I give up.

/me poofs to go back to the salt mines.

don't give up! as long as you're here, there's another position available in the mines! :D

i don't know, there is a difference between "bunk sceince" and a crazy idea that probably wouln't work, but would be worth it if it did. And honestly i can't tell which this whole hyperdrive ideas is. the description in the article is prety easy to dismiss as insane, but i imagin it is an oversimplified version of the real theory.

i mean, i'm not at all fermiliar with the research it's based upon, but just because it doesn't agree with the popular theorys doesn't mean it's meaningless. i personaly wouldn't be suprised if the Heisenberg Uncertanty principle were replaced with a better crack at a theory of conservation of information in the near future, but that's a topic for another rant.

Regardless i've seen refrences to things that the theory in question is able to/fails to acurately predict, could those of you who know what that was about elaborate?

yeah, Softy... don't give up... not just yet (and you can call me leapie... my "friends" do)... and it has *nothing* to do with the current "president in office"... sorry to burst your bubble, Lebs... this simply CANNOT turn into a lib/conserv debate... go the other way... this is a bit more important than that.

What I simply object to is that there are those (and I have several friends currently living off gov grants to produce... well, actually, I'm still not sure what) that for *whatever* reason, seem to think it's the government's cause.. or the ego's cause... whatever.

There is *also* really good science out there (I also have friends that are really hard-working, barely making it type folks... but they have the "passion"...) that will, no doubt in my mind, make great contributions. Frankly, it's that *passion* that draws me near... to listen, to learn myself.

I am in the middle of a really *huge* conflict now... We've gone private... and are scratching to make it... but make it we will. So I understand the "struggle"...

Carry on.

[edit] and 49,604 survivors now... [/edit]

Leapfrog: I can see a few places where it appears that I MAY have contradicted
myself. I think much faster than I type, and my "write-the-way-I-speak" style can
be confusing. Actually, to put it into proper perspective, I'm a REALLY slow typist.
It would be easier/faster if you point out the contradiction....

Ratt: pretty simple, really...

you said: "I look at aviation pioneers like Bert (Burt?) Rutan and see him do what NASA is doing (yes, on a smaller scale) with several orders of magnitude less funding." - and it's Burt, BTW - a *totally* privately-funded enterprise... "race" really... and then quip: "well. if we stop giving tax cuts to the rich"... where the heck did that come from?

You cite a totally privately-funded race towards a target whose *sole* purpose is to spark a government-free achievement... and then tie it to "the government"... what the heck *is* that?

*WARNING* This is NOT a personal attack - I am NOT flaming you in any way, so don't take it that way.

However, you should now know that the whole "Space One" race was a private affair... just where do you think Burt got his funding? It was *not* from the government... (backed by retaining a tax levy "against the rich")... Investment capital for the race came from private parties that actually benefitted from those "tax cuts"... and they may *not* have been so encouraged if those incentives were not there.

Want a more down-to-earth example? I worked for a publicly-traded company for over 22 years - backed by the Federal Government for it's work in the defense areas... and they decided to sell us... we found private capital to continue... and are now standing up a totally private enterprise to still meet the needs of the once parent company, but also the needs of what once was "the enemy". And we are doing it "on our own". No government interference... and guess what... we are lean, and hungry... and we are making incredible strides that we would not be otherwise capable of making. We just completed the construction of the first of two autoclaves (pressure cookers) that are unlike anything ever conceived of before... yep, we have the world's largest pressure cooker, and are soon to have two. And all of a sudden, we have customers pounding our doors down trying to get in. And the once "parent" company is a bit pissed... but they are now going to get the parts they need to build their products cheaper as a result (it's a scale and efficiency thing).

You also said: "Here in the U.S., most of whatever wealth that has been generated in the last two decades has been on the backs of layed-off workers."... well... once again, I have to disagree... it was generated by those with the focus of mind to do something "different". Not to follow the group mentality. But you are right that several "Big Businesses" are actually getting smaller and using layoffs as a tool to shore up profits - but that's just it... they must be doing something wrong, in my opinion. They can't compete anymore.

Just my 2000cr worth... sorry, didn't mean to go off... Private enterprise will *always* prevail over what the government has to offer... it just needs a chance... A socialistic society will always be stunted... history has quite proven that...

carry on... (and sorry to those that endured my little rant)

I guess we safely arrived in the off-topic dimension. Anyone cares to help this thread rematerialize where it belongs?

Private enterprise will *always* prevail over what the government has to offer... it just needs a chance...

A common and often quoted misconception. Easy counter examples; Fire Departments, Police, public roads, sewage, water treatment, national defense. There is a reason why fire departments are no longer individual private companies, as they once were. I doubt one could argue that life in a city would be safer or more convenient if all roads were toll roads and if public law enforcement was handled exclusively by private security firms.

A socialistic society will always be stunted... history has quite proven that...

No, not quite. What has been shown, however, is “socialistic society” has always been stunted by the fearful influence of foreign and domestic capital interests.

