If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Slate)   Most modern innovation has been funded by the state, not by "entrepreneurs", and the current policy of cutting funding for STEM research is going to doom us to decades of watching other countries innovate, invent, and discover the future   (slate.com) divider line 257
    More: Fail, innovations, U.S. National Institutes of Health, state banks, market failure, University of Sussex, watching  
•       •       •

2883 clicks; posted to Geek » on 03 Sep 2013 at 8:20 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



257 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-09-03 08:30:20 AM
Yeah, but do they have Jebus?  I think not!  BOO-YAH!  In your face, rest of the world!
 
2013-09-03 08:32:18 AM
It's hardly surprising that if a country puts money into researching stuff, more stuff will be researched there. Does anyone actually deny this other than crazed anti-government Randists?
 
2013-09-03 08:35:07 AM
I really have diificulties imagining private entrepreneurs financing the research in quantum physics that led to the GPS.
 
2013-09-03 08:36:50 AM
Don't worry.  The Brits invented everything before and will invent everything in the future.  If you don't believe it, just ask them.
 
2013-09-03 08:37:29 AM

Gunther: It's hardly surprising that if a country puts money into researching stuff, more stuff will be researched there. Does anyone actually deny this other than crazed anti-government Randists?


As someone who would likely fit into that crazed, anti-government Randist category, it isn't so much that we research a bunch which really gets me, it's the stuff we research. Today there was a story on NPR about whether or not babies can be prodded into categorizing pictures by using lemur shrieks.  I mean - great, they can.  Is that something I want to have my government spending money on when we're 17 trillion dollars in debt?  If we had a bunch of surplus money, then sure, research the fark out of it.  But not when we're massively in debt.
 
2013-09-03 08:42:49 AM
Is this the tread where Gender Studies majors complain about people saying STEM degrees pay better? Or is this the thread where they gloat about the rise of political correctness and the decline of research and development?
 
2013-09-03 08:44:09 AM

Gunther: It's hardly surprising that if a country puts money into researching stuff, more stuff will be researched there. Does anyone actually deny this other than crazed anti-government Randists?


We would have more private entrepreneurs if we had a patent system that didn't scare them all off. I would hate to independently invent *anything* for fear that someone is sitting on a patent that they're waiting to enforce as soon as I'm ready for market.
 
2013-09-03 08:47:09 AM

MattStafford: Gunther: It's hardly surprising that if a country puts money into researching stuff, more stuff will be researched there. Does anyone actually deny this other than crazed anti-government Randists?

As someone who would likely fit into that crazed, anti-government Randist category, it isn't so much that we research a bunch which really gets me, it's the stuff we research. Today there was a story on NPR about whether or not babies can be prodded into categorizing pictures by using lemur shrieks.  I mean - great, they can.  Is that something I want to have my government spending money on when we're 17 trillion dollars in debt?  If we had a bunch of surplus money, then sure, research the fark out of it.  But not when we're massively in debt.


In other news, scientific research is a scattershot process that produces uncertain results, and you cannot simply say "Well, clearly THIS kind of science is what will produce the best things!" Also, the study you listed seems to actually have produced some very interesting results about how babies learn language, which is definitely an important field of study. Just because  you don't think it's important doesn't mean that it isn't important.
 
2013-09-03 08:49:44 AM

Rincewind53: MattStafford: Gunther: It's hardly surprising that if a country puts money into researching stuff, more stuff will be researched there. Does anyone actually deny this other than crazed anti-government Randists?

As someone who would likely fit into that crazed, anti-government Randist category, it isn't so much that we research a bunch which really gets me, it's the stuff we research. Today there was a story on NPR about whether or not babies can be prodded into categorizing pictures by using lemur shrieks.  I mean - great, they can.  Is that something I want to have my government spending money on when we're 17 trillion dollars in debt?  If we had a bunch of surplus money, then sure, research the fark out of it.  But not when we're massively in debt.

In other news, scientific research is a scattershot process that produces uncertain results, and you cannot simply say "Well, clearly THIS kind of science is what will produce the best things!" Also, the study you listed seems to actually have produced some very interesting results about how babies learn language, which is definitely an important field of study. Just because  you don't think it's important doesn't mean that it isn't important.


^^This
Just because you don't understand it, doesn't mean it has no value.
 
2013-09-03 08:50:34 AM

MattStafford: Today there was a story on NPR about whether or not babies can be prodded into categorizing pictures by using lemur shrieks. I mean - great, they can. Is that something I want to have my government spending money on when we're 17 trillion dollars in debt?


