"...both of which ensure that the academic center retains plausible objectivity in its dealings with corporate sponsors."
Yeah, well, it would be better ensured by not allowing it at all, IMHO. the only reason why it was allowed in the USA, was because it was supposed to be beneficial in stimulating R&D and new products. It would seem (yes, yes, based on limited data, but still) that this isn't the case. thus:
1)if it's not working, there is no reason for it 2)even if it is working, there are maybe alternatives that are better with less risk for losing academic integrity
"They did. It's called the Bayh-Dole Act.;)"
Ermm...no. The system I proposed (if it would be necessary to change our current system, which is debatable on itself) would involve no direct funding/influence of companies and universities. Funding of university research by corporations (in a direct way) would not be allowed.
"If you're arguing that the prior model was well-grounded but badly implemented..."
I was. Possibly with some adaptations. Maybe the state needs to promote it better, or something.
"Let ye who is without bias cast the first stone...;)"
I'm searching for a boulder to cast right now!!;-)
Anyway, I think this dicussion has reached it's end, for now. This is a fact, because it's now mentioned on my blog.;-)
As I said; if you ever make a paper about the issue, I'll be interested to read it. Of course, you'll better make sure you have a lot more of hard data then Fortune, since you so lament the lack of it with them!:-)
"Academic researchers, both in biotech and in software, have no such fears because they create no such products, and are never sued."
"The possibility of commercializable results is a consideration, but it's not centrally important."
In both instances, I can not share your optimism. In an ideal world, everything would be balanced, no doubt. In reality, thinks go differently. For instance, here too, there has been talk about 'connecting' businesses better to the universities. In fact, the current government is (or at least was) quite fond of the idea that corporations would take part in paying the research. Next thing they said, was that they would reduce the grants given, since the corporations would step in for a considerable part.
Now, even when the level of money (in total) subsidising the universities stay the same, clearly this will have an impact to the sort of research that will be done. In short, there WILL be a shift towards profit-driven research, since the part that was formerly state-sponsored is now sponsored by companies.
And well, one can call them ivory towers, but I'd rather have that then universities becomming extensions of corporations. Ivory towers can at least concentrate on their primary goals of education and academic research, instead of commercial profit-driven research.
In fact, I'm wondering if it couldn't be done far more easy. If taxes pay for universities, their patents belong to us too (well, the state). If a company is interested in obtaining a patent, why not let him simply buy it from the state, with the provision it still can be used freely for academic use? There is no real reason to let corporations influence the direction of universitary research, however. Once they have 'secured the patent', as you say, they can simply research the stuff themselves. The money thus received, would be put back in a general subsidising for all universities (by the state). The advantage would be that universities would remain free of commercial meddling and influences, while as a whole, money would be earned (at least by the state), and new products would be created.
I gather such a system existed, and that you lament the fact many patents lie unused? Well, then, maybe one should divise a system to stimulate that kind of tech-transfer, instead of letting corporations directly sponsor universitary research?
(BTW, there was so much protest about the plans of commercialising the universities around here, that the original plans have been severly adapted;-)
No one has anything against companies on themselves (in fact, more then one university-rooted corporation in bio-tech has been succesful in my country), but one shouldn't be naive neither. When you mix academic work with commercial profit-driven work, the two are not all that compatible, and seen the capitalistic drive in our western society, it's always the academic integrity that is most at peril.
Anyway, we're both digressing a bit and divulging into opinions, I'm afraid. I don't think we'll solve this discussion untill a bit more hard data proves the article wrong or right. Though, I have the impression you will never be convinced by any data, if that data indeed indicates a decline in R&D, etc.
"'k... I think we've beaten this side-issue into the ground, so let's part amicably on it and move on to more central issues.";-)
"If you're arguing that software companies are diverting reseach funds, then I have to agree with you. I also think it's non-analogous."
Hmm..well, we already disagree.:-) I think that, while not completely the same (it never is), it's analogous enough to warrant the proposition that the same link may be applicable.
There is, alas, not as much research done on the specific issue of bio-tech patents by universities as there has been done on 'software-patents' by softwarecompanies, so I'll agree it's not conclusive. Additional research in this area may settle the question, but at least the article hinted at the same detrimental effects as is apparent in the software-patents case.
Your rationale is not without merrit, but neither is that of the article (or mine), and at least they have *some* data that backs it up (or at least indicates it is right). I know you are not writing a scientific article on slashdot, but still, you ARE using it as an argument. Now, all else being equal, when I'm provided with two sides of an argumentation, I'm rather inlined to go for the one which has at least some data backing it up (meager as it may be), then the argumentation which is not backed up by any data.
I would be more then interested to see your paper (with data) if you ever make it, however. Be sure to give me an email-note when you do.
"I'm having trouble with this notion of "rapid potential profit," because very few technology licenses embody anything of the sort."
I didn't mean 'rapid' in the sense of it being a cash-cow within weeks. I'm just pointing out, that research which has little to no potential for profit (the basic research) will become less appealing for universities to do, since the chances of gaining profit with such projects are less then with more commercially-applied projects.
Surely you must acknowledge that, when your focus becomes more and more profit driven (and everybody, including universities, like to earn increasing amount of money, naturally) then you are less and less inclined to fund projects which show little profit-potential. This is not a far-fetched reasoning, if you ask me.
Now, there is nothing wrong with companies shifting their attention to more profit-prone projects and research. In fact, it's what they should do, since it's primarely about making profit that companies are about. But basic research has to be done too, and if universities don't do it, who will? Certainly not the corporations.
Profit-driven research is all good and well, but we're not paying universities with our taxes to fill, nor even support the role of companies; they can do that job by themselves just fine. Their main focus, thus, should be basic research (since they are sponsored by the state (our taxes) already), so it doesn't matter if it has profit-potential or not.
"I view money as the fuel for the process that achieves THE goal, which is to maximize technological progress."
First of all, it is the question whether indeed it fuels any sort of process, exept litigation, as the article has hinted at. The results, exept for some exeptions like MIT, were rather poor - as well for the universities themselves, as for most of the companies, as the article mentionned.
Secondly, I do not believe any major scientific project can run without money...but universities already get money; from the state, and thus, from the taxes we pay. They don't receive this just for the fun, or to aid or fill in the role of companies, as far as I know. That's not the mandate they receive from the state (at least in Europe).
Thirdly, we may differ in opinion on what the goal actually should be. "Technological progress" as measured how? In deliverance of products on the free market? This may be the goal of corporations, but is (or should) it be that of universities? The goal of schools and
"Hopefully you'll also agree that it really doesn't belong in any substantive discussion."
That would depend on the question whether or not the person in question has RTFA.;-)
"and really just adds a distracting confrontational edge."
If one actually read the article, this is true. In that case, the claim isn't litteraly about reading the article, but more like "you missed the point of the article". But the argumentational value of that is rather limited, I concur.
"How does the presence or absence of lawsuits affect the rate of technology development? You can't just imply a link here."
Alas, one can. At least with software-patents there already has been research that showed the link: when companies started to patent software in the USA, the litigation and lawyercosts rose dramatically *at the expense of R&D*. I'm sure ypou'll want to know the sources for that, so I'm going to direct you to the FFII; if I remember correctly, they have a whole page with links to scientific research about the detrimental effect patents can have (with, indeed, also a decline in R&D and new products as a result).
"I'm not actually here to make any assertions, since it's not my article."
But you do. Or at least, did, in one of your posts to me. You came up with a whole theory of why it was actually beneficial - but without providing any evidence, not even the meager evidence you claim Fortune is using.
"The fact that we rely (hugely) on the federal government to fund it disproves your point."
No, it doesn't. His point was, that without the strong emphasis on commercialisation that is rampant today (and to which the amendment of the law contributed) universities were more inclined to do fundamental research, while now they are more and more inclined to do 'rapid-potential-profit' research. This is not difficult to understand, after all; once you view universities (or they see themselves as such) as a mere extension of business, the driving force will be profit, not the pursuit of knowledge on itself.
It is, in fact, hardly a disputable fact that this happens.
And, indeed, even that profit-driven research is heavily sponsored by the government (and thus, our taxes), which is why several posters have indicated we're being screwed.
