"somebody" <x### [at] ycom> wrote in message news:48dcf516$1@news.povray.org...

> Google "benefits of high energy physics". On top, we find:
>
> http://www.er.doe.gov/hep/benefits/index.shtml
>
> Oh no! I was wrong all along. Look just how many benefits there are!

On the matter of incidental benefits, just one more thing I forgot to say in
my previous post: If you build a $10 billion medical research facility, you
can bet that they too will need superconductor magnets and state of the art
computers and networks, detectors, analysis equipment... etc. So you will
still get all the incidental benefits supporting the subsisidary industries
and research, but on top of that, you get the benefits from the main
research. For this reason, incidental benefits listed above are not really
benefits of HEP at all, they are benefits of any large and advanced
facility. The questions you have to ask, if you already decided to spend $10
billion, should relate to the main purpose of research to be conducted at
that facility.

Post a reply to this message

somebody wrote:
> Who needs to care about a billion years from now? Do you think Etruscans
> worried about us? 

Maybe not, but the Mayans did.

-- 
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)

Post a reply to this message

somebody wrote:
> "Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote in message
> news:48dc0501@news.povray.org...
>> somebody wrote:
>>>> Only after the fundamental work has been done by scientists.
> 
>>> I don't know what that means.
> 
>> I mean that (for example) research on genetic causes/cures for cancer
>> wouldn't have been possible at all without high-energy physics research.
>>
>> (Figure out how the structure of DNA was determined, for example.)
> 
> I'm at this point guessing that you might be a little confused of the "high
> energy" part in "high energy physics". 

No. But basic radioactivity was "high energy" back in Curie's day, for 
example. Discounting advanced in basic battery-powered electricity 
because they're not "high energy" ignores the point that they're 
high-energy compared to amber and fur.

-- 
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)

Post a reply to this message

somebody wrote:
>> I *am* being intellectually honest. I've already said earlier that I
>> have no reason to believe throwing $100 billion at cancer research will
>> bring us an iota closer to curing it.
> 
> That's an interesting position. How do you think then, if ever, will cancer
> be cured?

	I don't know that it will.

> Conversely, do you believe that the past advances in the field of cancer
> treatment occured randomly, not as a result of directed research with
> funding?

	False dichotomy. Directed research with funding can lead to random 
discoveries. They're not exclusive.

> If you believe that past advances in cancer treatment were a result of
> funded research, you *DO* have *some* evidence that "funded and directed
> research" works and all is not random or comes out of thin air.

	This is a classic Bayesian vs frequentist dilemma. I can't use past 
experience to predict the result of *different* actions in the future.

	So yes, I believe some of the past advances in cancer treatment were a 
result of funded research, and that gives me evidence that if you repeat 
that research, you will reproduce some of those advances.

> So what is it? Do we take past methodologies that yielded success as a
> reasonable way to proceed in the future? Or do we try random, but zero cost
> things since "you don't have a reason to believe money helps with cancer
> research"?

	I didn't suggest not putting funding into (any) research, nor did I 
suggest total randomness in funding it. I'm merely questioning your 
assertion that not enough is going in, given that you refuse to quantify 
what you think is "enough".

	I'm also suggesting that for all I know, you may never cure cancer if 
you focus research on cancer, because a) cancer may not have a cure, and 
b) you're ignoring possible advances in other fields that may help, but 
are totally unobvious and unintuitive.

> Regardless of your views on research, I'd much appreciate if you answered
> the question. The question has nothing to do with research or LHC, cancer  -
> it's a simple question about lottery (and I'm not going to make deductions
> based on your answer, I'm simply curious): Would you rather win $1 billion
> in the lottery 2 minutes before you die, or $1000 now?

	Given the scenario, I'll take the $1000. Of course, if I had a family, 
I may act differently.

-- 
AAAAA - American Association Against Acronym Abuse


                     /\  /\               /\  /
                    /  \/  \ u e e n     /  \/  a w a z
                        >>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                    anl

Post a reply to this message

somebody wrote:
>> I can see you did not bother answering how much you'd like to see
>> medical research get before you're willing to be OK with spending $10
>> billion for the LHC.
> 
> That's easy: $100,000 billion.
> 
> And that's a very low figure when you think about it. Even if it only saves
> 10 lives (gross, gross underestimate), I'm saying that the value of one
> human's life to me is about the same as satisfying the curiousity of about
> 1000 or so physicists. If you were faced with such a dilemma and were given
> a two buttons, which one would *you* push?

	So put another way, your answer is essentially "Never".

-- 
AAAAA - American Association Against Acronym Abuse


                     /\  /\               /\  /
                    /  \/  \ u e e n     /  \/  a w a z
                        >>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                    anl

Post a reply to this message

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 Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     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

m_a_r_c wrote:
> "Stephen" <mcavoys_AT_aolDOT.com> a écrit dans le message de news: 
> web.48dc91a9fe1a0943f8d41d850@news.povray.org...
>> Nitpicking I know but some science is founded on
>> beliefs then the beliefs are studied and found to be true, wanting or in 
>> need of
>> modifying.
> LOL now I shall nitpick (question of POV?) science is founded on theories.
> The difference is that  theories have to face experiment, beliefs don't.
> 

Close, but not quite. Science is based on theories that ***explain*** 
facts. Religions do the opposite, they present guesses (not the same as 
theory), then wander around "looking" for facts that appear like they 
support them, usually while ignoring ones that don't. This is why the 
former can be tested, while the later can't. One *must* change when 
confronted with different facts, and actively looks for things that can 
"break" it, the other, tries real hard to go, "La la la la la!", with 
its eyes and ears covered, until/unless it finds some fact that can be 
shoehorned into the appearance of support for it. Sadly for them, 
appearances matter not one bit.