"off topic"?

Hummm... not really... maybe "deeper"... but still rather on-topic - if the topic was science-related developments... (there are many demensions)... hehe...

sorry, again...

"Fire Departments, Police, public roads, sewage, water treatment, national defense"...

okay, I'll give you "national defense"... but...

Who do you think actually made the "end-roads" to the advancement of the above services?

The equipment that the fire dept uses.. (like the high-flow pumps on the tanker trucks)... The processes used by the police to interact with the general public (<--- not the military, thank God), the newer underlayment fabrics for the blacktops, the composite piping for the newer sewage systems, the regulations of what is acceptable within our water???...

It was *not* the government, my friend... but rather private enterprise. Step a little closer... you're way too far away from reality... granted, the government has "accepted" these, and other, practices... but without someone free to think "what if"... we'd still have horse-drawn man-powered water pumps, billies without a clue, dirt roads, trenches for public sewers (I lived in China for a while - rather recently), and we *may* be able to avoid the plague... but just barely.

hehe... and socialism stunted by capitalism? NO! I refuse to accept that, and I will help you by telling you how you should think! [very poor attempt at sarcasm]... but really... it is the will of man (and woman) that progresses us further.. without some external force that pushes good is not "good enough"... there is always "better"... we'd remain rather stagnant (also, somewhat a human trait).

And, okay... tell you what... trust me. Turn everything you own over to me... and I'll take care of you. I promise. All your needs will be met. Really. [another very poor attempt at sarcasm]

Science reply:
We first need to have the ability to control a magnetic field reliably for a fusion reaction. Last time I heard, the prototype for that is 5-15 years away. Developing gravitic drives comes way after that. We have a hard enough time landing a robot on Mars for heaven's sake.

Political Science reply:
Private enterprise works when investors and/or individuals see a profit to be made in the near future.

Government projects have prevailed when the goal is achievement. Also if the goal requires significant initial funding to start a field of study. Examples: The Apollo Program or the Human Genome Project or the Internet. Governments have the ability to write bigger checks and not promise a return on the investment.

Private Firms then come in to see where the money can be made and/or saved.

I still think it is all started in the private mind, followed by proper peer review... The gov'ment may write the check (no other possible way for funding), but the "spark" comes from the individual, not the masses...

and I will now bow to the topic... and totally release the thread...

and sorry for the detour... you win, Softy...

Who do you think actually made the "end-roads" to the advancement of the above services?

You are now using a logical fallacy known as ‘Moving the Goal Posts’ where in one tries to falsely call into question the validly of a sound response by setting new and usually unreasonable standards or changing the focus of the discussion entirely. The origin of tools and equipment used by public institutions has no bearing on the validity of said institutions as sound examples negating the original claim that private company will always prevail over public institutions.

However, considering the original topic, perhaps I have missed your point and you were not speaking of simple efficiency, competency or over all effectiveness. Instead perhaps you were speaking only of the advancement of knowledge and it’s associated technology via research and development. If that is the case you are not on any firmer ground. One would have to look long and hard to find any modern industry who’s R&D is not now or has never been publicly funded via direct grants, government contracts and or tax incentives. The importance of the massive public funding of what is called “essential industries and technology’” can not be overstated.

socialism stunted by capitalism? NO! I refuse to accept that,...

Your refusal to accept a precept that history and current events clearly reveal, if one choses to examine the public record, does not make it any less true. (France 1789, Haiti, 1804, Mexico 1910, Russia 1917, Spain 1936, Cuba 1959, Grenada 1979, Nicaragua 1979, Venezuela 1998, Bolivia 2005)

One must remember that socialism is often falsely confused with authoritarianism, when in fact socialist ideas are by definition democratic in nature.

it is the will of man (and woman) that progresses us further without some external force that pushes good is not "good enough"... there is always "better"... we'd remain rather stagnant (also, somewhat a human trait).

Yes I agree, but I fail to see what this has to do with the public vs private institutions topic at hand. In theory, private institutions are run by private citizens for private gain, public institutions are run by and for the benefit of all citizens. In practice of course this doesn’t always work out for either institution or as well defined. Having strengths and weakness both, they each have a place in civil society. Remember capitalism as a theory is only a few hundred years old and as a practical model, as we would recognize it today, is less than half that age.

In closing, perhaps the very human desire for progress and our innate thriving for something “better” you mentioned could also be applied to developing and adapting as yet unknown economic models and institutions that enhance both the well being of the public good and the private freedoms of the individual.

That was an excellent post Midknight Son. In particular, your closing thought about "developing and adapting as yet unknown economic models and institutions that enhance both the well being of the public good and the private freedoms of the individual." is a subject I can never resist expounding on. The biggest draw of MMOs for me is that they are an unprecedented "sandbox" for such development.

I see a future in which tree-structured, opaque, power-weilding organizations are replaced by dynamic-graph-structured, transparent, meritocratic groups.

