Could you be so kind a to give an importante/relevant example of a "basic research" breakthrough in science steaming from private funding alone or in the greatest part?
Newton's Laws of Motion? Kepler's Laws? Mendelian genetics? I don't think you can get much more basic than that.
And by private funding I mean with an intent to generate profit
I refuse to use non-standard English to placate you. "Private" means "non-government", irrespective of profit motive.
Ahhhh, spoken like a person who has no real understanding of the history of science. Are you aware that essentially *all* applied scientific knowledge and applications are derived from basic science research?
Not all of that so-called "basic research" has been government funded though. And even to the extent that it is, so what? Private companies anticipate, and then respond to the actions of others, like government, in researching other areas. Remove it, and they'll flush out all application-type improvements, profit margins in those areas will fall, and they'll extend time horizons to research with a later payoff. And so what if they focus on things with more direct application? According to Tom Bethell, from an interview, George Gilder says that "I cannot deny that places like Caltech, MIT, Stanford, Carnegie Mellon and Georgia Tech do a lot of very valuable research on government money," but that the most valuable insights come from making actual devices, and this is done by private companies.
Odd definition of plagiarism there. Crichton argued the same general idea as Lindzen. You're not obligated to cite everyone who argues the same idea, only when you're quoting them or using them to bolster your thesis. If I say "you know, adding garlic to butter before putting it on bread is a good idea", no one's obligated to cite me if they want to also recomment adding garlic to butter for putting it on bread -- even if they got it from me. If they use those words, or something very close to it, then you have a case.
In any case, Crichton is a pretty bright guy. I doubt he even got those ideas from Lindzen.
Credit card companies are the largest, and the largest fraudulent, source of junk mail. I'm sorry you're having a hard time understanding why I wouldn't want to tell them, "hey, keep it up!"
The things you can patent is getting larger and larger, and of course, when you sue, you can't reveal too much about how they infringe until trial. I predict that one day, they will patent "innovative problem solving", so if you move a box to stand on it and get over a wall, that's covered. I mean, why not? Offering immediate tender prices ("buy it now" prices) is patentable? Thousands of books consider reducing storage time, but like, only when it helps to be a novel idea. How long until they consider some ill-defined "problem-solving method" patentable?
The body is not 100% efficient. Like the other poster said, the calorie tables *take into account* the bodies inefficiencies in converting chemical caloric energy into mechanical work energy. The efficiency of the human body, defined as ratio of mechanical work output to chemical energy input through food, is about 10-12%. So as a rough estimate, multiply the mechanical work by 10 to get the calories you need for it.
Gee, thanks, moron, for explaining how to put in a line break. Too bad the question was *why* not *how*. Try again, and this time, read the fucking question.
Many objects have been found on Earth that were ejected from other planets like Mars by other impacts, demonstrating the principal very clearly.
heh, you gotta love scientist wannabes.
"Meteors knocking stuff from earth is plausible because meteors have knocked stuff from other planets." "And how do you know that happened?" "We just do."
I'm sure you have some reason to believe that the meteors knocking stuff of other planets was also plausible, but that should have been your answer to the original question!
Kid: do you seriously think scientists could give a boulder escape velocity by colliding another object with the earth?
Or think about it this way -- given random directions for the boulders, about 1 in 10e15 boulders (approximate average view factor from earth to the moon where they supposedly landed) will go from earth to the other planet. Given the number of boulders they claim made it, that would imply the total number of ejected boulders should be huge, and we should see it happening all the fucking time.
Since this is probably too deep now for even my nemeses (see list) to mod me down for off topic, that reminds me of a way somebody could get away with killing an infant. (Not advocating this of course.) Basically, carry it into an abortion clinic and kill it in front of everyone. They'll be unable to summon police for the following reason:
"911" "There's a man here killing a baby!" "What is your location?" "Uh um, forgot the address, it's the Planned Parenthood on..." "You mean the abortion clinic" "Well, yeah, but they also..." "Oh, I get it. A man's killing a baby in an abortion clinic. We haven't heard that one 600,000 times already. Very funny. Now stop tying up the lines."
