Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
United States Science

Clinton Wants $497 Million for Nanotech Research 155

Posted by Roblimo from the more-money-for-more-research dept.
jimmcq writes "President Clinton on Friday proposed a $2.8 billion increase in research into elusive medical cures and high-technology breakthroughs like reducing information in the Library of Congress into a unit the size of a sugar cube. More info at Yahoo! News." Specifically, Clinton is advocating "as much as" $497 million for nanotech out of a $2.8 billion increase over last year's ~$38 billion federal allocation for scientific research. But don't get excited yet. Congress holds the budget pursestrings and may not go along with all or any of the President's proposals.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Clinton Wants $497 Million for Nanotech Research More

Clinton Wants $497 Million for Nanotech Research

Comments Filter:

  • Logged in AC's (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Hallo, I'm not "Mr. Q" or "Mr. FUCK YOU!!!", but I am the "AC" who until recently posted messages about petrified women. Now, I'm only posting messages about petrifed MEN to promote gender equality and get the feminazis off my back, but that's beside the point.

    What IS the point is that I DO have an account, in fact all of the major trolls do have accounts. The "Post Anonymously" button has been *THE GREATEST* boon for trolling in the history of Slashdot!

    Before the "post anonymously" button, I had to manually log out, post my message, and then log back in. Now, it takes a fraction of the time and I find myself sometimes posting dozens more trolls per day. I've trolled with the "Post Anonymously" button HUNDREDS of times, so I don't really see how that's supposed to prevent spamming, trolling, flamebaiting, et all.

    So you say you want the people in charge of Slashdot to look at the usernames of people who post anonymously, and start banning some of them?

    First, the people in charge of Slashdot have said that the moderation system works fine, and they don't want to ban people or restrict free speech. Now, when someone SPAMS, it's hard for simple moderation to work, because there are so many darn messages.

    What *I* liked is the feature we saw a while back where only one reply could come from an IP per minute. I think this is a good idea and should apply to EVERYONE. No one legitimately needs to post more than one message per minute.

    Why was that feature removed? I'd like to see it brought back.

    Actually banning people is just asking for trouble. What happens when people are banned just for having viewpoints that go against the dominant atheistic paradigm? Banned for promoting an OS other than Linux? Don't say it won't happen. It will. As you well know, people doing such things are labeled "troll", whether they're trolling or not.

    And I disagree that "undesired" posts keep good posts from being moderated up. I'm sorry. There ARE no good posts moderated up, ever, just karma-whoring junk. I think the ability to moderate posts up is almost useless, 90% of the stuff modded up is the same banal mindless karma-whore junk.

    Peace out.

  • Re:This can only be... (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Unfortunately, we cannot trust the Clinton-Gore administration to properly administer anything. Most likely, the money will end up in the hands of 1) DNC contributors 2) People's Liberation Army of China 3) Both
  • > The idea that computers would not exist without
    > government support is ludicrous. By the fifties,
    > IBM and other companies were already pioneering
    > commercial uses of computers, and private
    > universities were engaging in research.

    The naïveté of licensarians [std.com] never ceases to amaze me. Just who do you think IBM's only customer for those "giant brains" was going to be?

    That's right--the Government--you know, the people who funded the original research so we could beat the Nazis and the Japanese, then funded a *much* bigger effort so we could beat the Communists.

    Read some history that wasn't written by that moron L. Neil Smith and his ilk. It'll do you good.
  • After our (US) government spends our tax dollars for nanotech research, I hope the technology that comes from it is not co-opted and patented by corporations. We the public should own the results of this research that we paid for.

    Unfortunately, this is not a given! For example, pharmaceutical companies get millions (billions?) of tax dollars each year for their research. Then they own the drugs we paid them to create. Then they sell them for what the market will bear (think: life-or-death situations, and wealthy insurance companies), rather than what it costs to produce them (likely minimal in bulk). Then they let people die who can't pay market price.

    We shouldn't let the same thing happen with this nanotech research, or any other tax-funded research for that matter. Be wary of politicians who want to put too much in the hands of corporations-- they are likely just giving our goods to their friends and campaign contributors.

  • Heh. I've fired off the same sorts of post, too... I hope I didn't come across as a flame, I just wanted to get my point out.

    Well, yeah, my statements about Congress and the president were somewhat wishful thinking. If we get lucky, maybe some of them will trip across those statements and get flattered into spending more money on science. :)

    There are quite a few cases where Congress has really shown that it pays attention to science, though. The example on the top of my head is from when the Republicans took over the House in the early nineties. (1994, right?) Anyway, the freshmen Republicans went about slashing and burning as much government spending as they could, under the assumption that all government spending was wasted money. They tried to gut science funding as well.

    However, if I remember correctly, the elder statesmen of both parties pulled them aside, and filled them in on how important science funding is, in economic, defence, and social value. I don't remember how well they fared, and if they succeeded in preventing a lot of the cuts. (I was in college at the time, and didn't get to follow the details of the debate.) Previous to that, though, I had assumed Congress had very little interest in science. I believe now that they are at least keeping an eye on scientific progress.

    I'm glad to see the president talking about science funding, and wish the presidential candidates would, too. I fully intend on holding my representatives responsible for their votes and actions related to science.

    John Karcz
  • Anyone want to wager that Slick Willy thinks he's an incarnation of Dirk Pitt? (or at least Pitt's libido... :-)

    I find it amusing that Clinton advocates this just a few weeks after Clive Cussler's newest novel is released.

    In Atlantis Found nanotechnology plays a key role in a plot to destroy civilization as we know it.

    Coincedence? I'd bet not.

    --Kit
  • Isn't Hemos supposed to be posting this stuff?

    Rob, let Hemos out of his cage, please.
  • For the record, I'm a different person than the original poster, and I just didn't bother to change the subject.
  • Who says we want a 3-party system? We're out to replace one of the existing major parties.
  • Look Thomas Edison, or the famed Bell Labs. These are not cruel, heartless researchers, but rather geniuses, wishing to advance science, who would like to feed their families at the end of the day.

    Sure, just ask Nikola Tesla (in reference to Edison of course).
  • Instead of spending BILLIONS of dollars on researching tiny harddrives, perhaps it would be a better idea to take care of the thousands of people who do not have a home in America? Then again, that's just a thought that crossed my mind....

  • I made a couple of sugestions on dealing with ACs. One was to take any point used to moderate down an AC and recycle it back into the general pool of points to hand out to moderators either immediatly or after review of the posts by staff. It may be that a relatively consistant persentage of points are used to keep the AC abusers in check. That percentage could be automatically placed into the general available pool. Who knows if either would be implemented, but either would make it less effective to try to manipulate the system.
  • I may be mistaken, since I usually don't pay much attention to normal news, but it seems like we now have a budget surplus (although we still are deeply in debt)
  • Presumably you are familiar with the "Blue Gene" project. Can you please tell us all why it isn't going to work and where IBM have got their figures wrong?

    Vik :v)

  • Yeah sure, let the government have control of developments in nanotech. Who here doesn't think the President's military advisors aren't drooling over nanotech's bio-warfare potential?