Do you know the reason for doing the study? Often such studies are looking for a specific thing and the easiest way to find it may be through what appear to be unorthodox methods. A decade or two ago there were a bunch of Republicans getting all pissy about a study that measured the length of flight attendant noses. It was given as a prime example of government waste. It turned out that the study was on the long term effects of flight on human physiology. The study measured all kinds of things, nose length was just one of several hundred metrics. This was valuable information for both the military and for civil aviation but someone with an axe to grind pulled out one particular metric, shouted about the total cost of the study, and got the usual pitchfork waivers riled up. You can play the same game with almost and research if you're out to prove all spending is bad or that science is the devil, both of which sadly are virtual planks in the Republican platform.
 
2013-09-03 08:52:02 AM

MattStafford: Gunther: It's hardly surprising that if a country puts money into researching stuff, more stuff will be researched there. Does anyone actually deny this other than crazed anti-government Randists?

As someone who would likely fit into that crazed, anti-government Randist category, it isn't so much that we research a bunch which really gets me, it's the stuff we research. Today there was a story on NPR about whether or not babies can be prodded into categorizing pictures by using lemur shrieks.  I mean - great, they can.  Is that something I want to have my government spending money on when we're 17 trillion dollars in debt?  If we had a bunch of surplus money, then sure, research the fark out of it.  But not when we're massively in debt.


It sounds as if you're buying into the Republican lies about "wasteful" research projects.

Scientists often study things for reasons that aren't entirely obvious to people who aren't already experts in some difficult field.  Without these studies, the more obvious breakthroughs  wouldn't happen.  You can't just give money to someone and tell him or her to make the next big discovery.  Rather, you watch as people try to understand complicated systems (e.g., the human brain) and then later discover applications for what they discover.

Also, "let's stop learning things because we're in debt" is just about the dumbest idea ever, especially when research money is a tiny, tiny part of the budget, and the debt always has been and always will be portrayed in the most overblown terms possible by those who simply hate seeing public money go to anything.  Because of Communism, or something.

I regularly hear from right-wing types that any sort of academic career is a complete waste, and it gets old.


Aside from all of that, these stories about "wasteful" research projects always cover things that use funny words (which being careful not to go into enough depth to show what interesting things we might learn from the studies).  In the example you mentioned, we're clearly supposed to be shocked at the phrase  lemur shrieks.  You're going to for an emotional response, not a rational one.  That explains the focus on psychology and social science and such, since most of the more arcane hard science research (and there is a  lot of that in the U.S.) doesn't make for good sound bites.
 
2013-09-03 08:52:51 AM

DirtyDeadGhostofEbenezerCooke: Don't worry.  The Brits

Scots invented everything before and will invent everything in the future.  If you don't believe it, just ask them they'll kick your teeth in!


FTFY
 
2013-09-03 08:54:54 AM

Rincewind53: In other news, scientific research is a scattershot process that produces uncertain results, and you cannot simply say "Well, clearly THIS kind of science is what will produce the best things!" Also, the study you listed seems to actually have produced some very interesting results about how babies learn language, which is definitely an important field of study. Just because  you don't think it's important doesn't mean that it isn't important.


When you're 17 trillion dollars in debt, you need to do a lot better than scattershot.

Also - the conclusion to the study was that babies are able to categorize things quicker when they are exposed to natural noises coming from primates.  Great.  I'm sure that revelation is going to revolutionize baby care.  HEADLINE:  "Talking to babies while introducing new objects to them will help those babies learn words quicker" - Ric Romero reporting.
 
2013-09-03 08:55:20 AM
Don't worry guys, Rearden Metal is being developed by a single man as we speak.
 
2013-09-03 08:55:25 AM

MattStafford: Gunther: It's hardly surprising that if a country puts money into researching stuff, more stuff will be researched there. Does anyone actually deny this other than crazed anti-government Randists?

As someone who would likely fit into that crazed, anti-government Randist category, it isn't so much that we research a bunch which really gets me, it's the stuff we research. Today there was a story on NPR about whether or not babies can be prodded into categorizing pictures by using lemur shrieks.  I mean - great, they can.  Is that something I want to have my government spending money on when we're 17 trillion dollars in debt?  If we had a bunch of surplus money, then sure, research the fark out of it.  But not when we're massively in debt.


My first thought was that this new information could be used to treat autistic kids with language problems. Why do you hate autistic children?
 