I understand that, but the story summary specifically says these collisions sent *boulders* off the earth. If you want to consider any particle leaving the atmosphere, I can see that (or at least not know enough to find it ridiculous), but the scientists seem to be violating Occam's Razor by positing that they were also boulders. And yes, it is hard to believe even tiny objects went *from the ground*, straight into space due to a collision, rather than usual dust formation. Remember, objects fry up coming *into* the atmosphere, but we're supposed to believe they don't *when leaving*?
If you want to propose a theory about particles leaving the earth, you don't need to bring in meteors or boulders, which seem to be the least likely cause.
believe it or not. There's a concept called a "deadweight loss" in economics. And basically, it's any kind of harm (something someone dislikes for whatever reason) which has no corresponding *benefit* for anyone. If I take a dollar from you, that's not a deadweight loss, because your loss was my gain. But if I burn your dollar, you lost, and no one gained. (That's a simplification, but you get the general idea.) And obviously, deadweight losses are bad.
Now imagine a town that has a problem with thieves breaking windows so they can get into stores and houses to steal TV's. Here is ranking of the TV owners' preferences:
1) No TV's be stolen or windows broken. 2) Windows broken, but no TV's stolen. 3) TV's stolen, but no windows broken. 4) TV's stolen, and window's broken.
Here is the typical thief's order of preference:
1) Get TV's, but not have to break windows. 2) Get TV's and have to break windows. 3) Not get TV's and not have to break windows. 4) Break windows for no reason.
Currently, option number 4) on the TV owners' list, and option 2) on the theives' list are prevailing -- TV owners lose TV's and windows. Thieves get TV's but have to break windows.
Now here's the kicker:
For some economists, an "efficient" move would be to give the thieves free TV's! Why? Well, the thieves are better off -- they get TV's, but no longer have to break windows. The owners are better off because, while they still lose some TV's, at least their windows aren't broken! Everyone wins! Yay!
Except, as anyone with a functioning brain knows, all that would accomplish is that the thieves would get TV's, and then some of them (or newcomers to the thievery profession) would still steal more TV's. The problem, like with the "separate plot for weeds" that you bring up, is that you can't corral thieves by giving them free stuff. Give weeds a place, they'll demand more. Give thieves TV's, and thieves will take more.
It amazes me how the average person sees this, but some economists don't.
So the theory is that meteors hit the earth, and this somehow kicked up *boulders* to fucking *leave the atmosphere*? Think about how much force it takes to push things we *want* to go out of the atmosphere? And the escape velocities involved.
Is it just me, or does the idea of meteors kicking stuff *off the earth* not pass the laugh test?
Credit cards are for convenience of shopping. Credit cards were originally offered by department stores and gas stations. They felt that by offering short term credit to their customes, so that their customers would have greater convinece at their store, they would get more business and make more money. Visa and Mastercard charge a fee to the store to accept their cards, so their motive of making money is satisfied even if you pay your card off every month. In fact, American Express only recently allowed you to carry a balance past the end of the month. Stores on the other hand accept Visa/MC because it creates a convenince for their customers, and thus increases business. You see, there is nothing in the 'purpose' of the credit card that requires long term debt.
I *have* a check card though. But because I can't get in debt with that card, it "doesn't count". So basically, you have to open up a venue for getting into debt before people will rent to you or sell you electricity. I believe it's because they let assholes who skip on rent and bill payments get away. Or because they don't report histories of prompt rent payment, but they do report when you don't pay. I fucking hate being forced to encourage credit card companies. That's what happens when I apply for a credit card.
They're not looking for you to go into debt, they're looking for a payment history...
I *do* have a payment history. At the time, I had spent over a year in apartments. Paid on time every month. Paid bills too. All on time, all every month. And not only did the electric company not like me not having a credit history, the fucking apartment didn't either!!! I had verifiable proof I was making over *six times a month* more than the rent they were charging per month, plus the references from other apartments, but because of that credit history, I still had to get a co-signer! How fucked up is that?