    Okay, that's enough X-Files paranoia for now =)

  • Absolutely. Entitlements are one of the worst
    economic offenses that is perpetrated on the
    American People by the Federal Government. The
    giving of tax money to foreign nations is just
    as unpalatable.

    But that doesn't make it right for Uncle Sam to
    continue to take our money by _force_ and spend
    it on things that the individual taxpayer may
    or may not agree with.

    The only valid purpose of government is to
    protect people's personal and property rights
    from other people.

    Anything else is just shades of Tyranny.

    Furthermore, I hold that gov't funded science
    is the most ineffective and inefficient form
    of science. When science is performed in the
    Free Market, you get all sorts of beneficial
    things, such as accountability and competition.

    my 2 cents.
    L

  • "yahoo.com" was mentioned as an example and I didn't re-edit ... it should be for any free webmail site that allows unregulated multiple accounts per person.
  • I know of a lot of people that agree with your viewpoint---that government shouldn't meddle with scientific reason, primarily because if something gets discovered, that the government really wants, it gets classified, and then it is never seen again except on one of those documentaries on PBS or something. However, society doesn't exactly work that way. In order to do research, you need funding. However, a lot of companies that fund scientific research fund things that probably will benefit society in some huge way (cure for AIDS, cancer, etc...), not just because something is cool. But, the government has money to spend on up and coming research and they aren't like a business where they need to turn a profit each year (but I guess if you consider Amazon..never). I'm in favor of less government, but I think that the government is still a damn good source of money.

    Oh, I'm also a student at Caltech (where Clinton spoke). Unfortunately I wasn't able to see him live because a select number of student tickets were handed out "semi-randomly" or whatever the hell that means (I think they primarity handed them out to students in student govt. and minorities as just a hunch). And also I was just wondering if anyone saw the huge sign that some students made and unfurled outside the auditorium that had a picture of Clinton, but then said "Impeach Nixon!". I'm out.
  • Is it just me, or does every mention of 'nanotech' remind me of The Diamond Age?
  • I admit, my reply was rather dashed off to a poorly worded statement. (Might have something to do with not having slept yet... )
  • I admit, my reply was rather dashed off to a poorly worded statement. (Might have something to do with not having slept yet... )

    I further agree that funding needs to be improved all around, and- astronomy has significant ability to contribute to science/tech on many fronts. I also agree that the scarcity model for funding sucks!

    The only area that I'm likely to quibble with is
    "I think the president and Congress both understand how good of an investment science is, and that the effort has to be spread around to advance the state of the art on as many fronts as possible.

    I think that they also are very aware that the country will receive economic and spriritual returns commensurate with whatever level of funding they they provide for the sciences. "

    This is not at all apparent to me. I believe it is quite possibly the case with some individuals in Congress, but the majority don't have the vision nor insight for that type of thinking... (alas, I wish it were otherwise...)

    LetterRip

    (I do promise to not make quite a fool of myself next time tho... or at least pay more attention to my sleep deprived brain)
  • "Statements like, "President Clinton, only the second ever to be impeached, and whose character was impugned by astonishing revelations of improper and crass behavior..." are NOT what he has in mind for schoolkids to learn years from now."

    Ouch, is that really the sort of thing they put in school history books in your country? I should have thought a decription of what he was accused of, how he defended himself, what was found, how that affected his ability to govern, that sort of thing, not "astonishing revelations of improper and crass behaviour" - that's value judgment for the reader not part of a history text.

  • Umm, did you read the first paragraph? I believe that we can't save ourselves by ignorance, and that we should always look to new ways to solve the new problems created by technology. If it turns out that technology lets gets us to the point where we erradicate ourselves, then so be it. I'm 100% in support of Nano-tech, nuclear research, cloning, bio-engineering, and anything else that we can think of.

    But I wasn't arguing my opinion, just making an observation...


    -
    We cannot reason ourselves out of our basic irrationality. All we can do is learn the art of being irrational in a reasonable way.
  • > I just blew all 5 of my moderation points trying to get rid of that morons "Q"'s and F*** You's

    I hear you. It seems to me that there are two strategies being used by moderators, which revolve around level 0:

    Strategy 1: Mark down AC spam to -1, under the theory that some readers will want to read with a filter level of zero. The downside is, this can use-up a lot of moderator points if there is a lot of spam to remove.

    Strategy 2: "Abandon" level 0 to the spammers, don't mark anything down, mark up all worthwhile AC posts from 0 to +1 (or higher), so that everyone except moderators can read at +1 (or higher). The downside is, AC posts which are only "average" remain at 0.

    It would be better if everyone used the same strategy, otherwise some points will not be used efficiently. Personally, I favor strategy 2, for the following reasons:

    a) The situation is not symmetrical: It is a lot easier for an AC to post spam than to post a worthwhile message.
    b) Moderating is a bit of a pain, and I don't think moderators should make the effort to read everything and then have to waste their points on spam.


    > So why not require ALL users to register

    Say Slashdot does a story on a company, and someone in the company wants to make a quick comment, but wouldn't bother if they had to take the trouble to register.

  • Ah, but wait until some DoD scientist injects people with nanotech that creates Borg implants and extreme motivation to assimilate... :-)
  • As long as

    a) the research doesn't wander into certain
    morality issues, like involving fetal-tissue
    research or cloning
    b) there's a budget surplus and the science
    doesn't cost THAT much
    c) it doesn't strike people as blatantly silly

    There probably won't be that much opposition.

    Were tax revenues NOT so unexpectedly high c/o the booming economy, then there might be griping about cost-effectiveness.
  • This may be a really inane question, but I'm curious. Why do you spell Clinton with a 'K'? Is it supposed to be an insult of some sort? Not that I defend Clinton at all, it just seems kind of petty.

  • damn. i'd put some money on them [zyvex.com] being the first to market on any nanotech.

    Dr. Ralph Merkle [merkle.com], crypto-god [ibm.com], is now working for them and no doubt played a big part [merkle.com] in getting this funding for nanotech (which Zyvex will no doubt see some of). - Uberdog

  • It's wrong to spend taxpayer money on this

    I thought libertarians thought it was wrong to tax people in the first place, so why is it wrong to spend money on this or have I misunderstood you ?
  • There is lots of private money going around for private research, and there would be more if the government wasn't pumping so much money into it.


    Bringing in Private Funding is bad.

    1. The science research will only be about getting the company more money. So, would the company allow its data to be spread out in the world (open-source) or would they hoard it, making their competitors have to use money to find out the same info.

    Governments are notoriously inefficient

    2. That is true because governments are a lot more effective. The gov't wil try to find the entire effects of research (effects on enviorment, people, etc). While companies don't want to use so much money on studies that could be pointless.
    think a much better use of that money is an accross-the-board tax cut.
    I don't want to get into this, but poor families that work very hard for little money should get priority in tax cuts.
    Well i wanted to write more, but i need to go.

  • dude! (Score:1)

    by moller ( 82888 )
    Did anyone mention that Clinton's speech was at Caltech? It was very cool. They locked down the whole building where the speech was, crazy security. I have pictures of the Secret Service snipers that they put on top of some of the buildings :).