The line between public and private enterprise is inherantly unclear, and making laws against crossing it is futile when the most common form of crossing that line is paying an authority to look the other way while you break a law. Eventually (shortly before a bloody rebellion historically) those who were most successful in exploiting the system run the country, and those who oppose them start crowding the prisons.

The not-undeserved stereotype of politicians and executives is of a corrupt, silver-spooner. The more power, the more corruption. Why do we tolerate these single points of failure when they keep failing?

Any organization, in which everyone doesn't know everyone else, will always contain those who slack or steal because they do not care about people they don't know. And any organization, with enough middle-management buffering, will have managers who reward those who allow them to steal or slack, and punish those who work hard, thereby endangering their position. Past some tipping point, only the corrupt are promoted.

I am, of course, speaking in generalities. It is possible to set the barriers to entry high enough (create enough filters) to build an almost wholly loyal and productive internal culture. Google seems to have scaled well past the point that a company typically abandons any notion of not being "evil". But that is really the only example I can think of, and even that could just be really good PR.

If any small company were as unproductive or made as many mistakes as the average fortune 500 corp, they wouldn't last a year. I've worked for 8 startups, largely comprised of bright, hard-working people. Five no longer exist. Their founders are in debt; some likely will be for the rest of their lives. Two are still around as small businesses, the dream of striking it rich long gone. The last one was an MMO startup with actual funding (1.5M). You would be astonished how little game 1.5M will get you when you hire a bunch of people before settling on a game engine or figuring out the workflow. After living in the office for over a year, almost starving, I came back to Wisconsin and took a nice steady job with a big institution. Guess which work environment was the least productive...

That leaves Guild. I think we are going to do much better than the previous seven, but the odds are stacked against us. Don't get me wrong, it shouldn't be easy to get rich; to elevate your lifestyle above others (even more than it already is over the third world). But it should be possible enough that more people try! And it should be easier to do it in a way that benefits society instead of robbing it blind.

If people really understood how unlikely it is that they will ever "get rich", they not only would never play the lottery, they'd stop trying altogether. They'd milk the system for all it's worth. I think the sleepwalkers of the american dream are starting to wake up.

Well, that's a dark note; I'm actually an incorrigible optimist. It is my hope that in one of the many little worlds that are created and called games, we'll find the seed of a new social structure. A paradigm shift to make our children look at today's societies the way we look at feudalism.

Wow, I didn't mean to write a manifesto or anything ;) Just meant to complement Midknight Son, and others in the thread who have made thoughtful posts that I enjoyed reading- I'd look up your names and list them, but I've already spent way too much time on this post. Gotta get back to hunting down those last few bugs in the new mission-system.

Edit: To tie this back in with the thread topic, which I had forgotten, ;) If all large organizations of sufficient age are managed and/or run by the corrupt and/or lazy, then both those that supply funding for science, and the academic institutions that make or break scientists' carreers are no different. Money will go to those that take it, and based on the people I know, the truly brilliant are usually too gentle to succeed among backstabbers.

I'm not saying that all grant-managers (what *is* their job title?) and scientists are corrupt. Science, I think, unlike most subjects of careers, does require one to 'do good work'. Peer review is an advance over the ways in which reputations are built for other professionals. But the infrastructure around it is often crippling. Who reviews the reviewers? Who owns the publishers? There are many examples in the history of science of a journal rejecting revolutionary work, or printing meaningless drivel that no one wanted to say they didn't understand. We can do better.

Welcome to VO, where the women are strong, the men are handsome and all the players are above average. :)

Heh. Nice use of Garrison Keillor.

That's my new n00b-greeting message.

If there's one thing I love about these boards and the player base above all else.

Everyone's just so damn smart!!!

The Physics discussions are awesome... and this economics discussion is absolutely wonderful due to the fact that it's filled with depth!!!

And all these discussions occur in a civil and educational manner so it is possible to LEARN!!!

If I had a gravitic drive... if it was actually possible... I'd probably shoot something with it. And since most technologies, even those with peaceful purposes... almost always get corrupted to be used for war... The government would do it too.

Zoras

@softy:

The comment about the lunch break is unfair, in my opinion. Ideas can start out in lunch breaks... and sometimes there's a good one amongst them. Of course the major part of the workload isn't done, but still...

That being said, I have not the slightest idea of particle physics, and so I'll say nothing about the actual topic. A cobbler should stick to his last.

For as far as I could follow the discussion and direction it took (english not being my native language and physics being lightyears from my natural habitat), I whole heartedly agree with Sarahanne and most of icbm1987 last post, and I'm happy to be part of this community.
Jamay cheers
(I did learn stuff)

"The not-undeserved stereotype of politicians and executives is of a corrupt, silver-spooner. The more power, the more corruption. Why do we tolerate these single points of failure when they keep failing?"

Because they succeed at least as often as they fail, and in either case, they tend to make our lives comfortable enough that the suffering, effort and sacrifice usually linked to true innovation is less important.