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     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

On Fri, 26 Sep 2008 11:33:32 -0700, Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] npgcablecom>
wrote:

>Sadly for them, appearances matter not one bit.

Again I pick a nit :)
Appearance does mater he/she/it must look Caucasian.
Or am I being cynical?
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

somebody wrote:
> "Mueen Nawaz" <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote in message
> news:48dc20be$1@news.povray.org...
>> somebody wrote:
> 
>>> Fine. But if you are intellectually honest, you will also be able to say
> "I
>>> have no reason to believe that finding the top quark will have *any*
>>> practical applications, and thus won't take it as an assumption" (people
> in
> 
>> I *am* being intellectually honest. I've already said earlier that I
>> have no reason to believe throwing $100 billion at cancer research will
>> bring us an iota closer to curing it.
> 
> That's an interesting position. How do you think then, if ever, will cancer
> be cured?
> 
> Conversely, do you believe that the past advances in the field of cancer
> treatment occured randomly, not as a result of directed research with
> funding?
> 
> If you believe that past advances in cancer treatment were a result of
> funded research, you *DO* have *some* evidence that "funded and directed
> research" works and all is not random or comes out of thin air.
> 
> Or, of course, you might believe that while we spent so much already on
> cancer research, we have made zero advances.
> 
> So what is it? Do we take past methodologies that yielded success as a
> reasonable way to proceed in the future? Or do we try random, but zero cost
> things since "you don't have a reason to believe money helps with cancer
> research"?
> 
Hmm. Where to start.. First thing, we started out thinking that cancer 
was "one" single things, with "one" single trigger. Whoops! Its not. We 
now know some are caused by infections, and we can, in at least one 
case, vaccinate against "most" forms of it (obviously, a few forms of it 
are triggered by genetic damage or other things). We know of *several* 
mechanisms that can cause it, and have ideas about what can be done to 
fix it, except that, since its caused by genetic anomalies, its proving 
hard to come up with a delivery mechanism that will either "fix" or 
"kill" only those cells effected, while preventing the body from 
destroying the delivery mechanism. However, despite all these problems, 
most cancers are, in the last 20 years, 90-100% survivable, with no 
outward sign you had them, while 20+ years ago, they where probably more 
like 1-50% survivable, and left the person permanently scared from them, 
in many cases.

The real problem? How is the money actually spent. Something like 20%, 
at least, of your $100 billion figure is spent on "awareness" campaigns, 
which attempt to bring in more money, but waste huge amounts on stuff 
that has jack to actually do with finding cures or treatments. Second 
issue is, define cure? Sometimes cure doesn't mean "prevent it 
happening", or, "fix it without surgery". Often, even in other "well 
understood" fields, "cure" is still, "remove the source of the problem, 
then treat them for anything left over, until your sure its all gone." 
Only by applying a very narrow definition of cure do you get to claim 
that no progress has been made.

Hmm. Reminds me of something a doctor said on a blog recently. He had a 
patient that came in with a badly infected arm, some of the tissue 
turning blue. He gave the guy a load of antibiotics to take, having 
determined that it was an infection, and told him to come back in at a 
later date. The guy did, and the pills had worked, leaving almost no 
sign of the bite marks that had gotten infected. Being a liberal, and 
dealing with a friend and patient that **loved** to babble on about how 
much "better" everything was way back when, the doctor, having gotten 
fed up at this point with it, stated, "You know, when I first started my 
practice in 1954, I would have had to remove the entire arm, due to the 
infection you had, and even then, there was a good chance you would have 
died from the infection anyway. The next time you ramble on about how 
much better the 'good old days' where, you might want to remember that."

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     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:48dd2921$1@news.povray.org...
> 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,

No. Nearly every major discovery was as a result of hard work and planning.

> not "prioritizing
> with benefits to humans in mind". Ever heard of teflon?

Exceptions prove the rule. Only those discoveries which are "accidental"
make the news. You won't hear in the news scientists toiling for years in
the lab, incrementally discovering things.

Mad scientists, accidental discoveries... etc is a mickey mouse version of
real science.

> Another example?

No thank you. That you can come up with one or two anectodes does not make a
case (for you anyway). Go watch scientists working at a major research
centre. It's a well managed business as any, with plans, budgets, goals,
hard work.

> Modern die technology

You mean dye, right? However, let me jump on the "die technology". We have
been developing casting methodologies for millenia. It's all an incremental
business. And it's hard work. It's trial and error, theory... etc. Countless
technicians and scientists have worked on the process with the *express
intent* of improving the process. Next time you see an object of industrial
design, don't dismiss its realization as "accidental". It's a result of
focused development. Same for any technology, be it electronics, computers,
medical... etc. Don't buy into the Hollywood version of science and
technology.

