Basically, a summary; Heated competition doesn't encourage a lot of 'pure' research. Those institutions that do a lot of publicized pure research are frequently;
1. Monopolies, or companies otherwise protected from free market forces.
2. Governments
3. Private companies that are offered government incentives of some kind, whether it be in the form of purchases that would not otherwise be made or protectionsism or grants, to do pure research.
In short, they're the portions of the free market that are less a part of the "free market," even if they happen to be private industry.
When Red Hat first came out, I formatted my machine and tried to install it. I had a ton of hardware probelms that I couldn't troubleshoot in Linux. I asked a friend of mine who was better with the environment ( I had never done anything with linux that didn't involve telneting into a server to maintain a website ). He couldn't fix it.
I tried again about 2 years a later and got a computer suitable for testing perl scripts on, but that was about it.
I work under Windows now. It has all the programs I need and it works. Maybe I'll try again in a year or two with Mandrake or somesuch, or when I'm back in an office environment where other folks use Linux. But there's no hurry and I can troubleshoot Windows a lot better than I can Linux.
If you think the barrier to Linux use doesn't have to do with usability you've never talked to the folks who tried it and walked away.
Okay, looking at the race to see who could map the human genome first. That was certainly a bit of pure research that private industry, in the form of Celera, excelled at. What was different there?
To use your example, Celera wasn't mapping the genome out of the kindness of it's corporate heart. It was trying to patent genes. The gov got a corporation to do pure research by changing the laws to make it applied research. The notion of patenting genes is a divergence from normal patent laws. Traditionally, patents were "use" patents. If the patent laws were applied correctly, Celera would have to find a productive use for some genetic data - how to upregulate a particular protein to promote weight loss or whatever. Instead, they got patents for what ammounts to looking at a particular gene. Their patents were for using a particular sequence of base pairs to identify the gene in question. Using base pairs to identify genes is not a new technology. It's as if you said "if you find a species of plant that no-one has ever seen before, you can patent the ability to look at it's unique features." Patenting naturally occuring objects was previously disallowed.
The US Gov defended the divergence from normal patent policy alternatly by saying it was needed in order to get the genetic data and claiming that it nothing essentially new was happening here.
I agree that biotech companies can certainly be encouraged to do a great deal of pure research if they're issued patents or other government-mandated incentives for doing so.
1. Credit goes to 'cherry pickers'. The average Joe wants the government to spend money on 'cancer research' more than 'mecahnisms of apoptosis in mouse cells.' Of course, cancer research is probably a bad example, since it's only been recently that pure research has had much bearing on treatment. Some people even have a hard time understanding why scientists are doing experiments on conditions in mice rather than people. This is part of why I think the recent technology transfer and Bayh-Dole acts are so dangerous. They encourage universities to turn away from research that can't result in a patent.
2. I was going from the standpoint of 'what would a world without government funded research look like.' Regarding your professor, I'd say that any group whose support is vital should be viewed as such. So the question, in my mind, is; to what acheivements has government been a vital contributor, regardless of the contributions of private industry.
3. Speaking of funny, I would have used Bell labs to support my case as well. Bell labs wasn't an ordinary corporation. It had a government sanctioned monopoly till 1984. Those corporations which do contribute to basic research are often those that have something pretty close to a monopoly in their respective fields.... I'll try and respond to the second half of your post later with more concrete examples than what I've given, but I have a friend coming over now so I'm just going to post.
The state has had a huge role in creating new technologies. Half the stuff in the computer industry, a great deal of basic research in genetics, in physics. People seriously overestimate the contributions that the free market to science and knowledge as a whole.
Private corporations are great at going the last mile, making a processor or a hard drive that's 10% better than last year.
They're less good at pumping in huge amounts of money to make a technology initially feasable or doing basic research.
The free market provides substandard information. There've been several studies of rogaine published in scientific journals. Those funded by industry (even though industry doesn't disclose their funding, sometimes in violation of the pubishing journal's standards ) often show a drug doing much better than government funded research shows it to be.
Besides, many countries try to lure venture capital, which creates jobs. Better infrastructure and more stable energy costs are considerations for major manufacturing concerns which help more developed countries compete with cheap labor.