The problem is, it drains more, and it doesn't have to. If the hardware took the encrypted format as native, the efficiency loss from using an encrypted format would be smaller than the precision of most instruments used to measure this. Usually, a software solution is best. But not this time!
So, in your mind, I have a positive obligation to get a credit card, even if I don't intend to use it for what credit cards are for, in order to prove credit worthiness? Even though this says nothing about my responsibility? You're okay with how someone $5000 in debt from irresponsible decisions is more trusted for paying his electric bill than LeonGeeste, who saves half his money and never goes into debt? That is all AOK with you?
As a final coup de grace, are you going to tell me that you seriously wonder why US household debt is so high?
The Chinese party does *not* kill infant girls. They kill *fetuses*. Fetus != human, got it? There's nothing wrong with killing a fetus, as long as it hasn't come out of the womb. Now if they do "partial-birth abortions" (infanticide), that's something to worry about. By the way, 95% of these abortions are at the behest of the father or mother. I guess CNN missed that when they did their little yellow journalism. (pun intended)
(behest = request, don't ask why English has so many similar words that mean the same thing)
It doesn't quite work like that. If the chain of custody is broken, it doesn't matter how much authentication you do; the court doesn't let you use it. If crime scene investigator drops some samples in his car, forgets to lock it, leaves for a few minutes, and comes back, that evidence is like it didn't ever exist, because "someone could have switched it out". Even if you scientifically prove it must have come from where they said it did, it doesn't matter.
This case involved collecting emails from the terminal destination and origin of the email, not intermediate server. Anything else "may or may not" be what the sender or receiver saw. So yes, servers that back up your email can have that email seized and used in court, but not if it merely "passed through".
Slashdot Mirror
What I'm saying is that assuming greed and profit *alone* is the best way to keep science evolving is just not realistic.
Yeah, I agree, beating strawmen is easy.
Could you be so kind a to give an importante/relevant example of a "basic research" breakthrough in science steaming from private funding alone or in the greatest part?
Newton's Laws of Motion? Kepler's Laws? Mendelian genetics? I don't think you can get much more basic than that.
And by private funding I mean with an intent to generate profit
I refuse to use non-standard English to placate you. "Private" means "non-government", irrespective of profit motive.
Not all of that so-called "basic research" has been government funded though. And even to the extent that it is, so what? Private companies anticipate, and then respond to the actions of others, like government, in researching other areas. Remove it, and they'll flush out all application-type improvements, profit margins in those areas will fall, and they'll extend time horizons to research with a later payoff. And so what if they focus on things with more direct application? According to Tom Bethell, from an interview, George Gilder says that "I cannot deny that places like Caltech, MIT, Stanford, Carnegie Mellon and Georgia Tech do a lot of very valuable research on government money," but that the most valuable insights come from making actual devices, and this is done by private companies.
I think you're confusing government funding of science with science itself. Don't worry; Nature does it too sometimes.
So now, not only can you copyright a book, you can copyright the citation of a book.
Odd definition of plagiarism there. Crichton argued the same general idea as Lindzen. You're not obligated to cite everyone who argues the same idea, only when you're quoting them or using them to bolster your thesis. If I say "you know, adding garlic to butter before putting it on bread is a good idea", no one's obligated to cite me if they want to also recomment adding garlic to butter for putting it on bread -- even if they got it from me. If they use those words, or something very close to it, then you have a case.
In any case, Crichton is a pretty bright guy. I doubt he even got those ideas from Lindzen.
Credit card companies are the largest, and the largest fraudulent, source of junk mail. I'm sorry you're having a hard time understanding why I wouldn't want to tell them, "hey, keep it up!"
The things you can patent is getting larger and larger, and of course, when you sue, you can't reveal too much about how they infringe until trial. I predict that one day, they will patent "innovative problem solving", so if you move a box to stand on it and get over a wall, that's covered. I mean, why not? Offering immediate tender prices ("buy it now" prices) is patentable? Thousands of books consider reducing storage time, but like, only when it helps to be a novel idea. How long until they consider some ill-defined "problem-solving method" patentable?
