Clinton Wants $497 Million for Nanotech Research 155
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.
Logged in AC's (Score:1)
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)
Re:Actually... (Score:1)
> 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.
We must ensure the results will be public domain (Score:1)
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.
Re:Agreed (Score:1)
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
Nanotech buzz (Score:1)
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
Hemos? (Score:1)
Rob, let Hemos out of his cage, please.
Re:Why the 'K'? (Score:1)
Re:Klinton: stop stealing taxpayer money!! (Score:1)
Re:Oh great! (Score:1)
Sure, just ask Nikola Tesla (in reference to Edison of course).
Best cause? (Score:1)
Re:Logged in AC's (Score:1)
Re:Deficit spending? (Score:1)
Re:Nanotechnology & Transmeta (Score:1)
Vik :v)
Government Control (Score:1)
Okay, that's enough X-Files paranoia for now =)
Re:This is wrong. (Score:1)
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
Re:OT: Spamming idiots (Score:1)
Re:Oh great! (Score:1)
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.
The Diamond Age (Score:1)
Agreed (Score:1)
Agreed (Score:1)
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)
Re:notice how clinton is especially active now? (Score:1)
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.
Re:Another pandora's box? (Score:1)
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.
on spam and level zero (Score:1)
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.
Re:Clinton has some brains (Score:1)
Re:This can only be... (Score:1)
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.
Why the 'K'? (Score:1)
Re:Another pandora's box? (Score:1)
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
Re:Stop steeling taxpayer money! (Score:1)
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 ?
Re:Actually... (Score:1)
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)
And darn, they had to cancel classes friday morning because of it.
Re:dude! (Score:1)
Clinton is a lammer looking for a legacy (Score:1)
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
Re:Lame Duck clinton (Score:1)
_________________________
Clinton is advocating a nanotech breakthrough . . (Score:1)
_________________________
Re:Another pandora's box? (Score:1)
notice how clinton is especially active now? (Score:1)
Quite a load of Cash... (Score:1)
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
Nanotechnology? But there's no link between that.. (Score:1)
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."
Re:I know who is doing the Q spamming (Score:1)
Re:A *FAIR* way to reduce spam from anon cowards (Score:1)
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
Re:Oh great! (Score:1)
Huh? (Score:1)
Re:Actually... (Score:1)
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.
Re:Logged in AC's (Score:1)
Re:I know who is doing the Q spamming (Score:1)
Deficit spending? (Score:1)
Re:Clinton has some brains (Score:1)
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.
Clinton has some brains (Score:1)
Re:Clinton is advocating a nanotech breakthrough . (Score:1)
Re:Goverment spending.. (Score:1)
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
nanotech (Score:1)
Re:dude! (Score:1)
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.
Re:Oh great! (Score:1)
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.
Wonderful (Score:1)
Re:We are really living at an amazing moment in ti (Score:1)
OT: Spamming idiots (Score:2)
/. 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
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)
This is the only way we can fight back.
Just watch, this very post will get moderated down.
Re: Notice how clinton is especially active now? (Score:2)
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.)
right on! (Score:2)
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
Do better analysis. :) (Score:2)
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
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.
Science stances of presidential candidates (Score:2)
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:
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.
Re:Actually... (Score:2)
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.
Re:Actually... (Score:2)
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.
Re:Actually... (Score:2)
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.
Re:Basic research is different (Score:2)
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.
Re:This is why I advocate /. spam. (Score:2)
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
The claim that you are protesting something is really quite funny.
Steve M
Re:Another pandora's box? (Score:2)
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 Money (Score:2)
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
Re:Basic research is different (Score:2)
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> :-) 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.
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
</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."
This can only be... (Score:2)
YAY SCIENCE!!
A wealthy eccentric who marches to the beat of a different drum. But you may call me "Noodle Noggin."
Well, at least... (Score:2)
If he comes through with the money, it will kill nanotech progress as effectively as NASA has killed space exploration and travel.
Re:Oh great! (Score:2)
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
Re:American Money (Score:2)
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!
Oh great! (Score:2)
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
-----
Re:notice how clinton is especially active now? (Score:2)
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.
Re:Huh? (Score:2)
Re:Oh great! (Score:2)
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.
Re:I know who is doing the Q spamming (Score:2)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
Re:What about the existing sciences? (Score:3)
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)
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)
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
We are really living at an amazing moment in time (Score:3)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.