Besides, if you have high unemployment projects like this can create jobs as well as contributing to the economy. And unemployment creates more problems than just people not working (crime, drug use, etc.)
Science can only explain patterns which are based on causality and are repeatable. Science can't tell me where I left my car keys, because it's a single event. It can't tell me what would have happened if Ferdinand and Isabella had failed to defeat the Moors and reunite Spain, because it's not a repeatable event.
It also assumes, but doesn't prove, that time is linear.
Of course, this is nitpicking, but that's what we're here for.
I did a report on non-ionizing radiation for school one time and talked about it's effects (via sensors embedded in the street) on vehicles, (it interfered with the brakes of old model fords and such.)
I remember my professor was interested to hear it. She'd taken her truck into the shop 3 times and they were starting to think she was crazy
That'd be an interesting study. A comparison of crime, as defined by human standards, in primate populations as compared to crime in human populations.... I'd like to see some support for that assertion, if you have it. Most police work using the theory that crime requires means, movite, and opportunity. Opportunity meaning, "you think you can get away with it."
Besides, I wasn't refering to small crimes like stealing CDs. I was refering to the overall power structure. The cops, when they're not weak or corrupt, can prevent organized crime from using violence to impose rules that essentially compete with the laws of the government. In other words, the Gov. has a monopoly on law.
Contrast 'rule of law' with 'rule of honor'
In places where law is weak (the old rural south was one example. American prisons are another) you have an 'Honor society' where insults are likely to be avenged, reputation and 'honor' is far more important, and mob violence and lynchings are commonplace.
If Palestinians are "pleading" for an end to settlements, then the US was "pleading" for the removal of Saddam Hussein. The PLO was working for the complete destruction of Israel before Israel even occupied the West Bank and Jews have lived in the land now called Israel before Islam was even a religion. Hammas is still calling for the complete destruction of Israel. Arafat wears a patch of a 'unified Palestine' on the sleeve of his uniform. He NEVER gave up the so called 'Palestinian right of return' which is nothing more than a legalized invasion of Israel. Nobody in their right mind is going to agree to the destruction of their country voluntarily, and the Arab nations aren't exactly following their own rules. They support a palestinian right of return for those people who chose to leave Israel as they were asked to (since a palestinian presence in Israel would make extermination of the Jewish population more difficult, the Arab leaders said), but to hell with the Jews who had been living in arab lands and were forced out by rioting (There were more Jews forced from their homes than Arabs who left voluntarily). The UN's 'right of return' doesn't apply to them, I guess.
I don't agree with some of the methods that Israel has used, but Israelis are not invaders to the land and despite all the accusations of violence, arab soldiers have been far worse when they've had the opportunity. When they've been strong, they've been brutal, beating people up for the fun of it. Jews are natives to the region (excepting Kazars), and there's been a presence there for millenia, despite occupation by other forces.
There can be no question that if the Arab states had had their victory, a genocide would have followed. That was their stated intention, and Israeli soldiers who surrendered were shot by the Arab nations attempting to invade Israel. The very demand of a 'right of return' is a testimony to the respect Israel shows for human rights. An Israeli wandering into Palestinian territory would be beaten or killed. No Israeli in his right mind would ask to return to his old home in former Iraq or the West bank. He would be murdered in a riot. I can't think of any nation that has been threated so much millitarily and still maintained such a relativly high degree of civil liberties at the same time. The US wasn't nearly as threatened during WWII, and it had Japanese citizens locked up in internment camps.
And the whole 'Israelis have big weapons' notion is a recent one. When the combined Arab states first tried to destroy Israel, they had superior numbers and superior firepower. Back in 1967, millitary budgets were about equal, and Israel still was outmatched about 10 to 1 in terms of manpower.
What is Israel supposed to do in this situation? Palestinian millitias would violate any peace settlement, even if there was one. Many palestinians posting on the internet have said so, and are happy for it. If you have people saying they're going to keep killing your citizens till your nation is gone, what do you do? Simply 'cracking down on terrorism' doesn't work. No peace proposal has EVER been offered which would have left Israel intact, abandoning the Palestinian desire to live in any Israeli city they chose. It's like trying to fight a war to a draw, when your opponent wants you dead. The only method of bargaining that's worked for Israel is 'land for peace,' and they don't have a heck of a lot of land to work with. It's not 'persecution.' The palestinians fought a war, lost, and kept on fighting. That's just plain not a good situation to be in.