Post a reply to this message

"Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote in message
news:48dd0d6d$1@news.povray.org...
> somebody wrote:
> > "Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote in message
> > news:48dc0501@news.povray.org...
> >> somebody wrote:
> >>>> Only after the fundamental work has been done by scientists.

> >>> I don't know what that means.

> >> I mean that (for example) research on genetic causes/cures for cancer
> >> wouldn't have been possible at all without high-energy physics
research.
> >>
> >> (Figure out how the structure of DNA was determined, for example.)

> > I'm at this point guessing that you might be a little confused of the
"high
> > energy" part in "high energy physics".

> No. But basic radioactivity was "high energy" back in Curie's day, for
> example. Discounting advanced in basic battery-powered electricity
> because they're not "high energy" ignores the point that they're
> high-energy compared to amber and fur.

1) Radioactivity was not called "high energy physics" back then, nor is it
called that now.
2) I don't deny practical uses of radioactivity.

When I say HEP, I mean HEP.

Post a reply to this message

somebody wrote:
> 1) Radioactivity was not called "high energy physics" back then, nor is it
> called that now.

You're missing the point. (As you seem to have been for much of the 
discussion.)  It wasn't called that, but that's what it was, and nobody 
knew when they discovered it what it would lead to.

-- 
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)

Post a reply to this message

"Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote in message
news:48dd34c7$1@news.povray.org...
> somebody wrote:

> > 1) Radioactivity was not called "high energy physics" back then, nor is
it
> > called that now.

> You're missing the point. (As you seem to have been for much of the
> discussion.)  It wasn't called that, but that's what it was,

No, it wasn't.

> and nobody  knew when they discovered it what it would lead to.

So if X is a member of Y and Z and if Q is a member of Y, then Q is also a
member of Z?

Ie: Radiation, which when we observed it we didn't know what it would lead
to, actually led to useful applications, so, say, Higgs, which we don't know
what it may lead to, will lead to useful applications when observed. Such
reasoning doesn't follow.

Moreover, radioactivity obviously *did* have an effect on everyday life.
That was how it was discovered (much like how magnetism or electricity was
discovered in ancient times).

HEP operates in a domain not presently or foreseeably applicable to everyday
life. We are not trying to explain an observed phenomenon, we are trying to
"observe" something, that which is not even currently a phenomenon.
Unfortunately, not all discoveries will bear fruit in a lifetime or twenty.
There's no such physical law. Some discoveries will remain academic for a
long, long time.

Post a reply to this message

"Mueen Nawaz" <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote in message
news:48dd1ab0$1@news.povray.org...
> somebody wrote:

> > If you believe that past advances in cancer treatment were a result of
> > funded research, you *DO* have *some* evidence that "funded and directed
> > research" works and all is not random or comes out of thin air.

> This is a classic Bayesian vs frequentist dilemma. I can't use past
> experience to predict the result of *different* actions in the future.

Unless there is a correlation. Are you claiming there's no commonality
between past research and future research? If funding caused past medical
research to succeed because of a causal chain of relations (ie more money,
more brains, more experiments, more cures), you seem to be saying that such
causal relations cannot be dependent on in the future. Why not? I personally
don't think this very particular point in time is special.

Do you do the same job every day over and over? What evidence, after all, do
you have that if you work 8 hours on a job today, you will succeed? Why even
bother? After all, it was a *different* job you worked on yesterday, and
while hard work enabled you to accomplish that job, by your admission, you
cannot use that experience to generalize that hard work results in
accomplishment.

Post a reply to this message

"Mueen Nawaz" <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote in message
news:48dd1bc2$1@news.povray.org...
> somebody wrote:

> >> I can see you did not bother answering how much you'd like to see
> >> medical research get before you're willing to be OK with spending $10
> >> billion for the LHC.

> > That's easy: $100,000 billion.

> > And that's a very low figure when you think about it. Even if it only
saves
> > 10 lives (gross, gross underestimate), I'm saying that the value of one
> > human's life to me is about the same as satisfying the curiousity of
about
> > 1000 or so physicists. If you were faced with such a dilemma and were
given
> > a two buttons, which one would *you* push?

> So put another way, your answer is essentially "Never".

Not quite what I said. That's a pessimist admission on your part that we
believe our lives to be less worthy than what amounts to entertainment, with
which I incidentally agree.

Post a reply to this message

somebody wrote:
> They will have better technology than us.

They won't, because some idiot on a forum called half of the current
research as useless. How do you expect it to progress from now to 300
years "if it's all useless"?

Post a reply to this message

somebody wrote:
>>> 1) Radioactivity was not called "high energy physics" back then, nor is
> it
>>> called that now.
> 
>> You're missing the point. (As you seem to have been for much of the
>> discussion.)  It wasn't called that, but that's what it was,
> 
> No, it wasn't.

	Yes, it was. We can do this all day.

>> and nobody  knew when they discovered it what it would lead to.
> 
> So if X is a member of Y and Z and if Q is a member of Y, then Q is also a
> member of Z?
> 
> Ie: Radiation, which when we observed it we didn't know what it would lead
> to, actually led to useful applications, so, say, Higgs, which we don't know
> what it may lead to, will lead to useful applications when observed. Such
> reasoning doesn't follow.