Anyway, the question remains, if it is the job of the university to concentrate on profit-driven research. In my book, it isn't: companies can do that just fine of their own. I'm not paying universities my tax-money so they can do the work the company would otherwise have to do. There is nothing wrong with profit-driven research... but that's the main objective of corporations, not universities. The latter should stick to academic research, and especially that kind of research which isn't meant to be profitable (basic research)... because companies will not do it, and universities ARE sponsored by the state, after all. Thus, let each do what they do best: short-term profit-research for companies, and long-term knowledge driven basic research for universities.
Now, refrain from a rebutal with claiming that it can be both. Perhaps, but only to a limited extend. There can be little doubt, that, when you concentrate on making profits, it goes at the expense of research that is deemed to be not profitable. And in reality, this is exactly what happens: the more universities are focussed on profit, the more they are inclined to neglect basic research which is doubtfull to bring them any profit.
Ofcourse, when you consider monetary income als THE goal of businesses and and universities alike, then this consideration may hold no value for you. One could even claim the extra income is used for basic research, or for the tuition...but the article shows that even this isn't true.
"So here, at last, we get to the crux of the argument, the difference between your views and mine."
Indeed, it is, with the difference that it was also what the article was about.
"The difference between your argument and mine is that you can't tolerate any restraints on that pool of ideas. I believe we have to in order to compel people to perform that other 99%."
Well, I would rather claim the difference is that you make a personal cause for your opinions of it. You fail to realise that my or your personal preference is (or at least should) be irrelevant in discussing the point raised by the article, which was, alas, not about the flow of money which you keep bringing up (in line with your view).
I'm not unreasonable about it; I think your question for more sources has some merrit, for instance. But seen the fact it was not meant as a science paper for peer-review, it is not all that uncommon. Now, maybe they did screw up their numbers; it's always possible...but, that remains to be proven, while you seem to act as if it is already proven to be bogus - the basis for which you mainly find in your unsubstantiated personal view about it. And, unless you have data which would contradict what they have (which you don't), the data they provide - incomplete with sources as it may be - do indicate some support for what they claim. Even when one can criticise the article, in any case it surely does *not* indicate that the law was beneficial *in terms of R&D and new products*; which was what the article was about.
If the main point had been the monetary benefit, then your discussion, while still totally unsubstantiated, would at least have made sense. Instead, you have largely ingored the issue raised by the article, by repeating the (unproven) monetary benefits it brings.
Your personal belief that one 'has to' restrain the pool of ideas in order to compel people to perform the 'other 99%' is irrelevant (or at least should be) in discussing the point the paper made. Alas, it clearly shows you let your own bias overrule everything else.
If it *were* about the monetary benefits, even if it would go against my own personal beliefs, at least I wouldn't try to substantiate it by argumenting about the decline in R&D, if the article was about the money instead of the R&D. It may well be that - even though I would probably also mention the decline as an argument against it - I would come to the conclusion, indeed, that it has some monetary benefits for at least some universities, for instance. There is no reason to let your personal beliefs cloud your argumentation, after all.
It's NOT about your views or my views, it about what the article said. And it didn't deal with the monetary aspect, it dealt with the decline in R&D and new products.
"That was the point I was responded to with "I have no idea what you're talking about." You then saw fit to ride in with a "RTFA" response, which, you should now see was a hasty mistake on your part. Naturally, I won't hold my breath waiting an apology or admission of error."
And you shouldn't, or you would turn blue like a smurf!;-) Even the parent poster didn't say 'everything', but in any case, you seem to have a tendency to go for the semantics or your own interpretation of what is said, rather then the obvious meaning of the arguments. In this case, you could keep continue to say 'no new patentlaw has emerged', but someone reading the parent post (without bad will) would realise he was talking about the amended law and what it changed, as is portrayed by the article (this whole discussion IS about what is said in the article, after all).
Now, in all honesty: did you *really* failed to realise this? Do you actually think it is about patenting everything for everybody...or are you going to be sensible, instead of obnoxious, and agree it's exactly about the issue I've quoted in my former post, where I, as well as the former poster, was talking about. (and which you were well aware off, IMHO).
"It might be a way to measure U.S. contribution to science vs. that of the world. It's a much bigger leap to infer that the Bayh-Dole Act or licensing is the cause of that. That was my point."
And your much smaller leap to substantiate your theory is..what, exactly?
I already agreed that the causality is not proven. But meager as the data may be, the indications rather show some support to his theory. It certainly *does not* show any support for your theory. So, if you claim the contrary; what data do you use (which is, obviously, a lot better then the mere correlation of his data).
"...which metrics they off-handedly reference but do not cite, and merely suggest are "worse" and cherry-pick a particular fact. No verification; no sources that we can use for cross-referencing."
Are you suggesting their conclusions or claims in these matters are untrue, or merely inadequately referenced with sources? I'm inclined to think that, if they have looked at those criteria and say it has declined, they are not merely inventing it to be interesting.
True, it would be nice to see the whole methodology, statistic analysis, and what not, but I doubt the article was meant for scientific peers. And yes, one could be obnoxious again, and claim they don't show proof or sources, but then again, even if they did provide a link as source, one could always claim it's untrue. *Nothing* on the web can be deemed to be true (or untrue) when push comes to shove, so the point remains rather moot. Why, in fact, bother with anything what they say, then? If they lie about the decline in NME's, they can lie about everything... and the sources they might link to, can be complete false too.
Your explanation why they say 'worse' is intriguing, but remains speculation at best. And, somehow, I doubt you would be more happy if they had said a '20% decline', for instance: I'm sure you would have found something else to dismiss the whole thing.
Mind you, for someone so keen on having 'hard' evidence, you're rather meager on providing some data for your own claims and theory.
"As proof of pharmaceutical company productivity, let's look at university business. Oh, hey, it's way up! They earn great licensing revenue and get a lot of patents! [...]"
Ermm... you are unable to get your capitalistic-orientated mind of anything but money, are you? For the last time: it's about the declining R&D and innovative new products, as an unforseen consequence of the amendment of the law, NOT about what some universities may or may not see in monetary return for their tax-sponsored research. And in those area's, most of those companies have very little to show for, indicating that it's not the breeding ground of R&D and new products which it was claimed the law would provide f
"I did - last night - and I didn't see any mention of some kind of change in the patent process, whereby researchers used to "automatically" receive patents for anything. Show me where the article mentions that."
Where did you get that premisse? Nobody is arguing about a patent reform that automatically grants patents for everything, so I'm inclined to see this as a false dilemma.
That is entirely not the question. Rather it is about the change (amendment) of the law that made (quote): "The law simplified the "technology transfer" process and, more important, changed the legal presumption about who ought to own and develop new ideas--private enterprise as opposed to Uncle Sam." With as result a declining R&D and innovative products.
Strange you should have missed that part, if you RTFA: it's already on page 2, paragraph 2 and 3.
"The only metric they cited about "impact on research" is a really crappy one:[...]"
Untrue, the decline in R&D and innovative new products have been indicated (1)by the produced articles, as you said (and which they themselves say is difficult to pinpoint, but this IS the way in academic circles to put a value onto it, so it's not like they're making the criterion up). (2)They also use the data of the total number of FDA-approved compounds and biologics in a current year, (3)but also at how many priority NMEs are making it through: by both measures, the productivity picture is much worse than it was in 1996. (4)And lastly, they looked at the university-linked businesses which are using these patents, to see what they actually produce in innovative products, which in most cases have almost nothing to show for.
It seems, again, curious you should have missed all that, when reading the article: it's on page 5 and 6.
I agree the causality between this decline, and the Bayh-Dole Act, is not irrefutably proven. I think this is always hard to do, in these matters. But at least there is a strong indication of a correlation, which is more then can be said of your theory. If you're so convinced of the benefits of the law and that it's not true there is a decline of R&D and inovative products (in this case drugs), please explane the data provided by the author that indicates otherwise. And please indicate your data which might substantiate your claim and theory.
I mean, you may dispute the value of 'produced articles' (even when the academici themselves use it as value-measurement), but what, exactly, do *you* offer to substantiate your claims? And I mean in actual data, not esotheric reasonings or opinions.