    And darn, they had to cancel classes friday morning because of it.

  • they had snipers on top of Baxter, and in Beckman Behavioral (I think). Probably on top of Moore and Millikan as well, but I'm not sure.

  • This is just the latest clinton-wants-to-spend-federal-money-for-X story.
    He's desparatly trying to put his hand into
    the public till while he still can, trying
    to get some lasting, good thing associated with
    him to wipe out memories/associations of...well...
    what do you think of first when you of
    "Bill Clinton and..." ?

    ---Eludom
  • With no political power, and the knowledge that he will be gone soon, Billy boy has about as much pull is washington as a dead cat. There's a reason the call the last year of a term the "Lame Duck" year.
    _________________________
  • . . in hopes of finding Monicas' brain.

    ;)
    _________________________

  • There's already a startup with the name Zyvex that is already working on building a functioning replicator. Their time scale is over a decade and their attracting some of the better people in the field. Some people think that the impressive nanotech stuff will happen sooner rather than later.
  • hes funding this doing that even though he isnt going to get back into office. i wonder if he and algore have something going on...
  • Perhaps I could slip my name onto a couple checks
    Who would notice, really?

    Seriously though, Why should the government invest anything over a million $$ in this?
    I'm not saying It's unimportant, I'm just wondering what good money will do for the process
  • ... and Viagra? Or does the Clinton and the CIA know more then we think :)

    I mean, SOMETHING must have motivated Bill into dumping $2.8 billion dollars onto it's research.....

    BTW: The "Q" boy is back... little lamer.


    "Please, oh god pleae do something?"
    "Sorry, Mr Torvalds is out to lunch."
  • You could already do this. You don't. Thus you miss anyone who has minimum score set to 1. It's like with anti-theft devices, you won't stop the determined but you do raise the bar just a little and dicourage the casual offender.

    Besides, I do find some of the trolls mildly amusing so it wouldn't be such a hardship IMO but it may act as a good filter for the mindless waste-of-time trolls/spam.

    Rich

  • Ergo, we have the government making a long term investment for the public good. You know what's the first of three biggest lies? "I'm from government, and I'm here to help you". What you stated, i.e. the government is supposed to work for public good is propaganda for naive only (Ronald McDonald -- we do it just for you). The government is approximately as selfish as corporations are. Corporations just aren't that hypocritical. The only and single purpose of Clinton funding nanotech generously with your money, err, government's money, is to be able to get credit for eventual success of nanotech. Al Gore tried the same thing with funding Internet related research. The money that Clinton can put in nanotech research is hardly decisive wrt eventual success of failure of nanotech. There is too big stake for corporations to evade this chance. Corporations are going to work on this anyway, just like they have worked in the past on developement of computers -- take a look at the past of computers for an example. The money for nanotech by Clinton is only window dressing that is supposed to be background of Clinton himself to smile in front of nanotech and get interviewed in the tone "I made it happen!".

  • Huh? (Score:1)

    by lohen ( 122373 )
    What is 'The Diamond Age'?
  • The science research will only be about getting the company more money. So, would the company allow its data to be spread out in the world (open-source) or would they hoard it, making their competitors have to use money to find out the same info.

    This point doesn't seem to mix well with a common /. mindset, unfortunately. Like in the discussion of the race to patent human genes there seemed to be little understanding that the Human Genome Project is funded by goverments specifically to "open source" the info and make the benifits of it avalible to all. If everyone gets a tax cut and a pharmacutical co uses their huge portion of it to produce a proprietary treatment that they can charge me whatever the market will bear on, my extra 100 bucks a year isn't gonna help me that much. On the other hand, if the government is making scientific advances avalible to all and the resulting treatments are widespread and less expensive, everyone benifits, including those who don't make enough money for tax cuts to mean anything to them.

    While companies don't want to use so much money on studies that could be pointless.

    In one of his books, Carl Sagen talks about the then current aversion to anything resembling "pure research" in government science funding. He made a fairly good argument that many of our greatest technological advancements were based on research that at its start would have been dismissed as non-technologically driven and practically useless.

  • he's not the guy doing the "q" spamming. now think about what you just said to him and tell us all what makes you so much better than the "q" spammer after having posted such comments?
  • anyone who has read any of the naked and petrified posts knows that the "q" spams are not his style. what are you, jealous?
  • Can't we balance the budget first?
  • Your forgetting that large sums of money are not thrown into the military for actual war, but furthering scientific research into making better weapons. Though I could care less about multi billion dollar methods of killing other humans, there are lots of times when the military gives its technology back to the people. For instance, an underwater air tank/rebreather system that was developed either for the SEALs or Marines (I don't remember), which allows closer studies of marine life and their behavior.

    And without military spending, we wouldn't have other more notable weapons such as the atomic bomb, which actually furthered our understanding of nuclear physics.

    However, I still would rather see more money being spent directly into scientific research, instead of waiting for the side effects of military developments.
  • I think it's fantastic that our gov't is finally seeing the importance of science and learning...more money should go into science and the pursuit of knowledge than to guns and warfare...but then again..nothing makes money like a good war :)
  • Since when has he had any use for her BRAIN?? ;-)
  • And don't forget it was 'the government' that developed what is now the internet... which is the reason we are ultimately allowed to have this discussion.

    While I do agree with the hard core Libertarians that the gov't is stealing our money and I'm all for the shrinking of federal bureaucracies, but I don't reasonably expect the theft to stop this century. So I think we should focus our attention on spending more money on science, medicine, and defense and less on the rest. Clinton is a shotty President but he doesn't have anything to win anymore accept the love and admiration of his people, and the world. He needs to look good for the history books.. and other media forms :)

    Peace, prelude
  • too bad nanotech doesnt make those nanoites like on star trek tng. that would be sweet
  • Really? Which buildings? I was impressed by all the Secret Sevice guys with binoculars. I also tried to spot some plain-clothed agents, but nobody near me was wearing an earpiece that I could notice.

    I heard the whole speach. In light of the bulk of comments in this discussion, I find it a bit ironic that the entire emphasis of the speach was to explain, with specific examples, how significant advances in technology across the board arise from and depend on basic research, and more importantly, that the general public does not understand/believe this.

    Simply stated, the private sector cannot afford to make long term reaseach investments, for obvious reasons. It's the long-term, less-structured forays into new science that drive technology in new directions. The resistance to validating these claims stems from the misconception is that publicly-funded research is not subject to productivity quota or quality control, which could not be further from the truth.

  • I concur.
    Most people don't realize this, but Eric Drexler, the main person promoting nanotech, briefed Al Gore in a private audiance about the possibilities of nanotech years ago, as described in his second book, Unbounding the Future.

