"Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message
news:48def574@news.povray.org...

> Tell me, do you go to the movies?  You know, all that money that's dumped
> into entertainment might be better spent on medical research.  Stop
> spending your money at the movies, and start donating it all to medical
> research.
>
> What else do you do for fun?  Well, let's see, you use Microsoft Outlook
> Express, so presumably you use Windows.

I wouldn't call that "fun", but let's play along...

> You bought a computer - you use
> it for posting to online forums.  You pay Shaw Cable, what, $22/month
> maybe for 'net connectivity?  Or do you bundle and get basic cable
> (another $32.95/month), or add phone service for another $20.95/month?
>
> That's an awful lot of money you spend on something as frivolous as
> entertainment.  Seems to me that money would be better spent by donating
> it (let's assume you bundle the first two lowest-cost services and spend
> only about $55 before taxes per month) - that's $660/year you could be
> donating to cancer research.

Thank you for your very helpful calculations. I'll be sure to go offline and
save my money. In a little over 15 million years, I will have thus saved
enough money to donate an equal sum to medical research what LHC is costing.

You are joking, right? Contrary to what you might have been led to believe,
one man doesn't make a difference. Not that way anyway. Be sure to share
your other bright schemes, however.

Post a reply to this message

> That's an awful lot of money you spend on something as frivolous as 
> entertainment.  Seems to me that money would be better spent by donating 
> it (let's assume you bundle the first two lowest-cost services and spend 
> only about $55 before taxes per month) - that's $660/year you could be 
> donating to cancer research.  Better yet, why don't you go into the field 
> so you can actually do some of the research as well as donating your 
> frivolously spent money to that research?

Funny you mention that. Last Thursday I was at a meeting organized by 
the Netherlands Heart Foundation. The meeting consisted mostly of 
researchers working in cardiology and from those mostly the ones that 
were now or recently paid by the NHF. At the beginning of the meeting 
the chairman had a talk and during that talk he asked who was donating 
money. Only a minority of hands were shown. He them proceeded to scold 
those who didn't that they would gladly take the money from the 
foundation but not support it. I was rather taken aback by that. I am 
now working for more than 20 years in research in cardiology, I was only 
paid a few years by the NHF and have contributed to numerous other NHF 
projects. Why would giving €10 or €100 each year (which we do, but that 
is not the point) suddenly elevate my status from parasite to Samaritan?

Someone was at least ad rem enough to mention that for every euro he 
donates only a part will be spend on research because of overhead (like 
the chairman, but he was wise enough not to mention that). It is thus 
better to pour your money directly into your research.

Sorry to bother you, I am just still slightly angry.

Post a reply to this message

somebody wrote:
> "Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message
> news:48def574@news.povray.org...
>> You bought a computer - you use
>> it for posting to online forums.  You pay Shaw Cable, what, $22/month
>> maybe for 'net connectivity?  Or do you bundle and get basic cable
>> (another $32.95/month), or add phone service for another $20.95/month?
>>
>> That's an awful lot of money you spend on something as frivolous as
>> entertainment.  Seems to me that money would be better spent by donating
>> it (let's assume you bundle the first two lowest-cost services and spend
>> only about $55 before taxes per month) - that's $660/year you could be
>> donating to cancer research.
> 
> Thank you for your very helpful calculations. I'll be sure to go offline and
> save my money. In a little over 15 million years, I will have thus saved
> enough money to donate an equal sum to medical research what LHC is costing.
> 
> You are joking, right? Contrary to what you might have been led to believe,
> one man doesn't make a difference. Not that way anyway. Be sure to share
> your other bright schemes, however.
> 

Well, see. I presumed that you expected everyone else to be good 
Samaritans and follow suit.. Lets see 300,000,000 people * $660... 
$198,000,000,000? See, if everyone just sat on a couch and stared at 
walls, instead of "doing", anything, they would make up the cost of the 
entire LHC project in one year! Mind, that isn't including the probably 
trillions more spent on trips, gas, boats and other recreational 
vehicles, etc. Its ingenious. We just figure that if you care so much 
about this, *you* should be the one leading the charge. ;) lol

-- 
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

"Patrick Elliott" <sel### [at] npgcablecom> wrote in message
news:48dfc635@news.povray.org...
> somebody wrote:
> > "Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message
> > news:48def574@news.povray.org...