The body is not 100% efficient. Like the other poster said, the calorie tables *take into account* the bodies inefficiencies in converting chemical caloric energy into mechanical work energy. The efficiency of the human body, defined as ratio of mechanical work output to chemical energy input through food, is about 10-12%. So as a rough estimate, multiply the mechanical work by 10 to get the calories you need for it.
Gee, thanks, moron, for explaining how to put in a line break. Too bad the question was *why* not *how*. Try again, and this time, read the fucking question.
but, can someone PLEASE explain why some posters have weird margins/shorter lines, such as the one to which I'm replying?
Many objects have been found on Earth that were ejected from other planets like Mars by other impacts, demonstrating the principal very clearly.
heh, you gotta love scientist wannabes.
"Meteors knocking stuff from earth is plausible because meteors have knocked stuff from other planets." "And how do you know that happened?" "We just do."
I'm sure you have some reason to believe that the meteors knocking stuff of other planets was also plausible, but that should have been your answer to the original question!
Kid: do you seriously think scientists could give a boulder escape velocity by colliding another object with the earth?
Or think about it this way -- given random directions for the boulders, about 1 in 10e15 boulders (approximate average view factor from earth to the moon where they supposedly landed) will go from earth to the other planet. Given the number of boulders they claim made it, that would imply the total number of ejected boulders should be huge, and we should see it happening all the fucking time.
Good point. Few people who have gone on public assistance steal anything else.
Wait...
Hm, okay. But I'll make double sure the photo wasn't doctored!
Since this is probably too deep now for even my nemeses (see list) to mod me down for off topic, that reminds me of a way somebody could get away with killing an infant. (Not advocating this of course.) Basically, carry it into an abortion clinic and kill it in front of everyone. They'll be unable to summon police for the following reason:
..."
"911"
"There's a man here killing a baby!"
"What is your location?"
"Uh um, forgot the address, it's the Planned Parenthood on
"You mean the abortion clinic"
"Well, yeah, but they also..."
"Oh, I get it. A man's killing a baby in an abortion clinic. We haven't heard that one 600,000 times already. Very funny. Now stop tying up the lines."
Yeah, but that's a big corporation. They don't count.
I understand that, but the story summary specifically says these collisions sent *boulders* off the earth. If you want to consider any particle leaving the atmosphere, I can see that (or at least not know enough to find it ridiculous), but the scientists seem to be violating Occam's Razor by positing that they were also boulders. And yes, it is hard to believe even tiny objects went *from the ground*, straight into space due to a collision, rather than usual dust formation. Remember, objects fry up coming *into* the atmosphere, but we're supposed to believe they don't *when leaving*?
If you want to propose a theory about particles leaving the earth, you don't need to bring in meteors or boulders, which seem to be the least likely cause.
believe it or not. There's a concept called a "deadweight loss" in economics. And basically, it's any kind of harm (something someone dislikes for whatever reason) which has no corresponding *benefit* for anyone. If I take a dollar from you, that's not a deadweight loss, because your loss was my gain. But if I burn your dollar, you lost, and no one gained. (That's a simplification, but you get the general idea.) And obviously, deadweight losses are bad.
Now imagine a town that has a problem with thieves breaking windows so they can get into stores and houses to steal TV's. Here is ranking of the TV owners' preferences:
1) No TV's be stolen or windows broken.
2) Windows broken, but no TV's stolen.
3) TV's stolen, but no windows broken.
4) TV's stolen, and window's broken.
Here is the typical thief's order of preference:
1) Get TV's, but not have to break windows.
2) Get TV's and have to break windows.
3) Not get TV's and not have to break windows.
4) Break windows for no reason.
Currently, option number 4) on the TV owners' list, and option 2) on the theives' list are prevailing -- TV owners lose TV's and windows. Thieves get TV's but have to break windows.
