On 25-Sep-08 2:56, somebody wrote:
> "andrel" <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
> news:48D### [at] hotmailcom...
>> On 24-Sep-08 19:21, somebody wrote:
[snp]
>>> * Side effects and peripheral benefits does not justify an endavour of
> this
>>> magnitude. If you are going to suggest grid computing as a benefit, why
> not
>>> suggest pouring all 10 billion dollars into it? That would give much
> bigger
>>> and surer yields.
>> No, it wouldn't. Because this and other technology was developed to
>> support scientific research at first and only then the potential for the
>> general public was discovered. You could have poured money directly into
>> grid computing, the internet and GPS (to name a few examples that came
>> up), except nobody would have had the vision to do so.
> 
> What does high energy physics have anything to do with GPS?

Nothing directly, why do you ask? I was talking about technology in 
general.

> 
>>> * Moon program (or in general, manned space exploration programs)
> are/were
>>> huge wastes of funds as well. If there were any merits to it, we would
> have
>>> visited the moon in the last 40 years. It was one-upmanship, clear and
>>> simple. Post-facto justifications, "space-age-technology" hype as a
> result
>>> is NASA trying to save face.
> 
>> You totally missed the point of the moon program. It was not intended to
>> go to the moon, it was intended for the process of going. The journey is
>> far more important than the arrival. (somebody (not you) said that much
>> better)
> 
> No, the goal was was exactly precisely 100% to *be* at the moon before
> somebody (not me) else. Nobody cared about the journey. Why romanticize
> something that was essentially a pissing contest?

No it wasn't. Or more precisely it was something disguised as one. That 
is how management and politics work. Set a goal and give a story. The 
naive ones will take that for granted and people who recognize the trick 
will still be motivated, as long as it fits with there own goals. 
Kennedy did it with the space program, Reagan tried it with the star 
wars program (and failed mostly), Blair an Bush tried it with Iraq (also 
with mixed results).

>>> * Hence my question, what possible practical expectation is there from
> this
>>> experiment? Feel free to ask around. No honest scientist will give you
> an
>>> answer.
> 
>> Many will and did, but whatever they say will be disregarded by you as
>> irrelevant. So why would you even ask such a question.
> 
> Nobody did, and I know nobody will. Knowledge for knowledge's sake is NOT a
> _practical_ expectation.

No, many people answered that and you refuse to accept the answer 
because it is not the one you want.
Short recap:
1) knowledge in itself has practical value, at least for scientists
2) you can not judge the practical value of something before it starts.
3) almost every experiment done in the history of science had zero 
direct practical implications.
4) Nearly all practical things were based on knowledge or experience 
gathered those earlier experiments without practical use.
5) OTOH many experiments done turned out to have no practical 
consequences whatsoever (yet).
6) Proving some experiment was in category 4 is straightforward, proving 
it to be in category 5 is impossible.
Conclusion: your question was invalid.

Take it or leave it. Feel free to devise your own standards for judging 
if something has practical value or not. Feel free to decide for 
yourself what you would and what you wouldn't support in science and for 
how much. But don't bother the rest of the world with your half baked 
ideas that you did not think through yet. Alternatively, if it was meant 
as a sincere question for other people's opinions, learn not to sound as 
if you and you alone know the truth.

Post a reply to this message