    I love the idea of nanotechnology. I love the idea of limitless resources, perhaps using hydrogen fuel to generate elecrtic power, and nano to do our manufacturing and medical care. I'm not too terribly worried about a nano-war, as it is much easier to destroy than create and agressive nanotechnology assembers would have to create duplicates of themselves as they went along, giving the defenders the advantage.
    I *AM* scared of the "government", i.e., a totally closed environment developing nano, because I just know the elitist fools in power will decide that nano is too much power for the masses.
    Granted, the societial change caused by genuine working nano-assemblers would be dramatic. Barring assine copyright stupidity, etc, material goods of all sorts will be next to nothing. Who cares that China can build stuff now with their manufacturing capability? Nanotech will eliminate that nasty problem. But what will happen when everyone who wants one can have, say, a jet airplane? Talk about congestion..
    But I digress. I'm afraid of nano being invented in a closed government lab, only to be repressed, and then false stuff planted in the scientific literature to persuade everyone else in the world that nano is unfeasable. Unbelievable? I don't know. I don't know if the authorities would ever be able to cope with the people having that much power. And, there's not too many businesses I'd trust with nano either. Therefore, I propose creating a new company to develop nano, with the following setup:
    1. Clone Richard Feynman. Feynman, arguably the second most intelligent man of the century (we all know that Dennis Miller is the first)was the first to propose nano...and then sort of made fun of it, even going so far as to critize Drexler for "wasting your time on this nano stuff when there's more interesting things out there." Oh, come on. Feynman worked on the Manhattan Project. He knew you can't stop science, he also knew that maybe we weren't quite ready for nano...so he sort of trivialized it in the hopes of not encouraging nano research until we as a race were a bit better. Anyhow, we'll make Feynman the CEO of our private little company, but we gotta clone him 'cause he's been dead for like 13 years.
    2. Make Steve Wozniak Head of Research.
    3. Bring Steve Case in as head of Marketing. Yes, we all know that AOL is the work of Satan (the demonic entity, not the Unix tool), not Steve Case, but still, the guy knows how to market stuff.
    4. Bring in Jessie Ventura as Head Lobbyist. Congress will think the nano movement is a bunch of nutcases, and consequently not bother passing a bunch of stupid laws regulating nano. (although I will concede that if any a technology needed intelligent regulation, it's nano - which can be both an incredibly liberating and incredibly oppressing technology)
    5. Give Paul Allen a job at the company, because he needs one.
    6. Give Linus Torvalds a job at the same company, for the same reason. Laptops that can last for a day on a 9-bolt battery? Who cares! We want laptops that can build themselves, and then eat their surroundings and turn into pepperoni pizzas when they're done!
    7. Appoint Hedy Lamarr head of PR. Sure, she's dead, but she's also quite nice to look at on camera, sassy enough not to take crap from reporters, and she understands technology. Plus, she might mate with Linus and they can father beatiful nerd children. We'll just have to go to backup and find a Hedy from, say, circa 1940.
    8. Bomb Seattle. Sure, it won't help advance nanotechnology any, but it'll prevent Microsoft from trying to acquire the rights.
    9. Put Drexler to work in a lab, supervising a bunch of biologists trying to make protein structures that can be altered and a bunch of geeks with scanning tunneling microscopes. One of the groups will make an assembler. Feed both groups regularly with beer and cheeze puffs.
    10. Hire a bunch of patent lawyers and feed them raw meat, and take away their sexual partners. This should also produce results.

    There we go. If these steps are taken, I am confident that we shall have free nanotechology soon, live forever, and be happy.
  • Great. More money down the drain. At least this research (assuming it isn't a cover for something else) may actually do some good... I guess we should be thankful they're not spending it on a study of cow farts this time...
  • There is a way to convince people of the benefits that basic research brings. Be specific, give specific examples and stories of past success. Remind people that humans are not born with PCs in their laps. Be fully creative in your approach and smile, darn you, smile! KBSS

  • OT: Spamming idiots (Score:2)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I realize that this is OT for this thread, but I'm a little bothered right now because I see the same spamming idiot is posting in this story. I just blew all 5 of my moderation points trying to get rid of that morons "Q"'s and F*** You's in the robot thread. Those were 5 moderation points I would have normally used to score up GOOD articles (I prefer to moderate up, not down). So here's my suggestion, take it or leave it.

    /. needs to get rid of the "true" AC account. The classic objection to doing this has been the fact that not everyone can comfortably post if they can be easily ID'd. Well, look at me right now. I'm an AC, but I'm also a regular user with an account...the "Post Anonymously" checkbox is my friend :) So why not require ALL users to register, and have Slash record a secure log so that ONLY /. staff can identify (and kick) the users causing the problems? If you wanted to secure it even more, Slashdot could also add in a bit of code limiting new registrations to a few posts per thread for a limited period of time after signup, and prevent Slash from registering more than one account per email address, per month or so. I realize that nothing can absolutely stop morons like these, but you can at least make it difficult for them.

    And if anyones wondering why I'm posting AC, it's because I don't really feel like dealing with a mailbomb just because I admitted to moderating him down. I feel embarrased at hiding my identity because of an annoying little s**t, but it's not worth the hassle to reveal myself.

  • This is why I advocate /. spam. (Score:2)

    by Anonymous Coward
    The use of this spam *is* to get moderator's to waste points. Why? Because me and many others are extremely pissed at the number of UNFAIR moderations going on. Even if an article deviates *slightly* from the moderators moral, religious or personal convictions, you get moderated down.

    This is the only way we can fight back.

    Just watch, this very post will get moderated down.
  • hes funding this doing that even though he isnt going to get back into office. i wonder if he and algore have something going on...
    He's got what every second-term president had going on. With no concerns about being voted out of office, he has the freedom to do what he feels is the Right Thing, without being booted by the ignorant American public.

    It's unfortunate that we have to wait 4 years for a president to grow a real spine and do what he thinks is right. (Actually, it's way more than four years, since so few actually make it to a second term.)

    -Chuck

    Ignorant American
  • It's so good to hear fellow /.'ers expressing Libertarian views, especially without making it blatanly clear that one is doing so, like I always feel the need to ;)

    It's so hard to convince people that gov't funding is always bad. We say, "the gov't shouldn't be funding nanotech research." And people say, "What, you're opposed to nanotech development?!" as if we're some kind of heretics. But that's not what we said! The issue is that the gov't is stealing (yes, taxes = theft) copious amounts of money from us constantly, and it doesn't matter WHAT they spend it on, the mere fact that they have it at all is completely unethical and, in the words of Frederic Bastiat, "a perversion of the law".

    If you're not a member already, I suggest you join the party! http://www.lp.org

    MoNsTeR
  • The previous poster's example about mapping the solar system was poor, but so is your analysis about which science is the most productive to invest in.

    You can't simply claim that one is "the best bang for the buck," since they're all intertwined! :)

    Astrophysics and astronomy advance science (and technology) on multiple fronts, too. Astrophysics involves basically all aspects of "pure" physics: High energy physics, condensed matter physics, plasma physics, etc. etc, with the possible exception (so far :) of biophysics. The various branches of chemistry are employed, and materials science and nanotechnology are developed by NASA for astronomical exploration, too.

    I agree that nanotechnology must be heavily studied, too. I also see, though, that nano investment is a field much more prone to heavy private funding, in addition to government funding, since there is so much perceived short term gain.