As for #3, Iraq repeatedly violated the terms of the UN truce, and did possess weapons in violation of the cease fire until rather recently. Whether they still had them was legitimatly uncertain (though the nuke stuff was bunk). Of course, if Iraq was friends with us and had sold us more oil instead of favoring France and Russia they would have gotten treatment closer to Pakistan.
For starters, our body language is highly socialized.
Second, we're not usually violently threatened the way primates would be. They don't have laws or cops.
Third, body language can transcend language barriers. Look at two people who don't speak the same language 'talking' to one another, and you get a little bit better idea of the situation that many chimps are used to.
*Puts down his book on introductory Chinese and sighs...*
Back to the drawing board.
Will someone please explain to me why, if we're running a trade deficit and have been for next to forever, the dollar is still so strong compared to other currencies?
>In all laws, and in all contracts there is always >an implied element of what is reasonable.
And in all laws and contracts, if a geek wants to do it, it's unreasonable. Or to put it another way, reasonable behavior is different for geeks. I hope this person is truly judged by a jury of his peers, and not simply folks who consider anything unusual and intellectual to be 'unreasonable.'
Lets put it this way; lets say you need a username and password to log into ebay. You find the price of certain items there. Can it now be illegal to use that information in your own business?
In the same way that a non-compete clause cannot prevent a person from using skills to their own advantage, how can this hold? The information isn't patented or copyrighted, so far as I know. But I don't know anything about the laws for trade secrets or what's enforcable in a confidentiality agreement.
Does anyone out there know how a standard for 'reasonability' is established?
It seems that the ex-employee used automated technology to access information that he was allowed to access. What makes this information confidential?
Maybe Lanford signed somthing, but the article doesn't mention what violation Lanford committed, aside from 'using confidential information' that he obviously had access to.
How effectivly can a company regulate the way that information it discloses can be used?
IANAL. Maybe there's some sort of quid-pro-quo regarding Lanford's receipt of something tangible like tickets which would make a confidentiality agreement more binding than a simple clickthrough liscense, but does anyone know what it takes for one of those buggers to hold up in court?
From the article;
The airline alleges Lafond's identification number was used 243,630 times between May 15, 2003, and March 19, 2004, to access the website.
"The continuous and massive use of Lafond's employee ID number and PIN to access the employee website could not be done by one individual and far exceeds any possible potential use by Lafond," Air Canada said.
Well, obviously he did use the information. It's just a matter of what he used it for.
"Such massive access to the employee website through one employee ID number could only be accomplished through automated technology."
I'd like to see the magazine use the Freedom of Information act and insert some of a person's file into each magazine (maybe a random person?). Of course, I don't think you could automate it, it would be expensive, and the feds would give you a hassle... but if you could...
Okay, I get this. But if not all of the bad bread sells then the store has to take a loss. And possibly they're selling the almost-off bread at a loss. If the store takes a loss, they have to jack up the price of the fresh food to compensate, right? Does anyone have any reason to believe (studies, experience etc.) that increasing the durability of a good also increases the average price?
And why wouldn't it work for customers too, given the cheapness of this solution? If a buyer is able to justify traveling a greater distance for cheap goods because they can stock up for a longer time, does this offset the seller's advantage? Any game theory or retail experience which would shed some light on this? My dad's best friend is a retail consultant. Maybe I'll ask him.
Slashdot Mirror
"Hey, Clara, Duh you weigh more or less than ten keelo-grams?"
First the Scotts started cloning sheep.
/ 7t h/genetics/sciber/genetic.htm
http://www.usoe.k12.ut.us/curr/science/sciber00
Now they have to modify the grass to keep up.
How long do you think it will be before there's some Scottish breakthrough improving on dirt.
Or perhas SASA (the Scottish areonautics and space agency) will build a rocket that can send a sheep all the way to Dublin.
