somebody wrote:
>> The difficulty is you seem to be suggesting that we only do projects when
>> we know exactly
> 
> Not exactly, but reasonably sure that it may have applications. And
> prioritize with benefits to humans in mind.
> 

Nearly every major discovery was a result of accident, or basic 
research, where the known outcome wasn't predictable, not "prioritizing 
with benefits to humans in mind". Ever heard of teflon? Guess what, if 
the company that invented it had thought "only" as you do, we wouldn't 
have it, because they where not trying to get that product, had no idea 
that it was even possible, and no clue how to even attempt to make it, 
but they ***where*** smart enough to tell their employees, "If something 
goes wrong, and you end up with something you don't recognize, save it, 
and let someone look at it, don't just throw it away." Nearly every 
other research company "prior" to that took the attitude, "Well, its not 
what we expected or wanted, so... throw it out."

Another example? Modern die technology. It took nearly 100 years for 
anyone to figure out that the accident some guy, who died poor, 
documented in his journal was something that could be used to 
permanently die cloth, and not just an obscure accident, to be avoided, 
while making fracking iodine.

There is a reason we do basic research. The reason is, if you don't, you 
miss things that could provide better batteries, cleaner water, improved 
crop performance, cheaper what ever, etc. If all you ever do is 
"applied" research, then the only time you make real jumps in technology 
and science it via shear accident, and then 80% of the time, "applied 
research" projects will toss the result in a dumpster, having no clue 
what they hell they just stumbled on. I would say, probably 50% of the 
progress we have made is by those discoveries, while the other 50% has 
been the small, incremental, changes that, while beneficial, are 
responsible for "some" technologies being higher cost than they need to 
be, because all the effort goes into improving "existing", widely used, 
technologies, or worse, there are a few small issues that need to be 
"fixed" with technology you can only get by researching stuff you don't 
"know" how to get yet, that will make it viable. Applied research isn't 
going to close those gaps. Its going to be some guy some place mixing 
stuff in a lab, who has no clue if any of it will be useful at all, but 
*hopes* that something he is doing will solve somebodies, problem at 
some point.

Heck, their may be something sitting in a lab some place, right now, 
which could make SSD drives cheaper than HDD, *but*, it wasn't invented 
by the guys making SSD technology. Oops! Kind of inconvenient, huh?

-- 
void main () {

     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message