All things equal, surely you will agree he made a far better case about his theory, then you with yours - at least, as yet.
"How was it "flowing back" before? What magical mechanism existed to reinvest money in successful labs that was tragically shredded by the Bayh-Dole Act and the patent system?"
Hmmm...I'm beginning to see why you 'missed' so much from RTFA. It seems you have a very selective reading.
Let's go by this one step at a time:
Original: "He (the parent poster) clearly was talking about research flowing *back* into the *academic commons*."
Notice the word research.
Now, your answer: "What magical mechanism existed to reinvest money in successful labs that was tragically shredded by the Bayh-Dole Act and the patent system?"
Notice the word money.
Now, did anyone talk about money flowing back, or research? Well, heck, it was research.
Is research and money the same thing?
No, it isn't.
Thus, is your answer to the point?
No, it isn't. And that's why you missed my explanation about what is actually meant by the flowing back of research completely. and that's why you missed so much in the article too: the whole thing was about how that law disturbed the age-old process of 'scientific sharing' by focussing on the commercial prospects of patenting tax-funded research, and the decline in R&D and innovatyive drugs that followed, when it was supposed to stimulate it.
The 'sharply decreased' was never about the incomming money, and if you had read TFA a bit better, we could have spared us this whole discussion.
"Then stuff falls into the wrong, young hands. Kids shoot each other with guns when playing with them."
Man, you have a pretty pessimistic view on things. I mean, seriously, I don't know how it is around your part, but in my country I'm quite sure no kid shot another kid in the last decade.
If it's such a problem were you live, one should rather look at the real causes (the lax gun control? Or the wild west mentality?), and not to videogames.
I mean, have you ever seen that movie of M.Moore? I think he made the point rather obvious; canada, where guns are also freely sold, has vastly less gun-related crimeproblems, even in comparison. Japan, a country with rather extreme violent or sexual (or both) films, even animationfilms and comics (hentai and manga);it's all over the place, it's widely looked at (and I suspect not only by 18year olds)..yet the actual crime rate is far less then in the USa, in comparison.
So, I really think it's a bit simplistic to go after videogames. If your kid at the age of 14 can't tell the difference between a game and reality, and starts shooting people for real, then there was already something wrong with him (or your parenting) long before he played a game. The same goes for drinking and driving. Mind you, I think that combination is rightfully fined, but I fail to see the link some are claiming between that, and the allowed age for drinking.
In fact, it exactly demonstrates my point. It is FAR better to guide them through to it, starting at an early age, but in a relaxed and guided way, then to forbid it untill they are 18 (or 21, like in most of the USA). the so called 'binch drinking' rampant in the UK with the youth, is EXACTLY the consequence over over-restrictive and overzealous laws and restrictions put on the youth, and society as a whole. and does it help, all those laws and restrictions? Aparently not.
Does it help in the USA and the UK to be tight-assed about sex towards youth? Aparently not, seen the high amount of teen-pregnancies. Here, one might have legally sex at age 16, and for sure kids here see a lot more about it then in the USA, but that's just it; it's more relaxed but guided, instead of forbidden. Here, we're rather inclined to say; well, you better wait a bit longer, but if you are going to do it, use a condom. While in the USA it will rather be: no sex before you're 18! (Which is as effective as saying no sex before mariage; almost none). It is just unrealistic and idiotic to think that the youth should (let alone will) wait untill they are 18 before doing all those things...so why pretend they only start learning at that age, then?
"The age of 18 is admittedly arbitrary, but again, as mentioned, there are no tests for maturity."
If we admit to that, then we should also admit that it makes no sense to concentrate that fanatically at 18. Who should make out the maturity? Well, for a part, the youth in question (which demonstrates the level of maturity he has reached, after all), and partly the parents, for sure. The last thing would be a general everything-for-all-age arbitrarily set by the state, while it is rather obvious that maturity is dependend on the individual, and that the learning process starts way sooner then 18. In fact, it doesn't make any sense, in that regard, because at 18, the learning process doesn't start, on the contrary. Unless one grows up like a hothouse plant, I can't imagine someone of 18 having to start for the first time dealing with booze, sex, violent films or games, etc. If you never learned to deal with those issues, yes, *then* you get abuse, like binch drinking and the lot.
In this respect, many EU countries at least acknowledge the reality, and have set the legal age of almost all these things at 16, and not at 18.
"Those that thwart my desire to be a guiding light in their young lives distort family relationships in an onerous way. This is a liberty that I'm not ready to give up."
Well.. I don't know..I don't know your or their situation. Ofcourse... all i
"You absolutely can't buy anything with nudity if you're under 17,[...]"
What the..? Where the f- do you live?
Can't be in the EU, in any case.
"[...]and you're going to have hard time getting an R or rated magazine or movie if you're under 13 (isn't that the age?)"
I suppose that "hard time getting" wasn't a pun?;-)
But, seriously, if I can sue someone for selling games because I'm to lousy a parent to parent my own kids, then why can't I sue a TV-company when my kid would watch an x-rated movie at night, but I'm to lousy to parent him then too?
I think there IS a bit of a double standard.
Your explanation of what effects the psyche more then something else is an unsubstantiated opinion; I've never seen any actual scientific measurements, and they are certainly not used or determining the RG rating of games in any objective way. In fact, the whole issue of whether and how much violence and sex has an impact on the youth (let alone would cause traumas) is still under discussion.
In any case, it depends far more on the general attitude about violence, and the context in which your kid sees a book, a movie, a game...then on whether or not it *are* pictures, or a movie, or a game.
Well, as a libertarian, far from me to say how you should raise your own kids.;-)
But I still disagree on some minor points, however.
"I teach, and expose them to life, with the values added, not the values from television or a video game."
Yes, well, IMHO opinion, kids know the difference between TV and games and reality long before they turn 18, nomatter how many USA parents claim the shooting at Columbine is due to violent games. Even at young age, it's more the context, then the game itself which is of importance. (The same goes for drinking booze, actually).
But, ultimately, if one, as a parent, needs control, and you need laws that prohibit vendors to sell violent games to make it possible for you to have that control, then there is already gone siomething wrong, IMHO. It's for a parent to create a environment where there is open dialoge, where things can be discussed and explained, set in a context with the 'added values' as you say, so that kids know and respect ones' decision. Or, at the very least, one where the parent does the trouble of looking at the game his kid has bought.
If one doesn't even do that much trouble, but instead have to rely on state intervention and laws for doing a parenting job which the parent himself should do, then there is something wrong.
It's all down to your personal relationship with your kids, at the end, and if that relationship sucks, then no game-rating-law will help; they will just ask some older dude to go and buy it (just as is the case with booze in countries where they follow a restricyive policy).
So, if you're a lousy parent, no amount of laws will help in good parenting, and if you're a good parent, then you don't need to rely on restrictive laws, which often only adds a more repressive mentality.
I'm sometimes wondering if we're still remember how it was to be kids. I mean, heck, I've tasted booze, shot with air-guns (and with guidance of my dad some heavier things), tried to get my hands on playboy, saw sex-movies, etc. WAY before I was 18...as, if memory serves well, did a lot of the kids back then (and I suspect it is not that different today).
So, what, we didn't turn out to be alcoholic gunshooting rapists. There is a bit (especially in the USA) too much 'protect the children' crap, if you ask me. Good lord, it's just part of growing up, and one doesn't start to grow up at the age of 18, after all.
I'm sure you didn't mean it that extreme, but, as an european, it would completely baffle me as being completely absurd, if a guy never (was allowed to) played a violent game, never had booze, and never saw a sexfilm before the age of 18.
In fact, unless the nature of the youth has drastically changed in the USA, it seems more then likely that such a notion is nonsensical and devoid of any sense of realism. And laws that try to enforce this are pretty absurd in my viewpoint too.
I'm from europe myself, and I'm rather inclined to agree with the parent poster. You have some point, in demonstrating not all levels of pron/booze/etc. is allowed to any age-category, but all in all the attittude is much more relaxed - especially in the non anglo-saxon countries. (Because, according to me, the real difference in mentality lies there, and thus there is less difference between the UK and the USA on those points, then between the mainland and the UK).