	I'm not aware Darren claimed anything useful would come out of the LHC.

> Moreover, radioactivity obviously *did* have an effect on everyday life.
> That was how it was discovered (much like how magnetism or electricity was
> discovered in ancient times).

	That was not *how* it was discovered. Roentgen was not at all expecting 
to see anything like it. He was not looking for a new type of radiation. 
He was just doing something else and was, unknowingly, creating x-rays. 
He also just happened to have something in his setup that responded to 
x-rays. Total luck.

	Specifically, he was *not* trying to investigate any effect specific to 
x-rays. He was investigating cathode rays.

> HEP operates in a domain not presently or foreseeably applicable to everyday
> life. We are not trying to explain an observed phenomenon, we are trying to
> "observe" something, that which is not even currently a phenomenon.

	This has been quite common in the history of physics. Sometimes 
experiments predate a theory, sometimes the other way round.

> Unfortunately, not all discoveries will bear fruit in a lifetime or twenty.
> There's no such physical law. Some discoveries will remain academic for a
> long, long time.

	Yes, but you seem to have a notion that you know which will and which 
won't.

-- 
Ground yourself, THEN hug your motherboard!


                     /\  /\               /\  /
                    /  \/  \ u e e n     /  \/  a w a z
                        >>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                    anl

Post a reply to this message

somebody wrote:
>> This is a classic Bayesian vs frequentist dilemma. I can't use past
>> experience to predict the result of *different* actions in the future.
> 
> Unless there is a correlation. Are you claiming there's no commonality
> between past research and future research? If funding caused past medical
> research to succeed because of a causal chain of relations (ie more money,
> more brains, more experiments, more cures), you seem to be saying that such
> causal relations cannot be dependent on in the future. Why not? I personally
> don't think this very particular point in time is special.

	I repeat my concern: Correlation studies are fine when the experiment 
isn't changing. I can talk about humans and their behavior, saying that 
there is a correlation between how much time they spend in school and X 
behavior. I can expect that to work over a wide range of humans 
(assuming, say, gender, race and income level are unrelated). But that's 
because I'm talking about applying the *same* treatment to the *same* 
kind of problem. Humans more or less are the same and don't change much 
with time. Society does, but if what I'm correlating is relatively 
robust with societal changes, the correlation will stand.

	I can't imagine a correlative study with what you're suggesting, 
because the problem is continually changing. Money was pumped in, and 
some results were obtained. So I'd bet that if you pump money into 
another country's scientific endeavors who are uninformed of the 
discovery, then perhaps they'll also discover the same thing.

	I can't say that since money was pumped in before and we got great 
results, then if you pump in more you'll get even more achievements 
(particularly given that we don't even know if those achievements are 
realizable by the laws of this universe).

	Do you really think that as long as we pump enough money into it, 
Moore's law will hold forever?


-- 
Ground yourself, THEN hug your motherboard!


                     /\  /\               /\  /
                    /  \/  \ u e e n     /  \/  a w a z
                        >>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                    anl

Post a reply to this message

somebody wrote:
>>> That's easy: $100,000 billion.
> 
>>> And that's a very low figure when you think about it. Even if it only
> saves
>>> 10 lives (gross, gross underestimate), I'm saying that the value of one
>>> human's life to me is about the same as satisfying the curiousity of
> about
>>> 1000 or so physicists. If you were faced with such a dilemma and were
> given
>>> a two buttons, which one would *you* push?
> 
>> So put another way, your answer is essentially "Never".
> 
> Not quite what I said. That's a pessimist admission on your part that we

	Well, yes. I do have trouble seeing humanity spending $100 trillion per 
year on medical research, in today's Dollars. I may even be opposed to 
it, because I'm sure it'll imply a lot of other things being  neglected. 
In case you missed it, my original question was with relation to today's 
dollar and today's resources.

-- 
Ground yourself, THEN hug your motherboard!


                     /\  /\               /\  /
                    /  \/  \ u e e n     /  \/  a w a z
                        >>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                    anl

Post a reply to this message

"Mueen Nawaz" <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote in message
news:48dd7242$1@news.povray.org...
> somebody wrote:

> >>> 1) Radioactivity was not called "high energy physics" back then, nor
is
> > it
> >>> called that now.

> >> You're missing the point. (As you seem to have been for much of the
> >> discussion.)  It wasn't called that, but that's what it was,

> > No, it wasn't.

> Yes, it was. We can do this all day.

Is that a challenge? Then, no, it wasn't!

> > Moreover, radioactivity obviously *did* have an effect on everyday life.
> > That was how it was discovered (much like how magnetism or electricity
was
> > discovered in ancient times).

> That was not *how* it was discovered. Roentgen was not at all expecting
> to see anything like it. He was not looking for a new type of radiation.
> He was just doing something else and was, unknowingly, creating x-rays.
> He also just happened to have something in his setup that responded to
> x-rays. Total luck.

Actually I was thinking of Becquerel, who is the discoverer of
_radioactivity_ since that's what previous poster mentioned. Roentgen, as
you indicate, is the discoverer of x-rays.

