The terawatt challenge (R. Smalley)

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
Unfortuantely I agree with this. It's too bad as it really does have a lot of potential that is squandered by people that aren't even scientists. *all of this I'm sure you know*

[/ QUOTE ]

So government is the only way that this research can get done, except that government sucks at it? OK.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
There are very well ran government funded labs and there are bad ones.

[/ QUOTE ]
Sure.
[ QUOTE ]
Government funding is the best way to get novel research done. This is especially true if the research is highly theoretical or extremely expensive.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, you haven't provided any evidence of this.

[ QUOTE ]
This should be obvious if you simply peruse a college textbook.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, it's not. The fact that government has produced some results does not prove that it's the best way to get results. Futhermore, even if we allow that it's the "best" in terms of results, you still have to justify the theft and oppression required to enable that government funding.

To draw a parallel to another thread, does the fact that slavery was economically advantageous for early US industry justify it?

I'll ask one more time: if government-directed research is so much more effective, why didn't the Soviets bury the US in research activities?

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Unfortuantely I agree with this. It's too bad as it really does have a lot of potential that is squandered by people that aren't even scientists. *all of this I'm sure you know*

[/ QUOTE ]

So government is the only way that this research can get done, except that government sucks at it? OK.

[/ QUOTE ]

When it is ran properly it really can't be beat. The USGS which is ran by scientists does a very good job. NOAA and WHOI also do very good jobs. NASA and several of the National labs, which is ran by beaurocrats, is being driven into the ground. For novel innovation federal funding can't be beat. Any college textbook proves that. You just can't politicize the work.

I suspect you knew exactly what I meant. Especially since you read this thread.
Congratulations on being either a dumbass or a troll.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]

I'll ask one more time: if government-directed research is so much more effective, why didn't the Soviets bury the US in research activities?


[/ QUOTE ]

Soviet research was ran by politicians not scientists. We also spent a lot more money than they did on research. Also, I never said government directed. I said funded. There is a huge difference. And for what it's worth, during the cold war our research was ran via federal funds.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
Sorry, you haven't provided any evidence of this.

[/ QUOTE ]

And you are too lazy to provide proof that counters the information in every single scientific college textbook known to man.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Sorry, you haven't provided any evidence of this.

[/ QUOTE ]

And you are too lazy to provide proof that counters the information in every single scientific college textbook known to man.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, the fact that government has managed to produce something of value does not prove that it's the best method for doing so.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
Soviet research was ran by politicians not scientists.

[/ QUOTE ]

US science is increasingly bullied by politics. Scientists routinely complain about white house strong arm tactics, pressure to produce politically desirable results, etc.

http://www.google.com/search?&q=scie...0white%20house

It's all over the place.

[ QUOTE ]
Also, I never said government directed. I said funded. There is a huge difference.

[/ QUOTE ]

True, but bureaucracy will inevitably turn government-funded into government-directed. It's happening RIGHT UNDER YOUR NOSE.

[ QUOTE ]
And for what it's worth, during the cold war our research was ran via federal funds.

[/ QUOTE ]

And what did we get? A bunch of new bombs. Yay. Hello? It doesn't get any more politicized than that!

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
When it is ran properly it really can't be beat. The USGS which is ran by scientists does a very good job. NOAA and WHOI also do very good jobs. NASA and several of the National labs, which is ran by beaurocrats, is being driven into the ground.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, good argument. Let's throw more money down that rathole.

[ QUOTE ]
For novel innovation federal funding can't be beat. Any college textbook proves that. You just can't politicize the work.

[/ QUOTE ]

The work IS hijacked for political purposes. Moreso every day. When the government is paying for it, they're going to want to see the results they want to see.

[wacki]

So despite the fact that almost everything taught in our college textbooks was discovered via federal funding, you say cut all funding because a few beaurocrats are mucking up a few of the labs? That is wonderfull logic. You're right, lets not fix the source of the problem, lets just destroy the most significant contributer to novel innovation. *sarcasm*

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
So despite the fact that almost everything taught in our college textbooks was discovered via federal funding, you say cut all funding because a few beaurocrats are mucking up a few of the labs? That is wonderfull logic. You're right, lets not fix the source of the problem, lets just destroy the most significant contributer to novel innovation. *sarcasm*

[/ QUOTE ]

How does the fact that government has unfairly distorted the market and managed to achieve some minimal level of success demonstrate the superiority of their approach?

Basically your position is that if the status quo is anything other than a total disaster, it must be the best possible scenario. Which isn't surprising, that's how governments maintain their status quo power, by spreading fear, uncertainty, and doubt about the alternatives.