    However, there's no reason for us to quibble about such things, because no science (or technological endeavor) should have to fight for funding with any other. We should all be funded to the hilt. :)

    I think the president and Congress both understand how good of an investment science is, and that the effort has to be spread around to advance the state of the art on as many fronts as possible.

    I think that they also are very aware that the country will receive economic and spriritual returns commensurate with whatever level of funding they they provide for the sciences.
  • What are the science funding views of the various presidential candidates? I think it's clear that Gore is a science advocate. I honestly haven't heard a science policy comment from any of the candidates (including Gore) during the campaign, and I have been following the races and debates rather closely.

    For all of you reporters out there, could you please write some stories on this? For the senators (former and current) who are running, what are their voting records on scientific and engineering matters? (I'm not interested in, "So-and-so wants a moratorium on net taxes." We've heard tons about the net, computers, and health care policy (which isn't science), but we've heard very little about pure science and the like.)

    Here are a few questions I'd love to hear at a debate:

    • What is, in your view, the most exciting scientific discovery of the last few years? (*)

    • Do you keep abreast of current scientific research? What magazines/web pages/etc. do you scan through to see what's currently going on. (I'm not exactly sure how to word this. I don't expect them to read the Physical Review, :) but I'd like to know that they occasionally read the Science Section of the New York Times, or Scientific American or Discover.)

    • Where do you see the American space program in ten years?


    Those are the sorts of questions I'd love to see asked. I don't expect them to be an expert at any subject, I'd just like to know that they are interested in the scientific and engineering progress of the country, and that they have some rough picture, at least, of where the nation is headed.

    Anyway, I'd love to hear any information people have on the candidates' views on science.

    John Karcz


    (*) If Bush says, "I discovered Jesus," I won't be terribly surprised. :)

  • The government funds research in practically every branch of knowledge, so it's not surprising that they helped fund the development of the computer.

    But the question is not: has government funding led to useful research? The question is: would society be better off if the government had not funded that research. I think there is a case to be made that it did.

    The idea that computers would not exist without government support is ludicrous. By the fifties, IBM and other companies were already pioneering commercial uses of computers, and private universities were engaging in research. It is possible (although I think unlikely) that it would have taken longer for the computer revolution to occur, but I rather doubt it. And since the mid-seventies, the PC industry has taken off with essentially no government support.

    One of the primart effects of research funding of the computer industry today is simple corporate welfare. For example, the US has been encouraging the formation of "partnerships" between US semiconductor firms, and these "partnerships have been supported with lots of Federal money. The result of these kinds of subsidies has simply been to entrench the established players in the industry.

    We see what government money has helped to create. We do not see what would be if the government had not spent that money. The fact that some government money went to fund important research does not mean that other research wasn't wasteful, or that on average private funding would have gotten better results.
  • In one of his books, Carl Sagen talks about the then current aversion to anything resembling "pure research" in government science funding. He made a fairly good argument that many of our greatest technological advancements were based on research that at its start would have been dismissed as non-technologically driven and practically useless.

    Which may be why so many corporations hire people to do basic research. They realize that while they can't see a future in it at the moment, the payoff should a breakthrough be made would be enourmous. I will again point out the example of "IBM" being written on Xenon atoms. This clearly doesn't improve IBM's bottom line in the short run, but by funding this type of research, they are giving themselves a leg up if nanotech proves to be as powerful as some people think it is.
  • The science research will only be about getting the company more money. So, would the company allow its data to be spread out in the world (open-source) or would they hoard it, making their competitors have to use money to find out the same info.

    This is demonstrably not true. There are many corporations that pay their researchers to do basic research, in the hope that they will stumble on something that will lead to a product down the road. These corporations may "hoard" their data in some cases, but they also need to keep their researchers happy. In scientific circles, one's prestige is largely determined by one's published work, and so many researchers will insist on the right to publish before they will accept a position.

    Also, "private funding" does not necessarily mean "corporate funding." Private Universities and private charities are also a factor. Look at the American Heart Association, or the other analogous organizations for other diseases. And a big tax cut will allow more of this kind of funding to exist, since the wealthy will have more money to give to charity.

    That is true because governments are a lot more effective. The gov't wil try to find the entire effects of research

    That's not what I meant. What I meant was tht it is inefficient in that it is wasteful in its use of funding, both in excessive paper-pushing, and in making poor choices about who is to get funding. It is very easy to make poor choices when you are giving away other peoples' money and you have lots of it. Private foundations are founded by people who care specifically about what is being researched, and they have to convince their donors to give them money. That means that they have much more incentive to ensure that the grants are being used for worthwhile purposes.

    I don't want to get into this, but poor families that work very hard for little money should get priority in tax cuts.

    I think everyone should get a massive tax cut, rich and poor alike. And I don't think anyone should get "priority." The point of a tax cut is returning to taxpayers the money they earn, not social engineering. If the tax burden if 10% of the economy rather than 40%, it is much less of a big deal who has to pay for it.

  • The space program never whould have started without the government's push (and yes, the govenment pushed space because of the Cold War). Only now that space and satillites are established do companies send up things on their own.

    I find this a little hard to believe. Yes, the government funded the space program, and yes, this probably sped man's exploration of space. But I think it's quite likely that had the government not subsidized space travel, private companies would have done so to put satellites up. Not only that, but without government subsidies companies would have far more incentive to find cheaper ways of getting in space, and so today it might be possible to do *more* space research for less money than it would have been back then.

    We are using basically the same space technology as we did in 1981. The cost of getting into space has not decreased much at all in that time. It is almost certain that a private, competitive space industry would find more efficient ways to accomplish this task.

    Subsidizing something is a good way of killing it. When people don't have to convince anyone to give them money, they often don't work as hard to find new, innovative ways to do it. I think that in the long run NASA has hurt the space industry by subsidizing the status quo.

    No, this is wrong. I am at a private university. We do have a ~$1e7 endowment. it goes to scholarships, capital improvements, and makeing interest to maintain the endowment. As for the most basic of research in physics, no money for these projects come from private sources. I am talking about things like my research group's search for Dark Matter or another group's Big Occulting Steerable Satellite. Private companies do not and will not fund things like this because there are no even remotely visible dollar signs at the end of the research.

    As I said, private does not necessarily mean corporate. There are lots of private people out there with an intense interest in just such basic research, and if the government were not funding, it, you could probably get at least some funding from them. Keep in mind also that people would have more disposable income in a low-tax system.

    Also, some of the best inventions and discoveries have been made on shoestring budgets. If you don't have a billion dollars to make a particle accellerator, you might be driven to think of some way to do the same research on your more limited budget.

    I'm not saying that all government funding of research is necessarily bad, but I disagree with the unreserved enthusiasm for it. Government tends to stifle everything it touches, and I don't want this to happen to science.

    What are ancient civilizations remembered for? Their scientific advancement.

    Actually, some civilizations (the Aztec and Egyptians and Romans, for example) are remembered for building enourmous piles of rock with slave labor. Today they are called pyramids. I would rather our society focuses on how we live in the here and now, not how impressive we will look to future generations. Western civilization has already achieved more than all previous civilizations combined. There is no chance of them forgetting we existed any time soon.