Aside being legally more relaxed, it is often also not actively persued. So, even where they have laws that prohibits minors to go to some films, it is hardly ever enforced.
Ofcourse, selling hardcore porn to a 9 year old will not happen, true. But you *did* say: "The populace, under 18, needs to be prevented from pr0n, booze, weapons, and in this particular case, violent video games or those video games with adult images in them." which is clearly untrue.
The legal age in most countries for those things is 16, not 18. And, as I said, often it is not enforced untill it drops under the age of 12. In some cases, like drinking booze, the legal age is in most countries on the mainland 16, but that is for actually selling to minors. For drinking - for instance, from a parents' glass of beer - there really is no age, and, in fact, people here often let even toddlers sip of their beer.
Which has the advantage they usually don't want to try it out anymore for a long time.;-)
It's a cultural diference, allright, but I do think our approach is healthier then the tight-assed mentality of the USa which wants to 'protect' the children at all costs. And that cost, often, turns at to be exactly at the expense of those kids they claim to protect.
So, no, you're wrong if you think one only can see sexfilms from the age of 18, or drink booze, or even weapons (to some degree, ofcourse) or ideo-games.
The thing *I* am afraid off, to be honest, is that the USA mentality will come here too (it often starts being 'adopted' in the netherlands, after the UK) , and instead of a relaxed attitude, we'll become control-the-kids-freaks as well, in a illusionary attempt to try to force things on kids by external means - which never actually helps, but makes things worse (see the difference in drinking patterns between Belgian and UK youth, for instance).
So, can the TV-companies be fined if I'm a lousy parent and let my kids see x-rated movies at night?
No?
Then why should a game-vendor be fined when "parents don't look at it"?
There's nothing stopping kids from just grabbing anything they want right now, you say. But there is: it's called parents. Whether they always do is irrelevant as the same could be said for numerous things parenting stands for.
I'm sorry, but the two parent posters which already responded to you with a "RTFA" are right: you *should* RTFA.
"It hasn't impacted research much because [/snip your own unsubstantiated theory]"
Ermm...once again: RTFA. It clearly indicates that there IS a considerable impact on research. I mean, what, it has two pages which deal with several actual criteria to show the downfall in innovative research, so how can you say exactly the contrary, unless you *didn't* RTFA?
Or, if you are so convinced of your own theory why it can't be that R&D is in decline, please explain why the facts indicate otherwise.
"Completely untrue. The amount of federal funding flowing into the academic commons has grown over time - particularly in the last ten years."
Are you trying to be obnoxious on purpose? He (the parent poster) clearly was talking about research flowing *back* into the *academic commons*. Federal funding isn't flowing back; it's simply payed by our tax-money. what the prent poster was aluding at, was the age-old principle of 'scientific sharing', which is essential to scientific progress as a whole, because one scientist builds on the work of another, etc. By having further commercialised the whole process (especially with patenting), this process has been severely limited and restricted. Which, as I (and others) have said before, has led to less innovation and less academic sharing - hence the reduced flowing back of research to the academic commons.
Everytime I see people defending yet another privacy-intrusion, it makes my stomach turn. It's *always* with the "it's really no big deal", "they did it before, only now they are doing it more efficiently" or especially the "it's to save the children" mantrum. EVERY goddamned time, it's always the same crap. And every time it goes just 'one step' further, those same people are saying it's not a slippery slope. Morons.
But, hey, why stop there? I mean really, if it's all for beneficial goals like saving the children and reducing crime, why not immediately go to more 'efficient' methods that are possible now, or in the not-too-far-future? Ah, what a brave new world full of technology will there be, in 20 or 40 years?
In the future, why not implant a device in a person? Why not make this device obligatory, and give it a GPS-like system, which tracks your movements every single day, 24/24, your whole life. Possibly with live biometric data, if possible. I mean, imagine what benefits it would give! Imagine the lives it would save! The crimes it would help to solve! The near complete protection of kids it would give!
And why not make it obligatory for every single person in the EU or USA to give DNA samples and have that stored in a giant database? I mean, just imagine the HUGE benefits it would give to crime-research, especially in sex-offenses. Why, one could pinpoint the culprit in no time! And wombined with the above, you'll know where he was and where he is right now... what could be more easy for the police?
In fact, most childabuse occurs at home...so, why not install hidden camera's in every household? I mean, it would virtually elliminate any childabuse at home. (Yeah, it would require some fancy automatic 'abuse'-recognition system, but who knows, in 40 years?).
In any case *NO ONE* can deny the benefits it would bring to solving crimes, and preventing abuse and the 'saving of children', if every citizen in the world could be tracked 24/24 for his entire life. If it's allright as long as it's for a 'noble' purpose, nothing can be said against these future privacy-invasions by the current proponents, when the technology is advanced far enough.
It will all save children and help fight crime, after all.
There are quite a few EU countries that would agree to an european army (of some sorts). Some trials to that extend have already been tried out, even. Notably France, Germany and the Benelux-countries are interested in the concept.
Alas, many are against it too, most notably the UK...and since it's still a veto-right in this regard...
I would say it's an argument for having a europe at two speeds; one for those who want to go further, and one for the rest who don't feel like it. Seems fair too.
"50% conversion efficiency of fuel energy to electricity in large power plant. 66% conversion efficiency of electrolysis to make hydrogen. 66% conversion efficiency of making electricity in fuel cell. 95% conversion efficiency of electricity to motive power. 35% conversion efficiency of internal combustion to motive power."
So, when I finally want to drive my car, it is 50 + 66 + 66 + 95 + 35 = 312% of inefficiency! My God! My Car will drive backwards at more then three times the normal speed!!
"It's not all bad - you can make hydrogen from any power source, so you can have a fully environment-friendly hydroelectric hydrogen generator. However, that's less efficient than burning up petroleum to make the hydrogen, so for the moment hydrogen is worse for the environment than simply burning fuel;[...]"
Huh? You lost me, there. what do you mean, it is 'less efficient'? Do you mean in an economical sense? That would depend entirely on the costs of both systems involved, in a given area. In fact, it's rather comparing apples with oranges. If you compare the energy-efficiency in theorethic output per kg of material on itself, then fission (nuclear energy) beats them all (untill fusionreactors will pop up).
Since you correctly indicated that any powersource will do, fission or fusionreactors would be viable candidates too, and would be more efficient then using petroleum (aside from the giant environmental advantages).
You are, ofcourse, correct that, if the hydrogen is created by using systems which burn petroleum in the first place, there is no real advantage (exept maybe in a 'the-cities-are-full-of-clean-cars' local way).
Merely 8 years, and the code already gets an update!
With the high level of IT nerds around here, one can only guess what's next! Maybe something wild... like maybe slashdot will become readable when you use Firefox, for instance!
They make a decent attempt in sounding scientific, and one would almost be inclined to consider it a viable hypothesis...untill they start introducing Stonehenge.
That was just a wee bit over the top, guys. Next time, try to hold back on that, and some people might actually be fooled.
He's actually right about the tendency of games to go for the more 'shiny' super-realistic, state-of-the-art graphics and gizmo's...instead of compelling gameplay.
I mean, c'mon, there used to be great games, even in the 90ies. Yes, they were very basic, graphically (compared with the techniques today, it's almost pathetic)...but at least they were great fun! They are often still fondly remembered!
Indeed, those oldies are not as pleasant to look at, but they had other things going for it. (I wonder why they don't make such games with modern graphics?) As an example, I would urge anyone to try out UQM, based on Starcontrol 2. you can read an analysis on my blog about it: http://newsbyte.blogspot.com/2005/06/game-of-fun.h tml
Slashdot Mirror
"Now, most people I know have 27+ inch screens, with at least stereo, if not surround sound."
We must know different people, then.
"...both of which ensure that the academic center retains plausible objectivity in its dealings with corporate sponsors."