> >> You bought a computer - you use
> >> it for posting to online forums.  You pay Shaw Cable, what, $22/month
> >> maybe for 'net connectivity?  Or do you bundle and get basic cable
> >> (another $32.95/month), or add phone service for another $20.95/month?
> >>
> >> That's an awful lot of money you spend on something as frivolous as
> >> entertainment.  Seems to me that money would be better spent by
donating
> >> it (let's assume you bundle the first two lowest-cost services and
spend
> >> only about $55 before taxes per month) - that's $660/year you could be
> >> donating to cancer research.

> > Thank you for your very helpful calculations. I'll be sure to go offline
and
> > save my money. In a little over 15 million years, I will have thus saved
> > enough money to donate an equal sum to medical research what LHC is
costing.
> >
> > You are joking, right? Contrary to what you might have been led to
believe,
> > one man doesn't make a difference. Not that way anyway. Be sure to share
> > your other bright schemes, however.

> Well, see. I presumed that you expected everyone else to be good
> Samaritans and follow suit..

You presumed wrong. It's precisely because everybody else *will not*
voluntarily donate $660 (or whatever amount you can come up with) for
medical research that funds need to be allocated by organizations or
government. Think of it this way; do you think LHC had a snowball's chance
in hell if it relied on individual donations to raise $10 billion?

> Lets see 300,000,000 people * $660...
> $198,000,000,000? See, if everyone just sat on a couch and stared at
> walls, instead of "doing", anything, they would make up the cost of the
> entire LHC project in one year! Mind, that isn't including the probably
> trillions more spent on trips, gas, boats and other recreational
> vehicles, etc. Its ingenious. We just figure that if you care so much
> about this, *you* should be the one leading the charge. ;) lol

No. When I say research funding should be prioritized with applied sciences
on top and theoretical sciences with no practical applications dead last, I
am not proposing an alternate method of collecting allocating those funds
such as going grassroots or voluntary. Volunterism doesn't work (*).
Arguments based on *if everybody* (""if everybody inflated their tires an
extra PSI, we would save billions in gas!"") don't work. Governments and
institutions should still handle the process, but more intelligently.

(*) Unless it's a useless but geeky endavours like Mersenne prime search or
SETI, and there's a prize involved.

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Wed, 24 Sep 2008 17:03:47 +0100, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom>  
did spake, saying:

> somebody wrote:

>  > It's the same kind of meaningless pursuit as analyzing the
>> makeup of a galaxy 5 billion light years away. There can be no  
>> application
>> whatsover, even in one's wildest dreams.
>
> So, you'd rather wait for the asteroid to actually hit the earth before  
> you start building telescopes capable of seeing it coming?

Perhaps more the case that he wants someone to have said "Hey something  
big might hit us and it'd be a good idea to get some warning so let's  
build a telescope". Of course it requires someone to think of that  
otherwise no astronomical telescope will every be built as it serves no  
purpose.

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Fri, 26 Sep 2008 15:44:32 +0100, somebody <x### [at] ycom> did spake,  
saying:

> If the goal is to support building of faster computers through demand,  
> give each employee of LHC a copy of FarCry 2 and send them home. It  
> would be much cheaper than $10 billion.

I agree, if the goal was to build faster computers; however that would  
require someone with a ton of cash to say "Hey we need faster computers"  
to which the response would be "Why?"

> He was working at CERN when he made the invention, but he could have  
> very well
> have been working at IBM or Apple or Walmart or Starbucks
> (well, he'd have better access to networks
> at that time with the former two).
<snip>
> The important point is, CERN's high energy physics research did not give
> rise to Tim Berners-Lee's invention.

Most importantly a) The abilty at CERN to display pictures and text at the  
same time would have been very useful, and b) No-one at CERN came in and  
told him to stop working on it and get back to what he was supposed to be  
doing. Somehow I don't see that happening at IBM, Apple, Walmart, or  
Starbucks.

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

"Phil Cook" <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote in message
news:op.uh81hewkc3xi7v@news.povray.org...
> And lo on Fri, 26 Sep 2008 15:44:32 +0100, somebody <x### [at] ycom> did spake,
> saying:

> > If the goal is to support building of faster computers through demand,
> > give each employee of LHC a copy of FarCry 2 and send them home. It
> > would be much cheaper than $10 billion.