Anyway, maybe calling uranium part of everyday life is a stretch, but my
point is, uranium had an observable effect when brough near a photographic
plate. Much the same as magnets have an observable effect when brought near
each other or ferrous material. When you observe a natural occurance like
that, you can bet there will be practical uses one way or another (if
nothing, you immediately have at your possession a detector of uranium
salts). Uranium is readily (relatively anyway) available, so are
photographic plates. So even though the mechanism is not understood, there's
an obvious effect that applies to "everyday" life.

Contrast this to, say, with the discovery of the top quark. With a mass ~180
times the proton, lifetime of ~1E-25 seconds, only produced by the handful
in most energetic collisions we could muster (that will change a little with
LHC), it's not going to have a use in practice in the foreseeable future.
One needs only undergraduate level physics to come to this conclusion.

Discovery of top quark was an intellectually interesting, but ultimately
useless feat. LHC will make  even more interesting, but at the same time,
even more useless discoveries.

> Specifically, he was *not* trying to investigate any effect specific to
> x-rays. He was investigating cathode rays.

That's not my point.

> > Unfortunately, not all discoveries will bear fruit in a lifetime or
twenty.
> > There's no such physical law. Some discoveries will remain academic for
a
> > long, long time.

> Yes, but you seem to have a notion that you know which will and which
> won't.

Physicists have a general but pretty good idea.

Post a reply to this message

"Mueen Nawaz" <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote in message
news:48dd7244$1@news.povray.org...
> somebody wrote:

> I can't say that since money was pumped in before and we got great
> results, then if you pump in more you'll get even more achievements
> (particularly given that we don't even know if those achievements are
> realizable by the laws of this universe).
>
> Do you really think that as long as we pump enough money into it,
> Moore's law will hold forever?

No, but we are nowhere a physically imposed limit, that much I know for
sure, as should any reasonably educated person. We are already moving
towards parallelization, which is a new angle on Moore's law (paradigm
shift).

And I can say, with certainty, that we are nowhere near any biological or
physical limits when it comes to medicine. That much, again, should be
obvious to any reasonably eduated person.

And there's a very simple empirical method to determine if research
stangnates and is insensitive to funding or manpower. Just make a plot of
advances. If you hit a plateau, you *may* be nearing stagnation, but more
tellingly, lack of plateau means you are not stagnating. Again, by all
measures, medical science has hit no such plateau yet. Even if we hit a
biological limit in some distant future, who says we cannot move on to
non-biological domains? Already, with implants and prosthetics, we have
initiated a paradigm shift.

Post a reply to this message

"Nicolas Alvarez" <nic### [at] gmailcom> wrote in message
news:48dd5346@news.povray.org...
> somebody wrote:

> > They will have better technology than us.

> They won't, because some idiot on a forum called half of the current
> research as useless. How do you expect it to progress from now to 300
> years "if it's all useless"?

Who is that idiot who called it all useless? I have a word or two to say to
him.

Post a reply to this message

somebody nous illumina en ce 2008-09-26 16:41 -->
> "Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote in message
> news:48dd34c7$1@news.povray.org...
>> somebody wrote:
> 
>>> 1) Radioactivity was not called "high energy physics" back then, nor is
> it
>>> called that now.
> 
>> You're missing the point. (As you seem to have been for much of the
>> discussion.)  It wasn't called that, but that's what it was,
> 
> No, it wasn't.
> 
>> and nobody  knew when they discovered it what it would lead to.
> 
> So if X is a member of Y and Z and if Q is a member of Y, then Q is also a
> member of Z?
> 
> Ie: Radiation, which when we observed it we didn't know what it would lead
> to, actually led to useful applications, so, say, Higgs, which we don't know
> what it may lead to, will lead to useful applications when observed. Such
> reasoning doesn't follow.
> 
> Moreover, radioactivity obviously *did* have an effect on everyday life.
> That was how it was discovered (much like how magnetism or electricity was
> discovered in ancient times).
> 
> HEP operates in a domain not presently or foreseeably applicable to everyday
> life. We are not trying to explain an observed phenomenon, we are trying to
> "observe" something, that which is not even currently a phenomenon.
> Unfortunately, not all discoveries will bear fruit in a lifetime or twenty.
> There's no such physical law. Some discoveries will remain academic for a
> long, long time.
> 
> 
It's true that some researches, and discoveries, will remain academic for a 
long, long time, some from the antiquity are still mostly academic even today...

You can never say if any research will remain only academic, and, if so, for how 
long, or lead to every days applications within a few years.

Today, we are at a point where "chance" discovery tend to get rare. If we are to 
discover something new, that may lead to every days applications, we must do 
some, often prety weird looking/sounding, advanced experiments and researches. 
Sometimes, we do the experiments only to discover if a given theory is or is not 
correct, and, sometimes, those experiments do provide us with some new every 
days benefits... But only a few to many years later.