2013-09-03 08:57:13 AM
We could just keep outsourcing all the manufacturing and let other countries steal the underlying tech.  That seems to be working out well.
 
2013-09-03 08:57:39 AM

Rincewind53: MattStafford: Gunther: It's hardly surprising that if a country puts money into researching stuff, more stuff will be researched there. Does anyone actually deny this other than crazed anti-government Randists?

As someone who would likely fit into that crazed, anti-government Randist category, it isn't so much that we research a bunch which really gets me, it's the stuff we research. Today there was a story on NPR about whether or not babies can be prodded into categorizing pictures by using lemur shrieks.  I mean - great, they can.  Is that something I want to have my government spending money on when we're 17 trillion dollars in debt?  If we had a bunch of surplus money, then sure, research the fark out of it.  But not when we're massively in debt.

In other news, scientific research is a scattershot process that produces uncertain results, and you cannot simply say "Well, clearly THIS kind of science is what will produce the best things!" Also, the study you listed seems to actually have produced some very interesting results about how babies learn language, which is definitely an important field of study. Just because  you don't think it's important doesn't mean that it isn't important.


This could actually teach us some interesting things about neurological development.  This is base level research, which is not directly profitable.  But someone could read this study and develop the next "Baby Einstein" or the next "Rosetta Stone".
 
2013-09-03 08:58:09 AM
To everyone in the thread - are the countries that will be outpacing us in technological innovation spending their research money investigating whether or not babies respond to primate noises while learning?  I'm going to guess that they aren't.
 
2013-09-03 09:03:21 AM
If it doesn't address the question "how do I make a widget out of this?", the private-sector is pretty much at a total loss.
 
2013-09-03 09:04:14 AM

MattStafford: To everyone in the thread - are the countries that will be outpacing us in technological innovation spending their research money investigating whether or not babies respond to primate noises while learning?  I'm going to guess that they aren't.


That is because you're stupid.
 
2013-09-03 09:04:23 AM
One statement in the article is somewhat true:  Modern investors time horizons are too short for a lot of R&D efforts.  The financial markets encourage eating the seed corn by demanding higher and higher short term gains.  So, where can you secure the longer term financing necessary for basic research?
 
2013-09-03 09:10:58 AM
Suckers!  The US knows all possible useful things have already been invented.  For the rest of time, all profits will be in repackaging. The iPhone 5X10456 will be a big seller.
 
2013-09-03 09:11:43 AM
 
2013-09-03 09:16:18 AM

MattStafford: To everyone in the thread - are the countries that will be outpacing us in technological innovation spending their research money investigating whether or not babies respond to primate noises while learning?  I'm going to guess that they aren't.


They're probably not going to study that specific thing, but they are going to study other things that you may think isn't that important.

For instance, would you approve of a study done to determine why kelp broth makes things taste delicious? I mean, on the surface, that sounds like a pretty stupid waste of money, right?

Except that particular study led to the discovery of "umami", the fifth flavor, and led to the creation of MSG and a century of economic benefit as a result.
 
2013-09-03 09:19:56 AM
National Science Foundation funding per year, actual enacted (in billions):


20136.88420126.86020116.86020106.49020096.09520086.06520075,91720065 .58120055.47220045.57820035.30920024.78920014.426
The "funding cut" is that there wasn't a hike from 2011 to 2012.  There was also a small one in 2005 that was quickly erased in 2006.
 
2013-09-03 09:20:47 AM

Rincewind53: I mean, on the surface, that sounds like a pretty stupid waste of money, righ


Um, not really.  If you walked up to me and said - this stuff tastes delicious, and we want to find out why that is - I could easily extrapolate that if we find out why this tastes delicious, we could use that information to make other things taste delicious as well.
 
2013-09-03 09:24:07 AM

Rincewind53: MattStafford: Gunther: It's hardly surprising that if a country puts money into researching stuff, more stuff will be researched there. Does anyone actually deny this other than crazed anti-government Randists?

As someone who would likely fit into that crazed, anti-government Randist category, it isn't so much that we research a bunch which really gets me, it's the stuff we research. Today there was a story on NPR about whether or not babies can be prodded into categorizing pictures by using lemur shrieks.  I mean - great, they can.  Is that something I want to have my government spending money on when we're 17 trillion dollars in debt?  If we had a bunch of surplus money, then sure, research the fark out of it.  But not when we're massively in debt.

