 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
somebody <x### [at] y com> wrote:
> * I challenge anyone to provide a single practical application that the
> discovery of the top quark (mass) has enabled.
> * I challenge anyone to provide a single practical application that the
> discovery of the top quark (mass) may one day enable. Top quark was
> discovered more than a decade ago at Fermilab, an older generation collider
> than LHC.
1900: I challenge anyone to provide a single practical application that
the disvocery of electrons and atomic structure may one day enable.
> * 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.
Do you have some kind of difficulty in understanding the concept of
*one* example of a potential benefit, and that *one* example does not mean
it's the *only* example?
Pouring all the 10 billion dollars on one single application would be
a huge waste of money. Pouring it into experimentation which may produce
dozens of applications is more beneficial.
> * 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.
Yeah, right. The manned space exploration programs did not induce
technology which is nowadays used to launch satellites to orbit and keep
them there.
Says the person who might be viewing satellite channels, using GPS and
google maps as we speak.
> * I'm not a science luddite. Far from it. However, not all science is equal,
> economically and ethically speaking. There are points where the law of
> diminishing returns makes certain pursuits - how shall I put it tactfully -
> stupid. Science without regard to the human factor is just stamp collecting.
Which you write using a computer and technology which is the result of
those stupid mad scientists studying useless things like subatomic
particles.
> * Some of you claim "yes, but what if we scoffed at this or that research in
> the past..." To those, I remind you of Sagan's (yes, I'm aware of the irony,
> as I believe much of cosmology to be a waste of resources too) quote
> (paraphrased) : "They laughed at Galileo, they laughed at Einstein. But they
> also laughed at Bozo the Clown". In other words, just because we benefited
> from expensive experiments in the past (though not many, if at all, at this
> magnitude), we cannot assume any expensive experiment is worthwhile. Each
> case needs to be investigated for its own merits.
And you assume that they did *not* investigate this case for its own
merits and instead decided to spend billions on a useless project. Right.
> * 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.
And naturally you have credible sources and references for this.
> * Finally, is anyone as naive to think that LHC will be the final experiment
> that explains everything?
Exactly who claimed it would be? Except maybe some sensationalistic
newspaper.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
48da7aaf@news.povray.org...
> The Higgs boson is what gives matter mass. A good understanding of that
> may settle research into a number of questions that have practical
> applications for things like faster-than-light travel, reduction of
> inertia, and so on, I'd expect.
Besides finding at last Milliway's Restaurant at the End of the Universe
adress !
Marc
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
somebody wrote:
> 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.
Not surer. You'd be guessing at what grid computing would *actually*
need to be able to do. With the LHC, you have an excellent example of a
collection of applications that need something like this.
Guessing at what some customer who never heard of your system might want
out of a product is the surest way to build a product nobody wants.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote in message
news:48da7b0b$1@news.povray.org...
> somebody wrote:
> > But science, as an institution, needs to
> > develop a conscience, a scale of proportion, and prioritization.
> Nonsense. Listen to yourself.
>
> Science doesn't think - scientists do.
And government doesn't govern, people do. Universisties don't teach, people
do. Nations don't war, people do. Sure, at one level. At another level,
taking organizational structure of humans, governments govern, universities
teach, nations fight, and science makes policies and decisions. I thought
the level of abstraction was clear from the inclusion of "as an
institution".
> It's OK for all the politicians to be corrupt, too, as long as the
> government itself isn't corrupt?
The checks and balances system is precisely there to prevent individual
corruption affecting the government. Whether you think it works or not is
open for debate. Personally, I don't think it works in most governments, and
it doesn't work in most scientific institutions. We could make this a
political discussion, but I prefer to discuss the scientific policies
instead on this thread. Scientists are as much capable as making bad choices
and decisions as politicians, but while it's fashionable to discuss the
corruption and selfishness of politicians, it seems to be a taboo to express
displeasure with wastefulness of scientists.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
m_a_r_c wrote:
|
| Besides finding at last Milliway's Restaurant at the End of the Universe
| adress !
|
| Marc
|
I ate there only next week :-)
The food's not as good as it's going to be
John
- --
"Eppur si muove" - Galileo Galilei
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mandriva - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iEYEARECAAYFAkjagusACgkQ0+/LI0EN4LwgnQCgksLnLm/l75ff6/+bmG94Q0n/
yqAAoIifV/3MevjlwQNHnkvD1CFj9oUC
=nWLT
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Kyle" <hob### [at] gatenet> wrote in message
news:0bakd49unltslh3hhab4b595hd2j7b93b3@4ax.com...
> ... plus an immeasurable number of side inventions that affect our daily
lives ...
>
> http://spaceplace.nasa.gov/en/kids/spinoffs2.shtml
Ah yes, the edible toothpaste. Where would we be without it? Seriously, any
and all so called spin-offs were either developed, being developed, or to be
developed independently. The joystick, for instance, has its roots in the
turn of the 20th century and was being used for gaming before the moon
landing. It's shameless propaganda to say we _owe_ those things to manned
exploration. Some of those inventions, yes, NASA expediated, and not all
space programs are a waste of course. Unmanned space programs, especially
the communication and surveillence satellites are an example of good
science. Going to the moon was bad science (well, not even science, just a
technological tour de force).
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
news:48da7dae@news.povray.org...
> somebody <x### [at] ycom> wrote:
> > * 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.
> Do you have some kind of difficulty in understanding the concept of
> *one* example of a potential benefit, and that *one* example does not mean
> it's the *only* example?
>
> Pouring all the 10 billion dollars on one single application would be
> a huge waste of money. Pouring it into experimentation which may produce
> dozens of applications is more beneficial.
Yet, you fail to provide even a *single* potential benefit. My challenge
stands.
> > * 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.
> Yeah, right. The manned space exploration programs did not induce
> technology which is nowadays used to launch satellites to orbit and keep
> them there.
No. Satellites falls into "unmanned" space exploration. I specifically made
a distinction: Unamanned=good, manned=bad. The fringe benefits of manned
exploration to unmanned is not worth carrying out manned exploration. Spend
that money on unmanned, and you can launch 10 times more satellites.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
48da82f8$1@news.povray.org...
> I ate there only next week :-)
> The food's not as good as it's going to be
>
> John
>
Oh thanks for the advice :-)
I'll be having would go to have eaten later then
Marc
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote in message
news:48da7aaf@news.povray.org...
> somebody wrote:
> > * 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.
> We came, we saw, we conquered. Why go back?
Exactly. It wasn't science, it was show.
> > * 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.
> The Higgs boson is what gives matter mass. A good understanding of that
> may settle research into a number of questions that have practical
> applications for things like faster-than-light travel, reduction of
> inertia, and so on, I'd expect.
You really do? Please do explain. Extraordinary claims such as FTL require
extraordinary evidence. You cannot put the onus on me, if you really have
such expectations, do share. I'm afraid, however, fantasy is not enough of a
justification in this matter.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
somebody wrote:
> the level of abstraction was clear from the inclusion of "as an
> institution".
A university is "an institution." Science isn't "an institution."
>> It's OK for all the politicians to be corrupt, too, as long as the
>> government itself isn't corrupt?
>
> The checks and balances system is precisely there to prevent individual
> corruption affecting the government.
Checks and balances work only when most politicians *aren't* corrupt.
> Scientists are as much capable as making bad choices
> and decisions as politicians,
Who made the decision to spend 10 billion dollars? If it was the
scientists, then what do you care? It's their 10 billion dollars.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