-- 
Alain
-------------------------------------------------
You know you've been raytracing too long when you have ever snuck out of your 
bedroom to moniter the progress of an overnight render.
     -- Stephan Ahonen

Post a reply to this message

somebody wrote:
> "Patrick Elliott" <sel### [at] npgcablecom> wrote in message
> news:48dd2921$1@news.povray.org...
>> Modern die technology
> 
> You mean dye, right? However, let me jump on the "die technology". We have
> been developing casting methodologies for millenia. It's all an incremental
> business. And it's hard work. It's trial and error, theory... etc. Countless
> technicians and scientists have worked on the process with the *express
> intent* of improving the process. Next time you see an object of industrial
> design, don't dismiss its realization as "accidental". It's a result of
> focused development. Same for any technology, be it electronics, computers,
> medical... etc. Don't buy into the Hollywood version of science and
> technology. 

Yeah. Dye. And I wasn't talking about more recent developments, many of 
them derived from figuring "why" that original accident worked. As for 
Hollywood versions.. I am not talking about fracking Hollywood versions 
of science, I am talking about what a fair number of scientists in the 
fields have said on the subject. The company that makes Teflon 
"specifically" told their people to look for such accidental 
discoveries, precisely because they do happen, and they usually get 
missed. And, more to the point, the "reason" for this is often because 
the people doing "directed" research are "specialists" who don't have 
sufficient cross discipline knowledge to recognize when they have 
stumbled over something new. There are even businesses arising within 
the last 5-10 years "specifically" directed at hiring large numbers of 
specialists to work in teams, for the express purpose of advising the 
people you are talking about, to check over the stuff they are doing, to 
see if they are blindly missing developments in other fields that could 
improve their own projects. This is a *new* development.

Experts are often blinded by their own narrow expertise. And as much as 
you hate examples. One group of Computer Science people went in to look 
over the systems used by Astrological researchers and found that their 
"expertise" was so narrow they had no clue that modern debuggers 
existed, where still coding their projects by hand using text editors, 
and that 9 out 10 ten of all experimental projects would **failing**, 
for no other reason than that they couldn't debug the complex code well 
enough to make those experiments "work properly".

You have a much higher estimation of what directed/applied research can 
and does do than I do, and a much lower one than most scientists have 
for "lucky accidents".

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     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:48de7b90@news.povray.org...

> Experts are often blinded by their own narrow expertise. And as much as
> you hate examples. One group of Computer Science people went in to look
> over the systems used by Astrological researchers and found that their
> "expertise" was so narrow they had no clue that modern debuggers
> existed, where still coding their projects by hand using text editors,
> and that 9 out 10 ten of all experimental projects would **failing**,
> for no other reason than that they couldn't debug the complex code well
> enough to make those experiments "work properly".

I assume you mean "astronomy", not "astrology". Yes, I agree with the fact
that today's science is extremely specialized and often, scientists miss
cross discipline applications, or, like you mention above, don't work
efficiently because they do not keep up with technology. But neither of
these are specific to science. I know many manufacturers firsthand that
employ outdated technologies, and do things the hard way. That's not an
argument against directed research. The solution is not to do away with
directed research, but to hire programmers and organize the research so that
the astronomers write the specifications, and pass in on to coders; they do
not write code. It's absurd to expect an astronomer to wear a programmer's
hat too *and* excel at both tasks.

And yes, unexpected applications of scientific discoveries of course occur
from time to time. But that's not an argument against directed research
either. By definition, there's no telling when or what the unexpected
applications may be. It's a bonus when they happen, but you cannot model a
research project after that. You still plan your research, set your goals,
but keep an ear and eye open to other researchers who are doing interesting
things, as well as communicate your discoveries to them so that you can
maybe mutually benefit. There's already the mechanism of refereed journals
to facilitate this type of communication. Again, it gets harder and harder
as volume and depth of research increases. But doing away with directed
research is not the solution.

Post a reply to this message

somebody wrote:
> "Patrick Elliott" <sel### [at] npgcablecom> wrote in message
> news:48de7b90@news.povray.org...
> 
>> Experts are often blinded by their own narrow expertise. And as much as
>> you hate examples. One group of Computer Science people went in to look
>> over the systems used by Astrological researchers and found that their
>> "expertise" was so narrow they had no clue that modern debuggers
>> existed, where still coding their projects by hand using text editors,
>> and that 9 out 10 ten of all experimental projects would **failing**,
>> for no other reason than that they couldn't debug the complex code well
>> enough to make those experiments "work properly".
> 
> I assume you mean "astronomy", not "astrology".

Sigh.. Been spending too much time arguing with quacks, I am starting to
sound like them. lol

> Yes, I agree with the fact
> that today's science is extremely specialized and often, scientists miss
> cross discipline applications, or, like you mention above, don't work
> efficiently because they do not keep up with technology. But neither of
> these are specific to science. I know many manufacturers firsthand that
> employ outdated technologies, and do things the hard way. That's not an
> argument against directed research. The solution is not to do away with
> directed research, but to hire programmers and organize the research so that
> the astronomers write the specifications, and pass in on to coders; they do
> not write code. It's absurd to expect an astronomer to wear a programmer's
> hat too *and* excel at both tasks.
> 
The problem being.. A programmer is not, somewhat ironically, competent
enough to *code* for such a discipline, without in depth knowledge of
the math and theories either. So.. Your stuck with either an astronomer
that hasn't a clue how to code, or a coder that hasn't a clue how to
design the applications needed. :p Its kind of a mess in some
disciplines, due to those issues.