Now here's the kicker:
For some economists, an "efficient" move would be to give the thieves free TV's! Why? Well, the thieves are better off -- they get TV's, but no longer have to break windows. The owners are better off because, while they still lose some TV's, at least their windows aren't broken! Everyone wins! Yay!
Except, as anyone with a functioning brain knows, all that would accomplish is that the thieves would get TV's, and then some of them (or newcomers to the thievery profession) would still steal more TV's. The problem, like with the "separate plot for weeds" that you bring up, is that you can't corral thieves by giving them free stuff. Give weeds a place, they'll demand more. Give thieves TV's, and thieves will take more.
It amazes me how the average person sees this, but some economists don't.
So the theory is that meteors hit the earth, and this somehow kicked up *boulders* to fucking *leave the atmosphere*? Think about how much force it takes to push things we *want* to go out of the atmosphere? And the escape velocities involved.
Is it just me, or does the idea of meteors kicking stuff *off the earth* not pass the laugh test?
Credit cards are for convenience of shopping. Credit cards were originally offered by department stores and gas stations. They felt that by offering short term credit to their customes, so that their customers would have greater convinece at their store, they would get more business and make more money. Visa and Mastercard charge a fee to the store to accept their cards, so their motive of making money is satisfied even if you pay your card off every month. In fact, American Express only recently allowed you to carry a balance past the end of the month. Stores on the other hand accept Visa/MC because it creates a convenince for their customers, and thus increases business. You see, there is nothing in the 'purpose' of the credit card that requires long term debt.
I *have* a check card though. But because I can't get in debt with that card, it "doesn't count". So basically, you have to open up a venue for getting into debt before people will rent to you or sell you electricity. I believe it's because they let assholes who skip on rent and bill payments get away. Or because they don't report histories of prompt rent payment, but they do report when you don't pay. I fucking hate being forced to encourage credit card companies. That's what happens when I apply for a credit card.
They're not looking for you to go into debt, they're looking for a payment history...
I *do* have a payment history. At the time, I had spent over a year in apartments. Paid on time every month. Paid bills too. All on time, all every month. And not only did the electric company not like me not having a credit history, the fucking apartment didn't either!!! I had verifiable proof I was making over *six times a month* more than the rent they were charging per month, plus the references from other apartments, but because of that credit history, I still had to get a co-signer! How fucked up is that?
The problem is, it drains more, and it doesn't have to. If the hardware took the encrypted format as native, the efficiency loss from using an encrypted format would be smaller than the precision of most instruments used to measure this. Usually, a software solution is best. But not this time!
So, in your mind, I have a positive obligation to get a credit card, even if I don't intend to use it for what credit cards are for, in order to prove credit worthiness? Even though this says nothing about my responsibility? You're okay with how someone $5000 in debt from irresponsible decisions is more trusted for paying his electric bill than LeonGeeste, who saves half his money and never goes into debt? That is all AOK with you?
As a final coup de grace, are you going to tell me that you seriously wonder why US household debt is so high?
The Chinese party does *not* kill infant girls. They kill *fetuses*. Fetus != human, got it? There's nothing wrong with killing a fetus, as long as it hasn't come out of the womb. Now if they do "partial-birth abortions" (infanticide), that's something to worry about. By the way, 95% of these abortions are at the behest of the father or mother. I guess CNN missed that when they did their little yellow journalism. (pun intended)
(behest = request, don't ask why English has so many similar words that mean the same thing)
It doesn't quite work like that. If the chain of custody is broken, it doesn't matter how much authentication you do; the court doesn't let you use it. If crime scene investigator drops some samples in his car, forgets to lock it, leaves for a few minutes, and comes back, that evidence is like it didn't ever exist, because "someone could have switched it out". Even if you scientifically prove it must have come from where they said it did, it doesn't matter.
This case involved collecting emails from the terminal destination and origin of the email, not intermediate server. Anything else "may or may not" be what the sender or receiver saw. So yes, servers that back up your email can have that email seized and used in court, but not if it merely "passed through".