OT-Junk science targeted

I LIKE it and just signed up for YouCut!

Same video, 1 second shorter. ?!?

Sacre bleu! That'd be a first.

-- Invest in America: Buy a CONgresscritter today!

"Junk Finance" is overwhelmingly more costly than "Junk Science".

For every $454 we throw down the 'mortgage backed securities' rathole, we invest $1 in basic science research.

If we reduced the flow to our financial hemorrhage by 1%, we could increase our investment in basic research by

4.46 times it's current value.

NSF 'General Science' budget for FY 2011 is projected to be about $7.4 billion. or 0.22 % of the $33 trillion given to Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Merrill Lynch and many other corporations, domestic and foreign.

--Winston

So who, exactly, summarizes the research projects for the layman vote on? A congressman from a state that is pushing to teach creationism? A sleazy politician can make anything sound bad (and this guy has never been anything but a politician

. He gave an example of modeling the sound of things breaking for the video game industry, and asked, "do we want to subsidize the gaming industry?" What he misses is that synthesizing the sound of something breaking is an extraordinarily complex problem of applied math and physics that has never been solved before now. The applications could be applied to video games, but they also could also be applied to modeling effects of sonic booms, explosions and all kinds of things yet to be thought of. This research made news in the engineering magazines I read. In any case basic science is not supposed to be driven by applications but by pushing the bounds of what has not been done before. But even if the Congressman was perfectly accurate and the research could only ever be useful for the video game industry, this industry is one of the few growth industries in the US worth many billions of dollars and thousands of jobs.

Here is an article describing how misleading his summary is. Remember, these are probably the most egregious examples he could find.

Don't confuse them with facts.

My bad. :)

--Winston

I have to admit that as a regular citizen, if I was given, say, two quantum physics projects and needed to decide which one to cut from funding, I would probbaly not do a very good job.

Maybe the rest of the public is more intelligent than me. Perhaps they would cancel all projects that do not support creationism, all physics etc.

i

I don't know yet. They're probably suggested by anyone who reads a real unfundable loser of a project, like AGWK stuff.

Come now. CD collections of any possible sound are available on the Internet for ten bucks a pop. Why is synthesis even necessary?

Oh, please!

They found some nice rationalizations there, didn't they?

CUT!

-- Invest in America: Buy a CONgresscritter today!

How very sad for you. We don't need no stinkin' email, we gots a post office. We CERTAINLY don't need no stinkin' usenet. We gots newspapers.

Come now. Why are CDs necessary? My Gramophone works perfectly fine.

Ok, lets not advance scientific understanding of a physical phenomenon that happens every day. Lets not support a growing industry that successfully competes with foreign companies. Instead, lets fund that same Nebraska Congressman's beloved corn subsidies and corn ethanol mandates. We will have to cut quite a few more projects to even come close.

You are sitting in front of the most sophisticated machine science has ever devised - whining like a spoiled child.

>

OK, so don't weigh in on those. What about the other 632,496 things upon which you might be more qualified to "vote" on? A whole lot of this is common sense.

Do we continue to wage wars and waste money on frivolous crap forever, or do we start reining in the wild horses asses in D.C. today?

-- Invest in America: Buy a CONgresscritter today!

>>

Larry, Help me out here? Which of those 632,496 subjects are you qualified to "vote" on?

Last time I checked the scientific journals were a "peer review" system. So I guess what I'm asking is - which of the journals have YOU been published in?

It was the politicians who came up with the term "junk science".

>>

Yes, but are those wild horses asses in D.C. actually holding your reins?

Ask yourself what could possible motivate a cornbelt congressman start this campaign at this time? Could it be to divert attention from that huge irrigation pipe of goverment subsidies flowing to his state?

Not sure about Larry. I may be barely qualified, as in "am able to understand the terminology" of some computer related research, at best. I still would not want to vote on their funding.

I am hoping for some more intelligent system of allocating money, than computer programmers voting on genetics research, machine shop apprentices voting on computer science research, toll booth attendants voting on high energy physics research etc.

Or the great unwashed masses - voting for President?

(...)

You disparage the Electoral College or Congress here?

Inquiring minds etc...etc... :)

--Winston

>>

I want my atomic powered flying car!

Just looking back on the results it generates...

Ordinary citizens haven't the slightest clue. They want to cut 5 million here and there and are afraid to face the reality of 500 billion in medicare and SS.