;)"
;)"
;-)
;-)
:-)
Yeah, well, it would be better ensured by not allowing it at all, IMHO. the only reason why it was allowed in the USA, was because it was supposed to be beneficial in stimulating R&D and new products. It would seem (yes, yes, based on limited data, but still) that this isn't the case. thus:
1)if it's not working, there is no reason for it
2)even if it is working, there are maybe alternatives that are better with less risk for losing academic integrity
"They did. It's called the Bayh-Dole Act.
Ermm...no. The system I proposed (if it would be necessary to change our current system, which is debatable on itself) would involve no direct funding/influence of companies and universities. Funding of university research by corporations (in a direct way) would not be allowed.
"If you're arguing that the prior model was well-grounded but badly implemented..."
I was. Possibly with some adaptations. Maybe the state needs to promote it better, or something.
"Let ye who is without bias cast the first stone...
I'm searching for a boulder to cast right now!!
Anyway, I think this dicussion has reached it's end, for now. This is a fact, because it's now mentioned on my blog.
As I said; if you ever make a paper about the issue, I'll be interested to read it. Of course, you'll better make sure you have a lot more of hard data then Fortune, since you so lament the lack of it with them!
"Academic researchers, both in biotech and in software, have no such fears because they create no such products, and are never sued."
;-)
"The possibility of commercializable results is a consideration, but it's not centrally important."
In both instances, I can not share your optimism. In an ideal world, everything would be balanced, no doubt. In reality, thinks go differently. For instance, here too, there has been talk about 'connecting' businesses better to the universities. In fact, the current government is (or at least was) quite fond of the idea that corporations would take part in paying the research. Next thing they said, was that they would reduce the grants given, since the corporations would step in for a considerable part.
Now, even when the level of money (in total) subsidising the universities stay the same, clearly this will have an impact to the sort of research that will be done. In short, there WILL be a shift towards profit-driven research, since the part that was formerly state-sponsored is now sponsored by companies.
And well, one can call them ivory towers, but I'd rather have that then universities becomming extensions of corporations. Ivory towers can at least concentrate on their primary goals of education and academic research, instead of commercial profit-driven research.
In fact, I'm wondering if it couldn't be done far more easy. If taxes pay for universities, their patents belong to us too (well, the state). If a company is interested in obtaining a patent, why not let him simply buy it from the state, with the provision it still can be used freely for academic use? There is no real reason to let corporations influence the direction of universitary research, however. Once they have 'secured the patent', as you say, they can simply research the stuff themselves. The money thus received, would be put back in a general subsidising for all universities (by the state). The advantage would be that universities would remain free of commercial meddling and influences, while as a whole, money would be earned (at least by the state), and new products would be created.
I gather such a system existed, and that you lament the fact many patents lie unused? Well, then, maybe one should divise a system to stimulate that kind of tech-transfer, instead of letting corporations directly sponsor universitary research?
(BTW, there was so much protest about the plans of commercialising the universities around here, that the original plans have been severly adapted
No one has anything against companies on themselves (in fact, more then one university-rooted corporation in bio-tech has been succesful in my country), but one shouldn't be naive neither. When you mix academic work with commercial profit-driven work, the two are not all that compatible, and seen the capitalistic drive in our western society, it's always the academic integrity that is most at peril.
Anyway, we're both digressing a bit and divulging into opinions, I'm afraid. I don't think we'll solve this discussion untill a bit more hard data proves the article wrong or right. Though, I have the impression you will never be convinced by any data, if that data indeed indicates a decline in R&D, etc.
But maybe I'm wrong.
"'k... I think we've beaten this side-issue into the ground, so let's part amicably on it and move on to more central issues." ;-)
:-) I think that, while not completely the same (it never is), it's analogous enough to warrant the proposition that the same link may be applicable.
"If you're arguing that software companies are diverting reseach funds, then I have to agree with you. I also think it's non-analogous."
Hmm..well, we already disagree.
There is, alas, not as much research done on the specific issue of bio-tech patents by universities as there has been done on 'software-patents' by softwarecompanies, so I'll agree it's not conclusive. Additional research in this area may settle the question, but at least the article hinted at the same detrimental effects as is apparent in the software-patents case.
Your rationale is not without merrit, but neither is that of the article (or mine), and at least they have *some* data that backs it up (or at least indicates it is right). I know you are not writing a scientific article on slashdot, but still, you ARE using it as an argument. Now, all else being equal, when I'm provided with two sides of an argumentation, I'm rather inlined to go for the one which has at least some data backing it up (meager as it may be), then the argumentation which is not backed up by any data.
I would be more then interested to see your paper (with data) if you ever make it, however. Be sure to give me an email-note when you do.
"I'm having trouble with this notion of "rapid potential profit," because very few technology licenses embody anything of the sort."
I didn't mean 'rapid' in the sense of it being a cash-cow within weeks. I'm just pointing out, that research which has little to no potential for profit (the basic research) will become less appealing for universities to do, since the chances of gaining profit with such projects are less then with more commercially-applied projects.
Surely you must acknowledge that, when your focus becomes more and more profit driven (and everybody, including universities, like to earn increasing amount of money, naturally) then you are less and less inclined to fund projects which show little profit-potential. This is not a far-fetched reasoning, if you ask me.
Now, there is nothing wrong with companies shifting their attention to more profit-prone projects and research. In fact, it's what they should do, since it's primarely about making profit that companies are about. But basic research has to be done too, and if universities don't do it, who will? Certainly not the corporations.
Profit-driven research is all good and well, but we're not paying universities with our taxes to fill, nor even support the role of companies; they can do that job by themselves just fine. Their main focus, thus, should be basic research (since they are sponsored by the state (our taxes) already), so it doesn't matter if it has profit-potential or not.
"I view money as the fuel for the process that achieves THE goal, which is to maximize technological progress."
First of all, it is the question whether indeed it fuels any sort of process, exept litigation, as the article has hinted at. The results, exept for some exeptions like MIT, were rather poor - as well for the universities themselves, as for most of the companies, as the article mentionned.
Secondly, I do not believe any major scientific project can run without money...but universities already get money; from the state, and thus, from the taxes we pay. They don't receive this just for the fun, or to aid or fill in the role of companies, as far as I know. That's not the mandate they receive from the state (at least in Europe).
Thirdly, we may differ in opinion on what the goal actually should be. "Technological progress" as measured how? In deliverance of products on the free market? This may be the goal of corporations, but is (or should) it be that of universities? The goal of schools and
"Hopefully you'll also agree that it really doesn't belong in any substantive discussion."
;-)
That would depend on the question whether or not the person in question has RTFA.
"and really just adds a distracting confrontational edge."
If one actually read the article, this is true. In that case, the claim isn't litteraly about reading the article, but more like "you missed the point of the article". But the argumentational value of that is rather limited, I concur.
"How does the presence or absence of lawsuits affect the rate of technology development? You can't just imply a link here."
Alas, one can. At least with software-patents there already has been research that showed the link: when companies started to patent software in the USA, the litigation and lawyercosts rose dramatically *at the expense of R&D*. I'm sure ypou'll want to know the sources for that, so I'm going to direct you to the FFII; if I remember correctly, they have a whole page with links to scientific research about the detrimental effect patents can have (with, indeed, also a decline in R&D and new products as a result).
"I'm not actually here to make any assertions, since it's not my article."
But you do. Or at least, did, in one of your posts to me. You came up with a whole theory of why it was actually beneficial - but without providing any evidence, not even the meager evidence you claim Fortune is using.
"The fact that we rely (hugely) on the federal government to fund it disproves your point."
No, it doesn't. His point was, that without the strong emphasis on commercialisation that is rampant today (and to which the amendment of the law contributed) universities were more inclined to do fundamental research, while now they are more and more inclined to do 'rapid-potential-profit' research. This is not difficult to understand, after all; once you view universities (or they see themselves as such) as a mere extension of business, the driving force will be profit, not the pursuit of knowledge on itself.
It is, in fact, hardly a disputable fact that this happens.
And, indeed, even that profit-driven research is heavily sponsored by the government (and thus, our taxes), which is why several posters have indicated we're being screwed.