In other news, scientific research is a scattershot process that produces uncertain results, and you cannot simply say "Well, clearly THIS kind of science is what will produce the best things!" Also, the study you listed seems to actually have produced some very interesting results about how babies learn language, which is definitely an important field of study. Just because  you don't think it's important doesn't mean that it isn't important.


More succinctly, if we knew how it was going to turn out, it wouldn't be called research.
 
2013-09-03 09:24:19 AM

meanmutton: National Science Foundation funding per year, actual enacted (in billions):


2013 6.884
2012 6.860
2011 6.860
2010 6.490
2009 6.095
2008 6.065
2007 5,917
2006 5.581
20055.472
2004 5.578
2003 5.309
2002 4.789
2001 4.426

The "funding cut" is that there wasn't a hike from 2011 to 2012.  There was also a small one in 2005 that was quickly erased in 2006.


Reformatted.
 
2013-09-03 09:24:46 AM

MattStafford: Rincewind53: In other news, scientific research is a scattershot process that produces uncertain results, and you cannot simply say "Well, clearly THIS kind of science is what will produce the best things!" Also, the study you listed seems to actually have produced some very interesting results about how babies learn language, which is definitely an important field of study. Just because  you don't think it's important doesn't mean that it isn't important.

When you're 17 trillion dollars in debt, you need to do a lot better than scattershot.

Also - the conclusion to the study was that babies are able to categorize things quicker when they are exposed to natural noises coming from primates.  Great.  I'm sure that revelation is going to revolutionize baby care.  HEADLINE:  "Talking to babies while introducing new objects to them will help those babies learn words quicker" - Ric Romero reporting.


This is a perfect example of why the best science almost never comes out of business. While I'm pretty sure that you are trolling, what you say isn't that uncommon of an attitude and demonstrates that that person doesn't really understand science at all.
 
2013-09-03 09:24:49 AM
MattStafford is right. We need to put this science thing on hold until we have more tax revenue. In the meantime, let's spur innovation with tax breaks.
 
2013-09-03 09:25:17 AM
Arumat


We could just keep outsourcing all the manufacturing and let other countries steal the underlying tech. That seems to be working out well.

Second obama term underway... Is it still bush's fault?

So glad to see the "pro science" party in control (white house and +50% of congress). The world's almost perfect now.
 
2013-09-03 09:26:00 AM

MattStafford: To everyone in the thread - are the countries that will be outpacing us in technological innovation spending their research money investigating whether or not babies respond to primate noises while learning?  I'm going to guess that they aren't.


Because the vast majority of innovations happen by accident while people are poking around something completely unrelated.  When things like radio signals, relativity, and transistors were first discovered, the initial reaction was, "It's interesting, but of what use is it?"  You can't apply the facts to create something useful until you have all the facts in the first place, and quite often the facts taken by themselves look more or less useless beyond mere curiosity.  No one's going to be able to invent an electric motor until someone discovers electro-magnetic fields first.

I work in an engineering lab, and I have a lot of experience with the management side not being able to grasp the "accidental" nature of innovation.  They want something that looks good on paper, where before you even start, you tell them, "This is the exact process I'm going to take, this is what it'll cost, and this is what I'm going to discover by doing it."  If you make accidental discoveries along the way and ask for additional funding to explore them, there's always this level of "harrumph"-ing about "Well, why didn't your test plan anticipate this?" or "Why were you wasting time with that other way when this was the way to do it?"

Scientific discovery is not a linear process, it's just that when something is discovered, you can only see the line that directly led to it, and therefore assume that scientists should somehow "know" all other lines are wastes of time before they even get to them.
 
2013-09-03 09:28:15 AM
Saying the government is the source of innovation is only telling half the story.

Entrepreneurs bring the idea men to market, the government is an investor in them.
Without the government then someone else would likely invest (how much is unknown, but venture capital is a thing and it does happen).  I'd suspect that entrepreneurs would chase private sources rather than government ones if we didn't throw so much cash.

/One question is if it would stifle innovation to stop handing out money
/The other is if we're getting the most with arbitrary buckets of cash being thrown around.
/Pharma makes billions of dollars and we still give them billions more to develop stuff... That doesn't seem like a wise expense.
 
2013-09-03 09:30:43 AM

padraig: I really have diificulties imagining private entrepreneurs financing the research in quantum physics that led to the GPS.


Quantum physics is only relevant inasmuch has the sattelites have microprocessors.  I think you mean relativity.

MattStafford: Rincewind53: I mean, on the surface, that sounds like a pretty stupid waste of money, righ

Um, not really.  If you walked up to me and said - this stuff tastes delicious, and we want to find out why that is - I could easily extrapolate that if we find out why this tastes delicious, we could use that information to make other things taste delicious as well.