Basically, a summary; Heated competition doesn't encourage a lot of 'pure' research. Those institutions that do a lot of publicized pure research are frequently;
1. Monopolies, or companies otherwise protected from free market forces.
2. Governments
3. Private companies that are offered government incentives of some kind, whether it be in the form of purchases that would not otherwise be made or protectionsism or grants, to do pure research.
In short, they're the portions of the free market that are less a part of the "free market," even if they happen to be private industry.
When Red Hat first came out, I formatted my machine and tried to install it. I had a ton of hardware probelms that I couldn't troubleshoot in Linux. I asked a friend of mine who was better with the environment ( I had never done anything with linux that didn't involve telneting into a server to maintain a website ). He couldn't fix it.
I tried again about 2 years a later and got a computer suitable for testing perl scripts on, but that was about it.
I work under Windows now. It has all the programs I need and it works. Maybe I'll try again in a year or two with Mandrake or somesuch, or when I'm back in an office environment where other folks use Linux. But there's no hurry and I can troubleshoot Windows a lot better than I can Linux.
If you think the barrier to Linux use doesn't have to do with usability you've never talked to the folks who tried it and walked away.
Okay, looking at the race to see who could map the human genome first. That was certainly a bit of pure research that private industry, in the form of Celera, excelled at. What was different there?
To use your example, Celera wasn't mapping the genome out of the kindness of it's corporate heart. It was trying to patent genes. The gov got a corporation to do pure research by changing the laws to make it applied research. The notion of patenting genes is a divergence from normal patent laws. Traditionally, patents were "use" patents. If the patent laws were applied correctly, Celera would have to find a productive use for some genetic data - how to upregulate a particular protein to promote weight loss or whatever. Instead, they got patents for what ammounts to looking at a particular gene. Their patents were for using a particular sequence of base pairs to identify the gene in question. Using base pairs to identify genes is not a new technology. It's as if you said "if you find a species of plant that no-one has ever seen before, you can patent the ability to look at it's unique features." Patenting naturally occuring objects was previously disallowed.
The US Gov defended the divergence from normal patent policy alternatly by saying it was needed in order to get the genetic data and claiming that it nothing essentially new was happening here.
I agree that biotech companies can certainly be encouraged to do a great deal of pure research if they're issued patents or other government-mandated incentives for doing so.
Essentially, here's where I was coming from;
1. Credit goes to 'cherry pickers'. The average Joe wants the government to spend money on 'cancer research' more than 'mecahnisms of apoptosis in mouse cells.' Of course, cancer research is probably a bad example, since it's only been recently that pure research has had much bearing on treatment. Some people even have a hard time understanding why scientists are doing experiments on conditions in mice rather than people. This is part of why I think the recent technology transfer and Bayh-Dole acts are so dangerous. They encourage universities to turn away from research that can't result in a patent.
2. I was going from the standpoint of 'what would a world without government funded research look like.' Regarding your professor, I'd say that any group whose support is vital should be viewed as such. So the question, in my mind, is; to what acheivements has government been a vital contributor, regardless of the contributions of private industry.
3. Speaking of funny, I would have used Bell labs to support my case as well. Bell labs wasn't an ordinary corporation. It had a government sanctioned monopoly till 1984. Those corporations which do contribute to basic research are often those that have something pretty close to a monopoly in their respective fields.
All the same, I would be thrilled to live by one of these. We need it.
The state has had a huge role in creating new technologies. Half the stuff in the computer industry, a great deal of basic research in genetics, in physics. People seriously overestimate the contributions that the free market to science and knowledge as a whole.
Private corporations are great at going the last mile, making a processor or a hard drive that's 10% better than last year.
They're less good at pumping in huge amounts of money to make a technology initially feasable or doing basic research.
The free market provides substandard information. There've been several studies of rogaine published in scientific journals. Those funded by industry (even though industry doesn't disclose their funding, sometimes in violation of the pubishing journal's standards ) often show a drug doing much better than government funded research shows it to be.
Besides, many countries try to lure venture capital, which creates jobs. Better infrastructure and more stable energy costs are considerations for major manufacturing concerns which help more developed countries compete with cheap labor.
Besides, if you have high unemployment projects like this can create jobs as well as contributing to the economy. And unemployment creates more problems than just people not working (crime, drug use, etc.)