Anyway, the question remains, if it is the job of the university to concentrate on profit-driven research. In my book, it isn't: companies can do that just fine of their own. I'm not paying universities my tax-money so they can do the work the company would otherwise have to do. There is nothing wrong with profit-driven research... but that's the main objective of corporations, not universities. The latter should stick to academic research, and especially that kind of research which isn't meant to be profitable (basic research)... because companies will not do it, and universities ARE sponsored by the state, after all. Thus, let each do what they do best: short-term profit-research for companies, and long-term knowledge driven basic research for universities.
Now, refrain from a rebutal with claiming that it can be both. Perhaps, but only to a limited extend. There can be little doubt, that, when you concentrate on making profits, it goes at the expense of research that is deemed to be not profitable. And in reality, this is exactly what happens: the more universities are focussed on profit, the more they are inclined to neglect basic research which is doubtfull to bring them any profit.
Ofcourse, when you consider monetary income als THE goal of businesses and and universities alike, then this consideration may hold no value for you. One could even claim the extra income is used for basic research, or for the tuition...but the article shows that even this isn't true.
"So here, at last, we get to the crux of the argument, the difference between your views and mine."
Indeed, it is, with the difference that it was also what the article was about.
"The difference between your argument and mine is that you can't tolerate any restraints on that pool of ideas. I believe we have to in order to compel people to perform that other 99%."
Well, I would rather claim the difference is that you make a personal cause for your opinions of it. You fail to realise that my or your personal preference is (or at least should) be irrelevant in discussing the point raised by the article, which was, alas, not about the flow of money which you keep bringing up (in line with your view).
I'm not unreasonable about it; I think your question for more sources has some merrit, for instance. But seen the fact it was not meant as a science paper for peer-review, it is not all that uncommon. Now, maybe they did screw up their numbers; it's always possible...but, that remains to be proven, while you seem to act as if it is already proven to be bogus - the basis for which you mainly find in your unsubstantiated personal view about it. And, unless you have data which would contradict what they have (which you don't), the data they provide - incomplete with sources as it may be - do indicate some support for what they claim. Even when one can criticise the article, in any case it surely does *not* indicate that the law was beneficial *in terms of R&D and new products*; which was what the article was about.
If the main point had been the monetary benefit, then your discussion, while still totally unsubstantiated, would at least have made sense. Instead, you have largely ingored the issue raised by the article, by repeating the (unproven) monetary benefits it brings.
Your personal belief that one 'has to' restrain the pool of ideas in order to compel people to perform the 'other 99%' is irrelevant (or at least should be) in discussing the point the paper made. Alas, it clearly shows you let your own bias overrule everything else.
If it *were* about the monetary benefits, even if it would go against my own personal beliefs, at least I wouldn't try to substantiate it by argumenting about the decline in R&D, if the article was about the money instead of the R&D. It may well be that - even though I would probably also mention the decline as an argument against it - I would come to the conclusion, indeed, that it has some monetary benefits for at least some universities, for instance. There is no reason to let your personal beliefs cloud your argumentation, after all.
It's NOT about your views or my views, it about what the article said. And it didn't deal with the monetary aspect, it dealt with the decline in R&D and new products.
"That was the point I was responded to with "I have no idea what you're talking about." You then saw fit to ride in with a "RTFA" response, which, you should now see was a hasty mistake on your part. Naturally, I won't hold my breath waiting an apology or admission of error."
;-)
And you shouldn't, or you would turn blue like a smurf!
Even the parent poster didn't say 'everything', but in any case, you seem to have a tendency to go for the semantics or your own interpretation of what is said, rather then the obvious meaning of the arguments. In this case, you could keep continue to say 'no new patentlaw has emerged', but someone reading the parent post (without bad will) would realise he was talking about the amended law and what it changed, as is portrayed by the article (this whole discussion IS about what is said in the article, after all).
Now, in all honesty: did you *really* failed to realise this? Do you actually think it is about patenting everything for everybody...or are you going to be sensible, instead of obnoxious, and agree it's exactly about the issue I've quoted in my former post, where I, as well as the former poster, was talking about. (and which you were well aware off, IMHO).
"It might be a way to measure U.S. contribution to science vs. that of the world. It's a much bigger leap to infer that the Bayh-Dole Act or licensing is the cause of that. That was my point."
And your much smaller leap to substantiate your theory is..what, exactly?
I already agreed that the causality is not proven. But meager as the data may be, the indications rather show some support to his theory. It certainly *does not* show any support for your theory. So, if you claim the contrary; what data do you use (which is, obviously, a lot better then the mere correlation of his data).
"...which metrics they off-handedly reference but do not cite, and merely suggest are "worse" and cherry-pick a particular fact. No verification; no sources that we can use for cross-referencing."
Are you suggesting their conclusions or claims in these matters are untrue, or merely inadequately referenced with sources? I'm inclined to think that, if they have looked at those criteria and say it has declined, they are not merely inventing it to be interesting.
True, it would be nice to see the whole methodology, statistic analysis, and what not, but I doubt the article was meant for scientific peers. And yes, one could be obnoxious again, and claim they don't show proof or sources, but then again, even if they did provide a link as source, one could always claim it's untrue. *Nothing* on the web can be deemed to be true (or untrue) when push comes to shove, so the point remains rather moot. Why, in fact, bother with anything what they say, then? If they lie about the decline in NME's, they can lie about everything... and the sources they might link to, can be complete false too.
Your explanation why they say 'worse' is intriguing, but remains speculation at best. And, somehow, I doubt you would be more happy if they had said a '20% decline', for instance: I'm sure you would have found something else to dismiss the whole thing.
Mind you, for someone so keen on having 'hard' evidence, you're rather meager on providing some data for your own claims and theory.
"As proof of pharmaceutical company productivity, let's look at university business. Oh, hey, it's way up! They earn great licensing revenue and get a lot of patents! [...]"
Ermm... you are unable to get your capitalistic-orientated mind of anything but money, are you? For the last time: it's about the declining R&D and innovative new products, as an unforseen consequence of the amendment of the law, NOT about what some universities may or may not see in monetary return for their tax-sponsored research. And in those area's, most of those companies have very little to show for, indicating that it's not the breeding ground of R&D and new products which it was claimed the law would provide f
"I did - last night - and I didn't see any mention of some kind of change in the patent process, whereby researchers used to "automatically" receive patents for anything. Show me where the article mentions that."
Where did you get that premisse? Nobody is arguing about a patent reform that automatically grants patents for everything, so I'm inclined to see this as a false dilemma.
That is entirely not the question. Rather it is about the change (amendment) of the law that made (quote): "The law simplified the "technology transfer" process and, more important, changed the legal presumption about who ought to own and develop new ideas--private enterprise as opposed to Uncle Sam." With as result a declining R&D and innovative products.
Strange you should have missed that part, if you RTFA: it's already on page 2, paragraph 2 and 3.
"The only metric they cited about "impact on research" is a really crappy one:[...]"
Untrue, the decline in R&D and innovative new products have been indicated (1)by the produced articles, as you said (and which they themselves say is difficult to pinpoint, but this IS the way in academic circles to put a value onto it, so it's not like they're making the criterion up). (2)They also use the data of the total number of FDA-approved compounds and biologics in a current year, (3)but also at how many priority NMEs are making it through: by both measures, the productivity picture is much worse than it was in 1996. (4)And lastly, they looked at the university-linked businesses which are using these patents, to see what they actually produce in innovative products, which in most cases have almost nothing to show for.
It seems, again, curious you should have missed all that, when reading the article: it's on page 5 and 6.
I agree the causality between this decline, and the Bayh-Dole Act, is not irrefutably proven. I think this is always hard to do, in these matters. But at least there is a strong indication of a correlation, which is more then can be said of your theory. If you're so convinced of the benefits of the law and that it's not true there is a decline of R&D and inovative products (in this case drugs), please explane the data provided by the author that indicates otherwise. And please indicate your data which might substantiate your claim and theory.
I mean, you may dispute the value of 'produced articles' (even when the academici themselves use it as value-measurement), but what, exactly, do *you* offer to substantiate your claims? And I mean in actual data, not esotheric reasonings or opinions.
All things equal, surely you will agree he made a far better case about his theory, then you with yours - at least, as yet.