> And yes, unexpected applications of scientific discoveries of course occur
> from time to time. But that's not an argument against directed research
> either. By definition, there's no telling when or what the unexpected
> applications may be. It's a bonus when they happen, but you cannot model a
> research project after that. You still plan your research, set your goals,
> but keep an ear and eye open to other researchers who are doing interesting
> things, as well as communicate your discoveries to them so that you can
> maybe mutually benefit. There's already the mechanism of refereed journals
> to facilitate this type of communication. Again, it gets harder and harder
> as volume and depth of research increases. But doing away with directed
> research is not the solution.
>  

Never said that there is anything wrong with applied or directed
research. The issue is.. major leaps don't happen via that methodology.
There are several key factors that make it very unlikely, or even
impossible, in some cases. 1) accidents don't get recognized, 2)
progress is calculated based on results, not discoveries in general, and
3) most businesses are "so" focused on the result they want, that they
will shut down programs that fail to produce the results they want, even
if they are producing results that *could* be later beneficial to
someone else. Things have gotten so specific now that research that is
targeted at specific goals will simply either a) fail to meet them, do
to too many people having all the wrong pieces, and none of them either
sharing those, or even aware they exist, or b) reach them in a way that
is more expensive than necessary, more time consuming than needed, and
result is a product that falls "below" what is actually possible. The
only time this isn't true is when some lab doing this stuff drops
chemical X in test tube Y by accident and it turns out to work 50 times
better than the "directed", and carefully planned, path being followed.

Research that only looks at the end goal, and ignores everything else,
especially basic research, where people just ask questions for the sake
of figuring things out, can and do dead end "often", due to being "too"
focused on those goals. Many companies have figured this out and now
support "basic research" within the bounds to their own directed system.
But, they are not going to be the people finding some new energy source,
based on yet unknown math, involving factors about matter, which we
don't yet understand, resulting in something the size of a battery that
is 500 times as efficient. They are going to be the guy that stumbles on
a way to make a battery 3% more efficient, based "purely" one the
"known" data. Such companies are, based on the same argument used here,
**never** going to build a LHC to find that information in the first place.

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     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

On Fri, 26 Sep 2008 16:14:01 +0100, Phil Cook wrote:

> I think ticking off creationists who think the universe is only 5000
> years old can be classed as a benefit.

LOL!

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 25 Sep 2008 17:20:11 -0600, somebody wrote:

> "Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote
>> On Thu, 25 Sep 2008 10:51:01 -0600, somebody wrote:
> 
>> > Do you really believe top quark will ever have a practical
>> > application in the next, say, 100 years?
> 
>> Do you really believe it *won't*?
> 
> Yes.

On what scientific basis to you hold that belief?

>> Can you *prove* that?
> 
> No. Proof is for mathematicians and spirits.

Ah, so science doesn't prove anything, then?

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 26 Sep 2008 09:07:37 -0600, somebody wrote:

>> I can see you did not bother answering how much you'd like to see
>> medical research get before you're willing to be OK with spending $10
>> billion for the LHC.
> 
> That's easy: $100,000 billion.

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.  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.  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?

Do you eat out much, go for drives around the rural parts of or locale.

After all, if the end-all be-all of living on this planet is to prolong 
our lives and "better mankind", then doing things that don't work towards 
those goals are ALL frivolous, not just HEP experiments.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 26 Sep 2008 08:26:08 -0600, somebody wrote:
> 
> And the benefit to mankind of  "having the estimates of the ages of cratered
> worlds much futher away from the Moon" is what exactly? :) In your eagerness
> to counter my point, you are emphasizing it.

They do that to determine the history of those worlds, so that they'd be
able to compare those with Earth and each other to better understand the
history of our solar system, including that of Earth.

> They will have better technology than us. Let *them* lazy bums figure
> out things if they *need to* at that time. They will be able to do it
> much more efficiently. If knowing the "estimates of the ages of cratered
> worlds much futher away from the Moon" is of no practical benefit to our
> generation, it is crime to our contemporaries to waste present resources
> on such pursuits, when we could make a dent with those resources in the
> suffering of *already existing* people.
> 

For them to have better technology than us, we'd have to do our part of
the development or they'd have more work to do.

> You hopless romantics are completely missing the trees for the forest.
> While thinking about a future billion years from now (!??), you miss
> what we could be doing for ourselves and for our fellow people. Africa
> is at most 10 hours away, not a billion years. And I am sure there's
> suffering right at your doorstep too.
> 

We can think about what may go on a billion years from now because we're
not in Africa or the soup kitchen 24/7.

People who want to do comsology or high energy physics will still do it
and find the funding from somewhere because you don't control their minds
or all of the money in the world. It's also human nature to investigate
the nature of the world we live in.

Brendan

Post a reply to this message

"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 Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     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

"Phil Cook" <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote in message
news:op.uiaa2diyc3xi7v@news.povray.org...

> > 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.