    The only thing that really lasts is the knowledge that we pass down to successive generations. This is the basic human drive. Why are we here? Where are we going? How did it happen? These questions are what make us human. This is why science is important.

    Hey, you're preaching to the converted here. I am not opposed to science by any means. In fact I agree that it is one of our greatest achievements. That is one of the reason I want the government to keep away from it. The government has a habit of destroy everything it tries to help.

  • Bullshit.

    The fact that you post these kinds of comments shows that you aren't really interested in the stories at all.

    I won't try to argue logically with you, because it would be a waste of bandwidth. Because you don't give a shit about /., you just get your jollies knowing you can be disruptive.

    The claim that you are protesting something is really quite funny.

    Steve M
  • Not likely that nanotech can end society; it may end society as we know it. But then, the personal computer has ended society the way our parents knew it. If you haven't read it, check out Neal Stephenson's book The Diamond Age. It's a great thought-experiment on nanotech, as well as a pretty good sci-fi read.

    As for copy protection, manufacturing won't disappear, because of basic economics of technology: the manufacturers will be developing fast, cheap mass-production nanotech facilities (really just storage warehouses with hundreds of matter compilers) that can outdo any single, home-use matter compiler. Prices will go down, profits will be huge (companies pay for seawater, pumps, and a few programmers to run the matter compilers), and home units will still be grossly expensive. Much like stereo component CD-burners, the industry lobby will doubtless come up with a scheme to keep the prices of home-use compilers high until they've developed the next generation.

    Eventually, home-use will take over, but the manufacturers will have plenty of time to pack up and get inside before it rains.

    As for the benefits:
    medical technology like arterial plaque cleaners; information technology like a dispersed smog of weather nanites that beam back position, velocity, and air pressure to NOAA;
    diamond windows cheaper than glass;
    stronger and lighter materials revolutionizing spaceflight and all material intensive engineering;
    and more...

    Don't be scared, it's just the future. Make friends while he's still a puppy.

    --jurph
  • American People, this is YOUR MONEY Clinton is
    so happily waving around and trying to spend.
    A 2.8$ billion increase, well that's somewhere
    in the neighborhood of 10.76$ each citizen.
    So the Federal government comes along and takes
    10.76$ out of your pocket, and all of you shout
    'Thank you sir may I please have another!'.

    Federally sponsored science programs are one of
    the most ineffective and inefficient ways to
    do science. In a private scenario, there is more
    accountability, and more competition to do
    science in the best way.

    If you really want to support science, invest
    in the companies that are doing the kind of
    research you are interested in, and take the
    power of government back into your own hands.

    Let me leave you with a quote:

    "The American Republic will endure, until
    politicians realize they can bribe the people
    with their own money."
    -- Alexis de Tocqueville

    L


  • I am the original poster and a physicist. I have two problems with your point of view:

    The fact is that there are many companies out there that fund basic research. They do it primarily because if a breakthrough occurs, they want to have people in-house that can help turn it into a working product.
    Well, private companies do fund some a lot of "basic" research, but not all. Companies like IBM, Lucent (aka Bell Labs) and others do fund projects not directly applicable to makeing $$$, but the research they do fund is stuff that is somewhat related. ie, IBM funds projects in Solid State physics becuase if some breakthough occurs, it can easily be applied to make smaller, faster chips. Companies would not have invested in space just 25 years ago. The space program never whould have started without the government's push (and yes, the govenment pushed space because of the Cold War). Only now that space and satillites are established do companies send up things on their own.

    You are also ignoring private charities and Universities. There are many private schools with hundreds of millions in endowments, and many of those do and would be used to fund basic research. These endowments would be even bigger in a society with a lower tax burden, since many wealthy people leave their fortunes to their alma mater. There are also private donations directly toward research programs.
    No, this is wrong. I am at a private university. [cwru.edu] We do have a ~$1e7 endowment. it goes to scholarships, capital improvements, and makeing interest to maintain the endowment. As for the most basic of research in physics, no money for these projects come from private sources. I am talking about things like my research group's search for Dark Matter [cwru.edu] or another group's Big Occulting Steerable Satellite [cwru.edu]. Private companies do not and will not fund things like this because there are no even remotely visible dollar signs at the end of the research. The price tags on these (and other things like particle accelerators) are too big for private endowments. Only the govenment (or governments) is in a position to reasonably fund research as to how the universe works.

    <rant>
    What are ancient civilizations remembered for? Their scientific advancement. The Greeks with logic and math, the Mayans calanders and astronomy, the Chinese, gunpowder. What difference does it make in the grand scheme of things whether this battle was fought on Tuesday or Friday? Not a whole lot. The only thing that really lasts is the knowledge that we pass down to successive generations. This is the basic human drive. Why are we here? Where are we going? How did it happen? These questions are what make us human. This is why science is important. Science is the systematic attempt to glean meaning from the universe in an attempt to answer these questions. (Religion also attempts to answer these questions but it is usually not as systematic :-) and should really only be used to answer the questions that science cannot tell us). I am a relatively spritual and religious man, but religion cannot tell us where we evolved from just as science cannot tell us how to act morally.
    </rant>

    Disclaimer: This whole thing is of course my opinion, especially the last parenthetical sentence.

    A wealthy eccentric who marches to the beat of a different drum. But you may call me "Noodle Noggin."

  • A good thing. I saw this announcement on CNN last night, and after the Clinton clip, the reporter stated that as per a study (i forget the name), scientific research is THE BEST investment of the government dollar that there is. I only wish they increased funding for physics explpicitly. As to whether the Republican Congress will go along with it, it might seem rather suprising, but in the last budget, they actually increased the president's science budget by a bit. CNN also had a clip of a Republican Congresswoman on the science committee commending the president's initative.

    YAY SCIENCE!!

    A wealthy eccentric who marches to the beat of a different drum. But you may call me "Noodle Noggin."
  • ...we don't have to worry about everything we know being invalidated by the complete change nanotech would bring about.

    If he comes through with the money, it will kill nanotech progress as effectively as NASA has killed space exploration and travel.
  • "is to be able to get credit for eventual success of nanotech"

    I wasn't speaking to motivation when I said for the public good, I was refering to end effect. If Al Gore wants credit for the internet, or Clinton for nanotech, who cares? As long as the end result is more basic research being done which achieves the long term interests of the people.

    LetterRip
  • Do you think that if this bill doesn't pass the treasury department is going to cut you a check for the savings? It's alot like when some huge multinational corporation puts up signs explaining how shoplifting really hurts the consumer because they have to raise prices to cover the shoplifted goods. That's not how capitalism works, you charge what the market will bear period.
    Your Government works the same way, it taxes you what you will bear before revolting in any way beyond making cranky anti-tax protests on slashdot. They're going to take your money anyway, why bitch when it gets used for something constructive instead of propping up puppet dictatorships in third world country with the proper attitude toward america and american industry, or the artificial economy of victimless crimes and the vast network of prisons and jails.
    I know this is never going to play in the libertarian, Ayn Rand worshiping slashdot crowd but I really do believe government could be good for something and if it wants to try for God's sake let it!

