot presume to correctly determine someone's "character" based solely on a couple public appearances. And even if we could, the candidate's "character" is not important. How the candidate stands on education, security, economy, etc, and what his/her plans are in these areas are the important issues.