No. I complain about "wrong" type of research. "Open" research is a red
herring brought into the picture by those who confuse practical side
benefits of research in purely academic fields (which may, or more likely,
may not, yield any side benefits) with benefits of directed applied research
which is flexible (which will most definitely yield primary benefits, and
likely side benefits - Bell Labs model). Plus it's a balancing game. If
researching some theoretical avenues in the course of your main activity
costs a few thousand dollars, that might be worth it. It's not the same as
putting $10 billlion into one narrow academic field of research.

Post a reply to this message

scott nous illumina en ce 2008-09-30 05:09 -->
>> 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?
> 
> 
Not just for the transistor! When the Wright brothers made their first flight or 
the first photographs where made, the first computer constructed, the first 
vacuum tubes tested, peoples said something like: "It's all good and nice, but 
it will never get everydays use" Just remember that the very first steam engines 
where made during the Plato era...

-- 
Alain
-------------------------------------------------
If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous, he will not bite you; 
that is the principal difference between a dog and a man.

Mark Twain

Post a reply to this message

somebody nous illumina en ce 2008-09-26 10:44 -->

> (*) Yes, atomic and subatomic particle physics at one point had practical
> applications. But like I mentioned several times earlier, we long since have
> crossed over that line where practical applications are possible. There's
> always a law of diminishing returns as you get further away. Studying the
> atmosphere of Earth has definite benefits. Studying the atmosphere of Venus
> has little, if any. Studying the atmosphere of a planet 20 LY away (when
> such time comes) is completely useless and wasteful. Similar scales exist in
> any endavour. With particle physics, that scale of practicality correlates
> more or less with energy.
> 
> 
Studying the athmosphere of a planet 20 light years away can have some benefit. 
It can tell us if life can exist there, then if WE can live there. Then, it can 
tell us if there is a civilisation on that planet. Then, several years later, we 
could send peoples there and establish a colony, or establish some commercial 
relationship with that planet's residents.

-- 
Alain
-------------------------------------------------
I can read your mind, and you should be ashamed of yourself.

Post a reply to this message

"Alain" <ele### [at] netscapenet> wrote in message
news:48e256aa@news.povray.org...
> somebody nous illumina en ce 2008-09-26 10:44 -->

> > atmosphere of Earth has definite benefits. Studying the atmosphere of
Venus
> > has little, if any. Studying the atmosphere of a planet 20 LY away (when
> > such time comes) is completely useless and wasteful. Similar scales
exist in
> > any endavour. With particle physics, that scale of practicality
correlates
> > more or less with energy.

> Studying the athmosphere of a planet 20 light years away can have some
benefit.
> It can tell us if life can exist there, then if WE can live there. Then,
it can
> tell us if there is a civilisation on that planet. Then, several years
later, we
> could send peoples there and establish a colony, or establish some
commercial
> relationship with that planet's residents.

It's hard to argue with fantasy like that.

Post a reply to this message

Alain wrote:
> scott nous illumina en ce 2008-09-30 05:09 -->
>>> 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?
>
> Not just for the transistor! When the Wright brothers made their first
> flight or the first photographs where made, the first computer
> constructed, the first vacuum tubes tested, peoples said something like:
> "It's all good and nice, but it will never get everydays use" Just
> remember that the very first steam engines where made during the Plato
> era...

Don't forget lightbulbs. I'm sure Edison was told they had no practical
purpose.

Post a reply to this message

"Nicolas Alvarez" <nic### [at] gmailcom> a écrit dans le message de 
news: 48e54784@news.povray.org...
>
> Don't forget lightbulbs. I'm sure Edison was told they had no practical
> purpose.
 Not sure  but Edison said AC had no practical purpose.

Marc

Post a reply to this message

m_a_r_c wrote:
>  Not sure  but Edison said AC had no practical purpose.

Marconi didn't know what radio waves were good for either. :-)

-- 
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 02 Oct 2008 16:49:51 -0700, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:

>m_a_r_c wrote:
>>  Not sure  but Edison said AC had no practical purpose.
>
>Marconi didn't know what radio waves were good for either. :-)

"One day sir, you may tax it." Faraday's reply to William Gladstone, then
British Minister of Finance, when asked of the practical value of electricity. 
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

"somebody" <x### [at] ycom> wrote:
> Jokes aside, doesn't anybody else find it ridiculous that almost 10 billion
> dollars is being spent on an experiment that will have absolutely zero
> practical benefit to mankind (even if it's spectacularly successful beyond
> imagination)?


Way much better than spending it on weapons research or funding some stupid war
somewere.

Post a reply to this message

JPGargoyle nous illumina en ce 2008-10-03 06:56 -->
> "somebody" <x### [at] ycom> wrote:
>> Jokes aside, doesn't anybody else find it ridiculous that almost 10 billion
>> dollars is being spent on an experiment that will have absolutely zero
>> practical benefit to mankind (even if it's spectacularly successful beyond
>> imagination)?
> 
> 
> Way much better than spending it on weapons research or funding some stupid war
> somewere.
> 
> 
> 
I totaly agree with you on that point. Take all those military budgets and 
transfert them to just about ANYTHING else! That anything else, even if very 
wastfull and useless, will be more usefull.

-- 
Alain
-------------------------------------------------
WARNING: The consumption of alcohol may leave you wondering what the hell 
happened to your bra and panties.

Post a reply to this message