  • As unpopular as it may be, I'm totally against this funding. Do I want to see science advanced? Are nanobites cool? Of course. But why in the world do we want to have them funded by the government? Why is that the government's responsibility (or privelege)?

    All this is is Big Papa Clinton giving all of his children another toy to keep them happy and loyal. This country was founded on the principle that (federal) government should be responsible for a few very important things, such as national defense and commerce laws between states, but largely since the great depression and FDR, that focus has changed for some reason.

    If the government is providing the money (of course, they aren't, it's really our money, but that's another issue), the government will also be controlling the results to some extent. You can argue that if you want to, but it's true.

    Why is it evil for the private sector to do research? Look Thomas Edison, or the famed Bell Labs. These are not cruel, heartless researchers, but rather geniuses, wishing to advance science, who would like to feed their families at the end of the day.

    The one handing out the money has the power. Why centralize the power?



    TerraAlien

    -----
  • He's getting desperate for a *positive* legacy. After all, he does not want his dysfunctional personal life to dominate his entries in the history books.

    Statements like, "President Clinton, only the second ever to be impeached, and whose character was impugned by astonishing revelations of improper and crass behavior..." are NOT what he has in mind for schoolkids to learn years from now.
  • The Diamond age, you know Neal Stephenson's book, oh just follow this link [slashdot.org].
  • As unpopular as it may be, I'm totally against this funding. Do I want to see science advanced? Are nanobites cool? Of course. But why in the world do we want to have them funded by the government? Why is that the government's responsibility (or privelege)?

    Research dollars spent by the government can be allotted based on contribution to society. Research dollars spent by industry ARE allotted based on likely financial return. There is a difference.

    I see direct consequences of this in biomedical research daily. An altruistic funding source is a true benefit to society.
  • I'm sorry but I don't agree with you. This is a post from craig [slashdot.org] on this thread about the Q spammer.
    I like your bit of deductive reasoning though: Even though several thousand people read slashdot if 1 person admits to posting a disruptive post he must be guilty of all of them. That's a pretty big assumption.
    PS: Try reading Trolltalk [slashdot.org] sometime and then you'll realize how large a troll community slashdot has.

  • Re:Another pandora's box? (Score:3)

    by Syberghost ( 10557 ) <syberghostNO@SPAMsyberghost.com> on Saturday January 22, 2000 @08:05AM (#1347889)
    Does Clinton want to be known for having started a second Manhattan project (I suppose it is a lot better than what he will most likely be known for)?

    If your position is that we shouldn't explore something that's dangerous, you picked a piss-poor example in the Manhattan project.

    If the US hadn't poured a whole bunch of money into that project in a hell of hurry, somebody else [historyplace.com] would have gotten it first, and the world would be in way worse shape than it presently is.

    You can't fight something unless you understand it, and you can't fully understand it unless you can build it from scratch.

  • Re:Basic research is different (Score:3)

    by binarybits ( 11068 ) on Saturday January 22, 2000 @01:20PM (#1347890) Homepage
    OK, then please explain to me why IBM funded the etching of the words "IBM" into Xenon atoms? Or why Xerox-PARC invented the modern GUI without ever making an actual product based around it? Or why most major corporations employ top researchers to do work that, although certainly related to the company's broad goals, is not directly related to any specific product in development?

    The fact is that there are many companies out there that fund basic research. They do it primarily because if a breakthrough occurs, they want to have people in-house that can help turn it into a working product.

    You are also ignoring private charities and Universities. There are many private schools with hundreds of millions in endowments, and many of those do and would be used to fund basic research. These endowments would be even bigger in a society with a lower tax burden, since many wealthy people leave their fortunes to their alma mater. There are also private donations directly toward research programs.

    We see that the government has funded most basic research. But this does not imply that if the government cut off funding that the research would simply stop. There are private sources for funding. That funding simply gets used elsewhere when folks see that the government is already pumping lots of money into basic research.

  • Actually... (Score:3)

    by binarybits ( 11068 ) on Saturday January 22, 2000 @08:55AM (#1347891) Homepage
    I think a much better use of that money is an accross-the-board tax cut. There is lots of private money going around for private research, and there would be more if the government wasn't pumping so much money into it. Governments are notoriously inefficient, and I question whether government should be in the business of funding research.

    There is also a fundamentally anti-scientific element to having a centralized source for all of the research funding. A scientist with a wacky idea is far more likely to get funding if there are dozens of private sources than if most of the money comes from one source.

    Certainly there are worse things the government can do with a billion dollars, but I'd much rather see it returned to the people who earned it.

  • Re:What about the existing sciences? (Score:3)

    by Bearpaw ( 13080 ) on Saturday January 22, 2000 @07:15AM (#1347892)
    Nah, nanotech is cooler. If we shrink the space used for the Library of Congress, we'll have *really* accomplished something. :-(

    Well, yes, we will have.

    Anyway, the article doesn't go into a lot of detail. It's entirely possible that some of the proposed funds would go to astronomy. Want to increase the odds of that? Contact your gov't reps.

  • Nanotechnology & Transmeta (Score:3)

    by vik ( 17857 ) on Saturday January 22, 2000 @11:46AM (#1347893) Homepage Journal
    What abunch of Luddites.

    Look guys, we're grown up enough to get over the "Gray Goo" scenarios of killer, runaway nanobots. We have the damn things already, with names like "Ebloa", "HIV, "Hepatitis" and "Termites". The only reason we can't currently beat them is because we don't have control of a suitably advanced technology.

    Nanotechnology is THE advanced technology. It is the only technology we would be able to counter a deliberate nanotechnology offensive with - if anyone were able to build a serious nanotech weapon, and that is not as simple as it seems.

    The alternative is to wait - either not doing much, or actively banning nanotechnology, it doesn't matter much - until they develop nanotechnology in Switzerland, Brazil, Japan or whatever. Once someone builds a single functional assembler, it will not be hard to distribute copies or cross national boundaries.

    Transmeta has already started the process with their "soft" processor. The design concepts and partnership with IBM have inexorably set in motion a series of steps which will bring us protein-based nanotechnology within 5 years, and an assembler probably by 2010.

    I've rounded up the details and links on http://olliver.peng uinpowered.com/launchpad/transprocessor.html [penguinpowered.com]

    Vik :v)

  • Re:What about the existing sciences? (Score:3)

    by LetterRip ( 30937 ) on Saturday January 22, 2000 @06:46AM (#1347894)
    Research in nano is nice, because it advances technological fronts on many sides- materials science/manufacturing, chemistry, molecular biology, medicine, computer science

    A mapping of the near earth objects/space is of little return (short term). Also, by waiting a few years technological improvements could greatly increase the search speed. (recall the article about waiting to start on computer intensive projects because of moores law?)

    Thus a nano/related investment is probably the best bang for the buck...

    LetterRip

  • Re:Another pandora's box? (Score:3)

    by LetterRip ( 30937 ) on Saturday January 22, 2000 @07:01AM (#1347895)
    There is a world of difference between basic nanotechnology, and a full scale autonomous replicator. Probably on the order of 20 to 50 years of reasearch difference, minimum. Early nano allows for better basic materials sciene- ie fewer flaws in metals, plastics, silicon, which increases strength, reduces resistance, and basically improves properties all around.