Ok, right, we don't need science, we can just have MattStafford tell us the process for everything.   Please explain how baby brains develop speech, in explicit detail, so we can stop studying lemurs.
 
2013-09-03 09:35:41 AM

way south: I'd suspect that entrepreneurs would chase private sources rather than government ones if we didn't throw so much cash.


We'll just have to see if they step up to the challenge.  My bet is that they won't.
 
2013-09-03 09:37:54 AM
Nice fantasy they've got going there, but there are a couple of problems with it. One is that this sort of thing goes in cycles, and we are in a part of the cycle where that simply is not true: entrepreneurs really are funding the big stuff. The other is that even when the state is the primary driver of innovation, almost all of that comes from the military: precisely the place where people who write articles like this don't want funding to go.
 
2013-09-03 09:41:02 AM

picturescrazy: MattStafford:
When you're 17 trillion dollars in debt, you need to do a lot better than scattershot.
Also - the conclusion to the study was that babies are able to categorize things quicker when they are exposed to natural noises coming from primates.  Great.  I'm sure that revelation is going to revolutionize baby care.  HEADLINE:  "Talking to babies while introducing new objects to them will help those babies learn words quicker" - Ric Romero reporting.

This is a perfect example of why the best science almost never comes out of business. While I'm pretty sure that you are trolling, what you say isn't that uncommon of an attitude and demonstrates that that person doesn't really understand science at all.



He's not trolling.  He genuinely didn't understand the method, nor the conclusions, nor the further research implications of the study in the article he linked.  "Talking to babies while introducing new objects to them will help those babies learn words quicker," is exactly what he got out of it... from research that didn't involve talking to babies, and used babies who were too young to clearly perceive discrete words, and which measures a developmental effect that fades once the kid is 6 months old.

Future researchers...  this is what you're up against.  Good luck.
 
2013-09-03 09:41:36 AM
Science:  Let's throw tons of money at something and hope for the best.  Sounds like a solid investment.

In all fairness - I would be for this sort of research if we had the money to throw at it.  But we don't.  You don't get to build a gigantic military and a gigantic welfare state all on debt - without making some sacrifices.
 
2013-09-03 09:46:56 AM

Gunther: It's hardly surprising that if a country puts money into researching stuff, more stuff will be researched there. Does anyone actually deny this other than crazed anti-government Randists?


It is fairly obvious and self-explanatory.   The trouble is crazed anti-government Randists currently compose 40% of our citizenry.
 
2013-09-03 09:47:49 AM

Wasteland: He genuinely didn't understand the method, nor the conclusions, nor the further research implications of the study in the article he linked.


Go on...
 
2013-09-03 09:51:27 AM

MattStafford: Science:  Let's throw tons of money at something and hope for the best.  Sounds like a solid investment.


It's worked pretty well so far.

MattStafford: You don't get to build a gigantic military and a gigantic welfare state all on debt - without making some sacrifices.


Have you ever heard of the Pareto Principle? As a general rule of thumb, 80% of the costs come from 20% of the causes. This is used by businesses to track down the optimal places to cut costs. In the case of government spending, this means that 20% of our government programs account for 80% of all of our spending. This "wasteful" research you hate so much is  not in that 20%. So why bother cutting it? It isn't going to save you any money- not  real money.

If I have a $2000/mo. mortgage payment, and a $50/mo. cellphone bill, and I'm $200 short for utilities this month, cutting the cellphone isn't going to help, now is it? It's time to start thinking about moving to a cheaper house, or fark it- renting.
 
2013-09-03 09:57:15 AM

MattStafford: Science:  Let's throw tons of money at something and hope for the best.  Sounds like a solid investment.

In all fairness - I would be for this sort of research if we had the money to throw at it.  But we don't.  You don't get to build a gigantic military and a gigantic welfare state all on debt - without making some sacrifices.


Of course the best way to deal with the debt is to kill any burgeoning technological innovations that could lead to future boom industries in the crib.

Sounds well thought out and forward thinking.

And whatever we do, let's make sure we don't put any resources into research that leads to technological innovations that improve the quality of life for everyone.   That way people will have extra time to focus on exponentially growing divide of inequality of wealth in our society.     What's the worse that could happen?
 
2013-09-03 09:59:25 AM

MattStafford: To everyone in the thread - are the countries that will be outpacing us in technological innovation spending their research money investigating whether or not babies respond to primate noises while learning?  I'm going to guess that they aren't.