> I agree, if the goal was to build faster computers; however that would
> require someone with a ton of cash to say "Hey we need faster computers"
> to which the response would be "Why?"

You got to be kidding (on both accounts). IBM, Intel, AMD, Sun, nVidia...
etc are those someone's with a ton of cash, and I don't think anybody asks
why we need faster computers (no POV user that I know of anyway).

> > He was working at CERN when he made the invention, but he could have
> > very well
> > have been working at IBM or Apple or Walmart or Starbucks
> > (well, he'd have better access to networks
> > at that time with the former two).
> <snip>
> > The important point is, CERN's high energy physics research did not give
> > rise to Tim Berners-Lee's invention.

> Most importantly a) The abilty at CERN to display pictures and text at the
> same time would have been very useful, and b) No-one at CERN came in and
> told him to stop working on it and get back to what he was supposed to be
> doing. Somehow I don't see that happening at IBM, Apple, Walmart, or
> Starbucks.

Admittedly not likely at Walmart and Starbucks, but IBM, Apple, Bell (in its
heyday, now Lucent to an extent), Xerox, even the newcomer Google... etc
have thousands of such inventions for each one that came out of CERN. Can
you name a *second* practical invention that came out of CERN off the top of
your head, for example? Can you name a practical invention that came out of
Fermilab, RHIC, SLAC... etc? Not that there haven't been, but my point is
that Tim Berners-Lee's is a singular and more or less a random case.

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 28 Sep 2008 00:41:13 -0600, somebody wrote:

> Thank you for your very helpful calculations. I'll be sure to go offline
> and save my money. In a little over 15 million years, I will have thus
> saved enough money to donate an equal sum to medical research what LHC
> is costing.

You're completely missing my point.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Tue, 30 Sep 2008 03:02:10 +0100, somebody <x### [at] ycom> did spake,  
saying:

> "Phil Cook" <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote in message
> news:op.uh81hewkc3xi7v@news.povray.org...
>> And lo on Fri, 26 Sep 2008 15:44:32 +0100, somebody <x### [at] ycom> did spake,
>> saying:
>
>> > If the goal is to support building of faster computers through demand,
>> > give each employee of LHC a copy of FarCry 2 and send them home. It
>> > would be much cheaper than $10 billion.
>
>> I agree, if the goal was to build faster computers; however that would
>> require someone with a ton of cash to say "Hey we need faster computers"
>> to which the response would be "Why?"
>
> You got to be kidding (on both accounts). IBM, Intel, AMD, Sun, nVidia...
> etc are those someone's with a ton of cash, and I don't think anybody  
> asks why we need faster computers (no POV user that I know of anyway).

Except that would appear to be faster computers for the sake of faster  
computers. What you're repeating here is the "We need faster computers to  
do this" which is just indirect demand.

>> > He was working at CERN when he made the invention, but he could have
>> > very well
>> > have been working at IBM or Apple or Walmart or Starbucks
>> > (well, he'd have better access to networks
>> > at that time with the former two).
>> <snip>
>> > The important point is, CERN's high energy physics research did not  
>> give
>> > rise to Tim Berners-Lee's invention.
>
>> Most importantly a) The abilty at CERN to display pictures and text at  
>> the
>> same time would have been very useful, and b) No-one at CERN came in and
>> told him to stop working on it and get back to what he was supposed to  
>> be
>> doing. Somehow I don't see that happening at IBM, Apple, Walmart, or
>> Starbucks.
>
> Admittedly not likely at Walmart and Starbucks, but IBM, Apple, Bell (in  
> its
> heyday, now Lucent to an extent), Xerox, even the newcomer Google... etc
> have thousands of such inventions for each one that came out of CERN. Can
> you name a *second* practical invention that came out of CERN off the  
> top of
> your head, for example? Can you name a practical invention that came out  
> of
> Fermilab, RHIC, SLAC... etc? Not that there haven't been, but my point is
> that Tim Berners-Lee's is a singular and more or less a random case.

Except that Bell etc have set up the type of 'open' research departments  
that you are complaining about.

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

> HEP operates in a domain not presently or foreseeably applicable to 
> everyday
> life.

Heh, didn't someone famously say exactly the same when the transistor was 
invented?

Post a reply to this message