    This is very early level stuff, your talking at least twenty years off for the applications you speak of (and much more likely closer to 100...)

    LetterRip

  • What about the existing sciences? (Score:3)

    by ajs ( 35943 ) <ajs@@@ajs...com> on Saturday January 22, 2000 @06:13AM (#1347896) Homepage Journal
    Things like Astronomy have been languishing for years. You'd think that with the recent hoopla over asteroids, we'd at least be spending megabucks on a complete mapping of the local area of the solar system. Nope, just the same token investments through NASA as always.

    This, not to mention the tremendous value in such things as solar research which could help us better understand our climate and the dangers that might be posed to us by our own "life-giving" sun.

    Nah, nanotech is cooler. If we shrink the space used for the Library of Congress, we'll have *really* accomplished something. :-(

    I'm picking on astronomy because I have a friend in the field (who also reads/posts to /., so he can say his peace), but there are plenty of other sciences that the US is ignoring, and other countries are mostly following our lead.

  • I am teaching a college astronomy course again for the first time in about 15 years. It is astonishing to me to see how more information we have been able to accumulate in that time, and the effect that our nearly instantaneous access to that information is having on the way I can teach. So much of this change seems to be because the access to the information allows groups to informally come together to share resources and work together in problem solving. (e.g. One fundemental insight into a solution is quickly shared and implemented when you can just knock together a webpage and post it rather than waiting for the peer-reviewed journals to publish your short paper.)

    Nano tech devices that would allow for raw information to be distributed more effeciently would increase the rate of progress.

    The only downside to this announcement is that ~500 million of a 2.8 billion dollar budget isn't really nearly the kind of investment we should be making in fundenmental research.

    There must be some sort of mechanism (other invoking "Tang" and "Blister packaging") to convince people of the benefits that investing basic research brings.

  • Re:Oh great! (Score:3)

    by blakestah ( 91866 ) <blakestah@gmail.com> on Saturday January 22, 2000 @09:02AM (#1347898) Homepage
    Thomas Edison was not a scientist. He did not engage in discovery of new science. He did not work in the same realm as his peers.

    Thomas Edison advanced TECHNOLOGY, not SCIENCE. There are fundamentally different motivations involved in the two. This has been the subject of quite a few essays by the late Thomas Kuhn.

    There are plenty of debates as to whether science leads or lags technology, a topic I do not want get into. But people like Alexander Bell and Thomas Edison fundamentally developed new technology. They did not carefully consider mechanisms by which their technologies worked, nor did they CARE about careful investigation of mechanism. They made products that served a function.

    Both science and technology advance society. Technology does it with a shorter time lag than science, in general. Science often does not have immediately visible consequences to society - technology always does. The failure of the government to fund science will leave us with a society that is fundamentally driven by technology. And that has long lasting consequences to consider.

  • A *FAIR* way to reduce spam from anon cowards (Score:3)

    by Richy_T ( 111409 ) on Saturday January 22, 2000 @07:54AM (#1347899) Homepage
    Create a new class of user. It works like this. Change the default score for "Anonymous cowards" to -1. Now create a class called "Anonymous user" with a default score of 0.

    When you create an account, you also get given an "anonymous user" account.

    Now here's the clever bit

    There is no link whatsoever between your normal user account and the Anonymous user account. You can use either to post but slashdot keeps no information to link the accounts. Also, there is nothing to distinguish one Anonymous User from another. (Note that a side effect of this is that an individual anonymous user cannot accumulate karma since this could identify someone with high karma (although it might be good to allow karma to be used if the anonymous user wants to)

    The good thing is that anonymous cowards drop below the event horizon (unless they get moderated up) but people with genuine comments they may not wished to be attributed to their real personas get to post. If someone abuses their AU persona, it is banned. True they can get another one by re-registering as a new real user but at least that requires some degree of effort and is more likely to discourage the casual spammer.

    Rich

  • Let's not get too excited. (Score:3)

    by Wellspring ( 111524 ) on Saturday January 22, 2000 @06:57AM (#1347900)

    Research is, obviously, a Very Good Thing. But let's remember Clinton promises everyone that they'll get special treatment in the budget next year. He doesn't actually push for everything, since if he did, we'd be back in debt. So he just blames Congress instead. We can only hope that science is one of those things he's willing to actually do more than talk about.

    After Clipper Chip/CDA/etc, I'm not too optimistic.

  • Re:Oh great! (Score:4)

    by LetterRip ( 30937 ) on Saturday January 22, 2000 @07:36AM (#1347901)
    It is not 'evil' for the private sector to do research. The reason it is benificial to have government funded research, is because corporations have only a responsibility to there stock holders. Stock holders rarely take the long view on investments, hence all research will be for immediate applicability. Unfortunately, basic research, that which brings about enourmous leaps in our understanding and technology, are not a good short term investment.

    Ergo, we have the government making a long term investment for the public good.

    LetterRip

  • url for interesting paper and talk on nanotech (Score:4)

    by tao.ca ( 40816 ) on Saturday January 22, 2000 @06:32AM (#1347902) Homepage
    i found these two links from the A-Infos Radio Project [radio4all.net]:

    this is an MP3 interview [radio4all.net] with the Professor

    and this is his essay on Nanosocialism [sc.edu]

    basically he talks about the social aspects of nanotechnology, building on some of the promise resident in the molecular and massively mirco scale.

  • Another pandora's box? (Score:4)

    by Hobbex ( 41473 ) on Saturday January 22, 2000 @06:45AM (#1347903)
    I'm not someone who advocates trying to resist the progress of technology, I believe we have to embrace it and change our lives accordingly, but its interesting that Nano-technology research is not more controversial considering the possible dangers involved.

    The "dangers" involved in debated and even banned areas such as human cloning, bio engineering, and true AI are really pretty small compared with Nanotech, where one invisibly small nanomachine, programmed to multiply and destroy its host could eradicate life on earth and still not stop. Does Clinton want to be known for having started a second Manhattan project (I suppose it is a lot better than what he will most likely be known for)?

    And the prospect of Nanotech has some _very_ interesting implications on the current RIAA, MPAA, and other "evil forces of the world" situation with the freedom of Information. When nanotech comes along, will we have a Copyright Act that forbids programming nanomachines to work-around "nano-scan protection systems"? Will Ford sue me for writing a Nano-assembler that can make a copy of your neighbors Mustang? Will Coca-Cola go after me for having bought one bottle and then copied it to all my friends at the party? And most importantly, if its true as the Copyright defenders say, that copy protection is necessary for the economy to work, will society then end with Nanotech? Maybe all the companies that produce physcial items ought to be out lobbying congress to not spend another cent on Nano-research, which could cripple their bussiness!!!

    -
    We cannot reason ourselves out of our basic irrationality. All we can do is learn the art of being irrational in a reasonable way.

Slashdot Top Deals

What the gods would destroy they first submit to an IEEE standards committee.

Close