"How was it "flowing back" before? What magical mechanism existed to reinvest money in successful labs that was tragically shredded by the Bayh-Dole Act and the patent system?"
Hmmm...I'm beginning to see why you 'missed' so much from RTFA. It seems you have a very selective reading.
Let's go by this one step at a time:
Original: "He (the parent poster) clearly was talking about research flowing *back* into the *academic commons*."
Notice the word research.
Now, your answer: "What magical mechanism existed to reinvest money in successful labs that was tragically shredded by the Bayh-Dole Act and the patent system?"
Notice the word money.
Now, did anyone talk about money flowing back, or research? Well, heck, it was research.
Is research and money the same thing?
No, it isn't.
Thus, is your answer to the point?
No, it isn't. And that's why you missed my explanation about what is actually meant by the flowing back of research completely. and that's why you missed so much in the article too: the whole thing was about how that law disturbed the age-old process of 'scientific sharing' by focussing on the commercial prospects of patenting tax-funded research, and the decline in R&D and innovatyive drugs that followed, when it was supposed to stimulate it.
The 'sharply decreased' was never about the incomming money, and if you had read TFA a bit better, we could have spared us this whole discussion.
"Then stuff falls into the wrong, young hands. Kids shoot each other with guns when playing with them."
Man, you have a pretty pessimistic view on things. I mean, seriously, I don't know how it is around your part, but in my country I'm quite sure no kid shot another kid in the last decade.
If it's such a problem were you live, one should rather look at the real causes (the lax gun control? Or the wild west mentality?), and not to videogames.
I mean, have you ever seen that movie of M.Moore? I think he made the point rather obvious; canada, where guns are also freely sold, has vastly less gun-related crimeproblems, even in comparison. Japan, a country with rather extreme violent or sexual (or both) films, even animationfilms and comics (hentai and manga);it's all over the place, it's widely looked at (and I suspect not only by 18year olds)..yet the actual crime rate is far less then in the USa, in comparison.
So, I really think it's a bit simplistic to go after videogames. If your kid at the age of 14 can't tell the difference between a game and reality, and starts shooting people for real, then there was already something wrong with him (or your parenting) long before he played a game. The same goes for drinking and driving. Mind you, I think that combination is rightfully fined, but I fail to see the link some are claiming between that, and the allowed age for drinking.
In fact, it exactly demonstrates my point. It is FAR better to guide them through to it, starting at an early age, but in a relaxed and guided way, then to forbid it untill they are 18 (or 21, like in most of the USA). the so called 'binch drinking' rampant in the UK with the youth, is EXACTLY the consequence over over-restrictive and overzealous laws and restrictions put on the youth, and society as a whole. and does it help, all those laws and restrictions? Aparently not.
Does it help in the USA and the UK to be tight-assed about sex towards youth? Aparently not, seen the high amount of teen-pregnancies. Here, one might have legally sex at age 16, and for sure kids here see a lot more about it then in the USA, but that's just it; it's more relaxed but guided, instead of forbidden. Here, we're rather inclined to say; well, you better wait a bit longer, but if you are going to do it, use a condom. While in the USA it will rather be: no sex before you're 18! (Which is as effective as saying no sex before mariage; almost none). It is just unrealistic and idiotic to think that the youth should (let alone will) wait untill they are 18 before doing all those things...so why pretend they only start learning at that age, then?
"The age of 18 is admittedly arbitrary, but again, as mentioned, there are no tests for maturity."
If we admit to that, then we should also admit that it makes no sense to concentrate that fanatically at 18. Who should make out the maturity? Well, for a part, the youth in question (which demonstrates the level of maturity he has reached, after all), and partly the parents, for sure. The last thing would be a general everything-for-all-age arbitrarily set by the state, while it is rather obvious that maturity is dependend on the individual, and that the learning process starts way sooner then 18. In fact, it doesn't make any sense, in that regard, because at 18, the learning process doesn't start, on the contrary. Unless one grows up like a hothouse plant, I can't imagine someone of 18 having to start for the first time dealing with booze, sex, violent films or games, etc. If you never learned to deal with those issues, yes, *then* you get abuse, like binch drinking and the lot.
In this respect, many EU countries at least acknowledge the reality, and have set the legal age of almost all these things at 16, and not at 18.
"Those that thwart my desire to be a guiding light in their young lives distort family relationships in an onerous way. This is a liberty that I'm not ready to give up."
Well.. I don't know..I don't know your or their situation. Ofcourse... all i
"You absolutely can't buy anything with nudity if you're under 17,[...]"
;-)
What the..? Where the f- do you live?
Can't be in the EU, in any case.
"[...]and you're going to have hard time getting an R or rated magazine or movie if you're under 13 (isn't that the age?)"
I suppose that "hard time getting" wasn't a pun?
But, seriously, if I can sue someone for selling games because I'm to lousy a parent to parent my own kids, then why can't I sue a TV-company when my kid would watch an x-rated movie at night, but I'm to lousy to parent him then too?
I think there IS a bit of a double standard.
Your explanation of what effects the psyche more then something else is an unsubstantiated opinion; I've never seen any actual scientific measurements, and they are certainly not used or determining the RG rating of games in any objective way. In fact, the whole issue of whether and how much violence and sex has an impact on the youth (let alone would cause traumas) is still under discussion.
In any case, it depends far more on the general attitude about violence, and the context in which your kid sees a book, a movie, a game...then on whether or not it *are* pictures, or a movie, or a game.
Well, as a libertarian, far from me to say how you should raise your own kids. ;-)
But I still disagree on some minor points, however.
"I teach, and expose them to life, with the values added, not the values from television or a video game."
Yes, well, IMHO opinion, kids know the difference between TV and games and reality long before they turn 18, nomatter how many USA parents claim the shooting at Columbine is due to violent games. Even at young age, it's more the context, then the game itself which is of importance. (The same goes for drinking booze, actually).
But, ultimately, if one, as a parent, needs control, and you need laws that prohibit vendors to sell violent games to make it possible for you to have that control, then there is already gone siomething wrong, IMHO. It's for a parent to create a environment where there is open dialoge, where things can be discussed and explained, set in a context with the 'added values' as you say, so that kids know and respect ones' decision. Or, at the very least, one where the parent does the trouble of looking at the game his kid has bought.
If one doesn't even do that much trouble, but instead have to rely on state intervention and laws for doing a parenting job which the parent himself should do, then there is something wrong.
It's all down to your personal relationship with your kids, at the end, and if that relationship sucks, then no game-rating-law will help; they will just ask some older dude to go and buy it (just as is the case with booze in countries where they follow a restricyive policy).
So, if you're a lousy parent, no amount of laws will help in good parenting, and if you're a good parent, then you don't need to rely on restrictive laws, which often only adds a more repressive mentality.
I'm sometimes wondering if we're still remember how it was to be kids. I mean, heck, I've tasted booze, shot with air-guns (and with guidance of my dad some heavier things), tried to get my hands on playboy, saw sex-movies, etc. WAY before I was 18...as, if memory serves well, did a lot of the kids back then (and I suspect it is not that different today).
So, what, we didn't turn out to be alcoholic gunshooting rapists. There is a bit (especially in the USA) too much 'protect the children' crap, if you ask me. Good lord, it's just part of growing up, and one doesn't start to grow up at the age of 18, after all.
I'm sure you didn't mean it that extreme, but, as an european, it would completely baffle me as being completely absurd, if a guy never (was allowed to) played a violent game, never had booze, and never saw a sexfilm before the age of 18.
In fact, unless the nature of the youth has drastically changed in the USA, it seems more then likely that such a notion is nonsensical and devoid of any sense of realism. And laws that try to enforce this are pretty absurd in my viewpoint too.
I'm from europe myself, and I'm rather inclined to agree with the parent poster. You have some point, in demonstrating not all levels of pron/booze/etc. is allowed to any age-category, but all in all the attittude is much more relaxed - especially in the non anglo-saxon countries. (Because, according to me, the real difference in mentality lies there, and thus there is less difference between the UK and the USA on those points, then between the mainland and the UK).
;-)
Aside being legally more relaxed, it is often also not actively persued. So, even where they have laws that prohibits minors to go to some films, it is hardly ever enforced.