They are probably studing how out brains develop so they can better educate their children, and out compete the US by even more turning the US into perminent 3rd world country. Kind of like they study you are complaining about does.
 
2013-09-03 10:01:08 AM

InmanRoshi: And whatever we do, let's make sure we don't put any resources into research that leads to technological innovations that improve the quality of life for everyone.


But you have no idea that that research will in fact lead to those innovations.  You're just hoping that that is the case.

t3knomanser: If I have a $2000/mo. mortgage payment, and a $50/mo. cellphone bill, and I'm $200 short for utilities this month, cutting the cellphone isn't going to help, now is it? It's time to start thinking about moving to a cheaper house, or fark it- renting.


It would be more like if you were spending 50 bucks a month on night classes at the local community college hoping you hit on something that put you into a lucrative career.  And no, you aren't picking and choose classes that might actually help - you're taking everything and just hoping you stumble into something that will help out.
 
2013-09-03 10:04:44 AM

MattStafford: Gunther: It's hardly surprising that if a country puts money into researching stuff, more stuff will be researched there. Does anyone actually deny this other than crazed anti-government Randists?

As someone who would likely fit into that crazed, anti-government Randist category, it isn't so much that we research a bunch which really gets me, it's the stuff we research. Today there was a story on NPR about whether or not babies can be prodded into categorizing pictures by using lemur shrieks.  I mean - great, they can.  Is that something I want to have my government spending money on when we're 17 trillion dollars in debt?  If we had a bunch of surplus money, then sure, research the fark out of it.  But not when we're massively in debt.


Yeah, but math is *haaard*!

Genuine scientific research requires genuine scientists.
 
2013-09-03 10:05:53 AM

sjmcc13: They are probably studing how out brains develop so they can better educate their children, and out compete the US by even more turning the US into perminent 3rd world country. Kind of like they study you are complaining about does.


Babies respond to the noises that their parents or near biological equivalents makes.  Another great mystery solved.
 
2013-09-03 10:07:43 AM
The entrepreneurs that get all the attention are those that build a new wiz bang tech gadget or application, which is great, but it isn't exactly going to make a huge difference in the course of human history.  We pay attention because of the massive amounts of wealth that can be conferred on someone for starting up a successful tech company.

The venture/angel capital model is good if you can take your product/service to the marketplace in 3-5 years.  VCs aren't going to invest in anything that doesn't have the potential to be a 10-100x return on investment in a relatively short time frame.  The PE firms like Blackrock, et al,  may have a longer investment window, but they won't make an investment unless they think they can get their money back out at some point.

State funding is awesome for those things that aren't going to be ready in 3-5 years, or those things that are too huge for the standard capital models.  Or for things that seem totally off the wall to the layperson.  That study about babies and lemurs screaming sure sounds nuts, but who the hell knows what we might discover.  Maybe nothing at all, which is still a valuable result.  A PE investor isn't going to take nothing as a result because it can't be sold, the government can be happy with that result because it answers a question and adds to the overall scientific knowledge of humankind.
 
2013-09-03 10:09:50 AM
Who needs data and science?

 Dubya proved you just "Go with your gut" and everything works out great.
 
2013-09-03 10:10:47 AM

MattStafford: Wasteland: He genuinely didn't understand the method, nor the conclusions, nor the further research implications of the study in the article he linked.

Go on...


First, go back and reread that article.  Carefully, this time.

As you read it, note that:
- The subjects are all of a certain age range, one that was selected for a specific reason.
- Two sets of sounds were used, each of which differs sharply from human speech in certain key ways.
- The experimental measure was not a response to the sounds, but to a separate- and unrelated- sensory input.
 
2013-09-03 10:13:30 AM

MattStafford: To everyone in the thread - are the countries that will be outpacing us in technological innovation spending their research money investigating whether or not babies respond to primate noises while learning?  I'm going to guess that they aren't.


Or you could address the example from the article:

"Apple is a perfect example. In its early stages, the company received government cash support via a $500,000 small-business investment company grant. And every technology that makes the iPhone a smartphone owes its vision and funding to the state: the Internet, GPS, touch-screen displays, and even the voice-activated smartphone assistant Siri all received state cash. http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20427335.700-darpa-inventing-thi s-side-of-the-impossible.html" target=_blank>The U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency bankrolled the Internet, and the CIA and the military funded GPS.  "
 
Displayed 50 of 257 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report