Science can only explain patterns which are based on causality and are repeatable. Science can't tell me where I left my car keys, because it's a single event. It can't tell me what would have happened if Ferdinand and Isabella had failed to defeat the Moors and reunite Spain, because it's not a repeatable event.
It also assumes, but doesn't prove, that time is linear.
Of course, this is nitpicking, but that's what we're here for.
I did a report on non-ionizing radiation for school one time and talked about it's effects (via sensors embedded in the street) on vehicles, (it interfered with the brakes of old model fords and such.)
I remember my professor was interested to hear it. She'd taken her truck into the shop 3 times and they were starting to think she was crazy
You're talking about Windows XP, right?
Do magical processes have a mechanism?
How does magic work?
The psychic hotline lady doesn't call you because then she doesn't get paid by the minute. Duh.
Stupid people buy stupid things and thus have less money to support their third child?
Or maybe the engineers will use the extra money that they make from all this to have a few extra tykes.
Of course, stupid people still breed faster, so I don't have much hope for 'evolving a better person.'
Caffine and steering wheel grips are still cheap.
That'd be an interesting study. A comparison of crime, as defined by human standards, in primate populations as compared to crime in human populations. ... I'd like to see some support for that assertion, if you have it. Most police work using the theory that crime requires means, movite, and opportunity. Opportunity meaning, "you think you can get away with it."
Besides, I wasn't refering to small crimes like stealing CDs. I was refering to the overall power structure. The cops, when they're not weak or corrupt, can prevent organized crime from using violence to impose rules that essentially compete with the laws of the government. In other words, the Gov. has a monopoly on law.
Contrast 'rule of law' with 'rule of honor'
In places where law is weak (the old rural south was one example. American prisons are another) you have an 'Honor society' where insults are likely to be avenged, reputation and 'honor' is far more important, and mob violence and lynchings are commonplace.
If Palestinians are "pleading" for an end to settlements, then the US was "pleading" for the removal of Saddam Hussein. The PLO was working for the complete destruction of Israel before Israel even occupied the West Bank and Jews have lived in the land now called Israel before Islam was even a religion. Hammas is still calling for the complete destruction of Israel. Arafat wears a patch of a 'unified Palestine' on the sleeve of his uniform. He NEVER gave up the so called 'Palestinian right of return' which is nothing more than a legalized invasion of Israel. Nobody in their right mind is going to agree to the destruction of their country voluntarily, and the Arab nations aren't exactly following their own rules. They support a palestinian right of return for those people who chose to leave Israel as they were asked to (since a palestinian presence in Israel would make extermination of the Jewish population more difficult, the Arab leaders said), but to hell with the Jews who had been living in arab lands and were forced out by rioting (There were more Jews forced from their homes than Arabs who left voluntarily). The UN's 'right of return' doesn't apply to them, I guess.
I don't agree with some of the methods that Israel has used, but Israelis are not invaders to the land and despite all the accusations of violence, arab soldiers have been far worse when they've had the opportunity. When they've been strong, they've been brutal, beating people up for the fun of it. Jews are natives to the region (excepting Kazars), and there's been a presence there for millenia, despite occupation by other forces.
There can be no question that if the Arab states had had their victory, a genocide would have followed. That was their stated intention, and Israeli soldiers who surrendered were shot by the Arab nations attempting to invade Israel. The very demand of a 'right of return' is a testimony to the respect Israel shows for human rights. An Israeli wandering into Palestinian territory would be beaten or killed. No Israeli in his right mind would ask to return to his old home in former Iraq or the West bank. He would be murdered in a riot.
I can't think of any nation that has been threated so much millitarily and still maintained such a relativly high degree of civil liberties at the same time. The US wasn't nearly as threatened during WWII, and it had Japanese citizens locked up in internment camps.
And the whole 'Israelis have big weapons' notion is a recent one. When the combined Arab states first tried to destroy Israel, they had superior numbers and superior firepower. Back in 1967, millitary budgets were about equal, and Israel still was outmatched about 10 to 1 in terms of manpower.