Ofcourse, selling hardcore porn to a 9 year old will not happen, true. But you *did* say: "The populace, under 18, needs to be prevented from pr0n, booze, weapons, and in this particular case, violent video games or those video games with adult images in them." which is clearly untrue.
The legal age in most countries for those things is 16, not 18. And, as I said, often it is not enforced untill it drops under the age of 12. In some cases, like drinking booze, the legal age is in most countries on the mainland 16, but that is for actually selling to minors. For drinking - for instance, from a parents' glass of beer - there really is no age, and, in fact, people here often let even toddlers sip of their beer.
Which has the advantage they usually don't want to try it out anymore for a long time.
It's a cultural diference, allright, but I do think our approach is healthier then the tight-assed mentality of the USa which wants to 'protect' the children at all costs. And that cost, often, turns at to be exactly at the expense of those kids they claim to protect.
So, no, you're wrong if you think one only can see sexfilms from the age of 18, or drink booze, or even weapons (to some degree, ofcourse) or ideo-games.
The thing *I* am afraid off, to be honest, is that the USA mentality will come here too (it often starts being 'adopted' in the netherlands, after the UK) , and instead of a relaxed attitude, we'll become control-the-kids-freaks as well, in a illusionary attempt to try to force things on kids by external means - which never actually helps, but makes things worse (see the difference in drinking patterns between Belgian and UK youth, for instance).
So, can the TV-companies be fined if I'm a lousy parent and let my kids see x-rated movies at night?
No?
Then why should a game-vendor be fined when "parents don't look at it"?
There's nothing stopping kids from just grabbing anything they want right now, you say. But there is: it's called parents. Whether they always do is irrelevant as the same could be said for numerous things parenting stands for.
"I have no idea what you mean here."
I'm sorry, but the two parent posters which already responded to you with a "RTFA" are right: you *should* RTFA.
"It hasn't impacted research much because [/snip your own unsubstantiated theory]"
Ermm...once again: RTFA. It clearly indicates that there IS a considerable impact on research. I mean, what, it has two pages which deal with several actual criteria to show the downfall in innovative research, so how can you say exactly the contrary, unless you *didn't* RTFA?
Or, if you are so convinced of your own theory why it can't be that R&D is in decline, please explain why the facts indicate otherwise.
"Completely untrue. The amount of federal funding flowing into the academic commons has grown over time - particularly in the last ten years."
Are you trying to be obnoxious on purpose? He (the parent poster) clearly was talking about research flowing *back* into the *academic commons*. Federal funding isn't flowing back; it's simply payed by our tax-money. what the prent poster was aluding at, was the age-old principle of 'scientific sharing', which is essential to scientific progress as a whole, because one scientist builds on the work of another, etc. By having further commercialised the whole process (especially with patenting), this process has been severely limited and restricted. Which, as I (and others) have said before, has led to less innovation and less academic sharing - hence the reduced flowing back of research to the academic commons.
Everytime I see people defending yet another privacy-intrusion, it makes my stomach turn. It's *always* with the "it's really no big deal", "they did it before, only now they are doing it more efficiently" or especially the "it's to save the children" mantrum. EVERY goddamned time, it's always the same crap. And every time it goes just 'one step' further, those same people are saying it's not a slippery slope. Morons.
But, hey, why stop there? I mean really, if it's all for beneficial goals like saving the children and reducing crime, why not immediately go to more 'efficient' methods that are possible now, or in the not-too-far-future? Ah, what a brave new world full of technology will there be, in 20 or 40 years?
In the future, why not implant a device in a person? Why not make this device obligatory, and give it a GPS-like system, which tracks your movements every single day, 24/24, your whole life. Possibly with live biometric data, if possible. I mean, imagine what benefits it would give! Imagine the lives it would save! The crimes it would help to solve! The near complete protection of kids it would give!
And why not make it obligatory for every single person in the EU or USA to give DNA samples and have that stored in a giant database? I mean, just imagine the HUGE benefits it would give to crime-research, especially in sex-offenses. Why, one could pinpoint the culprit in no time! And wombined with the above, you'll know where he was and where he is right now... what could be more easy for the police?
In fact, most childabuse occurs at home...so, why not install hidden camera's in every household? I mean, it would virtually elliminate any childabuse at home. (Yeah, it would require some fancy automatic 'abuse'-recognition system, but who knows, in 40 years?).
In any case *NO ONE* can deny the benefits it would bring to solving crimes, and preventing abuse and the 'saving of children', if every citizen in the world could be tracked 24/24 for his entire life. If it's allright as long as it's for a 'noble' purpose, nothing can be said against these future privacy-invasions by the current proponents, when the technology is advanced far enough.
It will all save children and help fight crime, after all.
"...but being black makes practically no difference anymore..."
Statistics disagree. Socio-economical, it makes a BIG difference.
There are quite a few EU countries that would agree to an european army (of some sorts). Some trials to that extend have already been tried out, even. Notably France, Germany and the Benelux-countries are interested in the concept.
Alas, many are against it too, most notably the UK...and since it's still a veto-right in this regard...
I would say it's an argument for having a europe at two speeds; one for those who want to go further, and one for the rest who don't feel like it. Seems fair too.
But alas, even to that the UK objects.
"I hope you're not serious[...]"
/. Well, most people, anyway.
;-)
Heh. And I'm hoping you are kidding with that statement.
I mean, c'mon; people don't have *THAT* a low standard on
Besides...I'm from Europe.
"50% conversion efficiency of fuel energy to electricity in large power plant.
66% conversion efficiency of electrolysis to make hydrogen.
66% conversion efficiency of making electricity in fuel cell.
95% conversion efficiency of electricity to motive power.
35% conversion efficiency of internal combustion to motive power."
So, when I finally want to drive my car, it is 50 + 66 + 66 + 95 + 35 = 312% of inefficiency! My God! My Car will drive backwards at more then three times the normal speed!!
"It's not all bad - you can make hydrogen from any power source, so you can have a fully environment-friendly hydroelectric hydrogen generator. However, that's less efficient than burning up petroleum to make the hydrogen, so for the moment hydrogen is worse for the environment than simply burning fuel;[...]"
Huh? You lost me, there. what do you mean, it is 'less efficient'? Do you mean in an economical sense? That would depend entirely on the costs of both systems involved, in a given area. In fact, it's rather comparing apples with oranges. If you compare the energy-efficiency in theorethic output per kg of material on itself, then fission (nuclear energy) beats them all (untill fusionreactors will pop up).
Since you correctly indicated that any powersource will do, fission or fusionreactors would be viable candidates too, and would be more efficient then using petroleum (aside from the giant environmental advantages).
You are, ofcourse, correct that, if the hydrogen is created by using systems which burn petroleum in the first place, there is no real advantage (exept maybe in a 'the-cities-are-full-of-clean-cars' local way).
Merely 8 years, and the code already gets an update!
With the high level of IT nerds around here, one can only guess what's next! Maybe something wild... like maybe slashdot will become readable when you use Firefox, for instance!
The skype is the limit!
They make a decent attempt in sounding scientific, and one would almost be inclined to consider it a viable hypothesis...untill they start introducing Stonehenge.
That was just a wee bit over the top, guys. Next time, try to hold back on that, and some people might actually be fooled.
He's actually right about the tendency of games to go for the more 'shiny' super-realistic, state-of-the-art graphics and gizmo's...instead of compelling gameplay.
h tml
I mean, c'mon, there used to be great games, even in the 90ies. Yes, they were very basic, graphically (compared with the techniques today, it's almost pathetic)...but at least they were great fun! They are often still fondly remembered!
Indeed, those oldies are not as pleasant to look at, but they had other things going for it. (I wonder why they don't make such games with modern graphics?) As an example, I would urge anyone to try out UQM, based on Starcontrol 2. you can read an analysis on my blog about it: http://newsbyte.blogspot.com/2005/06/game-of-fun.
Now I understand why the police or 'special' agencies can't find their terrorists: they rely on MS in general, and IE in particular! ;-)
well...they share the same amount of irony as the rest of my post, including about the ozon-layer. ;-)