What is Israel supposed to do in this situation? Palestinian millitias would violate any peace settlement, even if there was one. Many palestinians posting on the internet have said so, and are happy for it. If you have people saying they're going to keep killing your citizens till your nation is gone, what do you do? Simply 'cracking down on terrorism' doesn't work. No peace proposal has EVER been offered which would have left Israel intact, abandoning the Palestinian desire to live in any Israeli city they chose. It's like trying to fight a war to a draw, when your opponent wants you dead. The only method of bargaining that's worked for Israel is 'land for peace,' and they don't have a heck of a lot of land to work with. It's not 'persecution.' The palestinians fought a war, lost, and kept on fighting. That's just plain not a good situation to be in.
As for #3, Iraq repeatedly violated the terms of the UN truce, and did possess weapons in violation of the cease fire until rather recently. Whether they still had them was legitimatly uncertain (though the nuke stuff was bunk). Of course, if Iraq was friends with us and had sold us more oil instead of favoring France and Russia they would have gotten treatment closer to Pakistan.
For starters, our body language is highly socialized.
Second, we're not usually violently threatened the way primates would be. They don't have laws or cops.
Third, body language can transcend language barriers. Look at two people who don't speak the same language 'talking' to one another, and you get a little bit better idea of the situation that many chimps are used to.
Lawsuits are better?
You just violated our copyright. I've hired several lawyers to fling feces at your house.
*Puts down his book on introductory Chinese and sighs...*
Back to the drawing board.
Will someone please explain to me why, if we're running a trade deficit and have been for next to forever, the dollar is still so strong compared to other currencies?
>In all laws, and in all contracts there is always >an implied element of what is reasonable.
And in all laws and contracts, if a geek wants to do it, it's unreasonable. Or to put it another way, reasonable behavior is different for geeks. I hope this person is truly judged by a jury of his peers, and not simply folks who consider anything unusual and intellectual to be 'unreasonable.'
Lets put it this way; lets say you need a username and password to log into ebay. You find the price of certain items there. Can it now be illegal to use that information in your own business?
In the same way that a non-compete clause cannot prevent a person from using skills to their own advantage, how can this hold? The information isn't patented or copyrighted, so far as I know.
But I don't know anything about the laws for trade secrets or what's enforcable in a confidentiality agreement.
Does anyone out there know how a standard for 'reasonability' is established?
It seems that the ex-employee used automated technology to access information that he was allowed to access. What makes this information confidential?
Maybe Lanford signed somthing, but the article doesn't mention what violation Lanford committed, aside from 'using confidential information' that he obviously had access to.
How effectivly can a company regulate the way that information it discloses can be used?
IANAL. Maybe there's some sort of quid-pro-quo regarding Lanford's receipt of something tangible like tickets which would make a confidentiality agreement more binding than a simple clickthrough liscense, but does anyone know what it takes for one of those buggers to hold up in court?
From the article;
The airline alleges Lafond's identification number was used 243,630 times between May 15, 2003, and March 19, 2004, to access the website.
"The continuous and massive use of Lafond's employee ID number and PIN to access the employee website could not be done by one individual and far exceeds any possible potential use by Lafond," Air Canada said.
Well, obviously he did use the information. It's just a matter of what he used it for.
"Such massive access to the employee website through one employee ID number could only be accomplished through automated technology."
I signed up for a bunch of free gardening publications... and started getting a whole bunch of solicitations directed at older folks. ... gah
I'd like to see the magazine use the Freedom of Information act and insert some of a person's file into each magazine (maybe a random person?). Of course, I don't think you could automate it, it would be expensive, and the feds would give you a hassle... but if you could...
Okay, I get this. But if not all of the bad bread sells then the store has to take a loss. And possibly they're selling the almost-off bread at a loss. If the store takes a loss, they have to jack up the price of the fresh food to compensate, right? Does anyone have any reason to believe (studies, experience etc.) that increasing the durability of a good also increases the average price?
And why wouldn't it work for customers too, given the cheapness of this solution? If a buyer is able to justify traveling a greater distance for cheap goods because they can stock up for a longer time, does this offset the seller's advantage? Any game theory or retail experience which would shed some light on this? My dad's best friend is a retail consultant. Maybe I'll ask him.