6 ms·

I think people are accustomed to it and therefore overlook it, but note that government, using taxpayer dollars, delivers the most high-tech systems in the worl

I think people are accustomed to it and therefore overlook it, but note that government, using taxpayer dollars, delivers the most high-tech systems in the world - not only for meteorology, but also science, medicine and space exploration (as well as military and intelligence). There is a benefit to countries and to the world when the people pool their money for something big.

wheelerwj 10y ago
*taxpayer funded research Government doesn't do shit, except write the check. this all comes from acadamia, nasa, darpa, etc. You're point that science is pushed forward by people pooling resources is absolutely correct, I just want to make it clear that Government has very little to do with it. This is just societ bolstering the resources of our greatest minds.
- tw04 10y ago
  >Government doesn't do shit >nasa, darpa I don't think you understand...
  - wheelerwj 10y ago
    They are government funded but have exactly nothing to do with governance. They could be privately funded and accomplish the exact same things.
    - MPSimmons 10y ago
      In a mathematical sense, yes, every citizen who gives a certain amount of tax money to the government to pay for research bodies could, instead, give money straight to some sort of central body to distribute it to the same various groups. But they wouldn't. And you know it. Even the Science Philanthropy Alliance (http://www.sciencephilanthropyalliance.org/what-we-do/resources/faqs/ http://www.sciencephilanthropyalliance.org/what-we-do/resour...), which funds researchers using privately-donated money, says that taxes are necessary to have scientific progress.
      - wheelerwj 10y ago
        I didn't say anything IF taxes were important or IF people's WOULD pay them. And yes, we are talking about semantics (mathematical sense). People couldn't give money to the DoD and accomplish the same thing, nor could they give money to DHS or any of the other Executive Departments. NASA is an independent, federally funded, civilian agency. The part of it that is Federal, is its budget.
        deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
- SEJeff 10y ago
  What do you think NASA and DARPA are exactly, private companies? They're both part of the federal government.
  - wheelerwj 10y ago
    Sort of, yes. Neither one of them are actually PART of the federal government. They are separate, independent organizations whose largest (and probably exclusive) customer is the United States government. NASA for example doesn't actually rollup to any cabinet position. As opposed to the Department of Energy or Department of Education for example.
    - hackuser 10y ago
      > Neither one of them are actually PART of the federal government. Indeed they are. Their budgets are paid for by taxpayers and established by laws passed in Congress and signed by the President. Their employees are federal employees, AFAIK. > NASA for example doesn't actually rollup to any cabinet position. The agencies report to the President, whatever the org chart is. The President chooses their administrators, and directs their operations (assuming she/he has time and interest). DAPRA is in the Department of Defense. Finally, I believe the CIA was an independent agency, like NASA, before the DNI was created about a decade ago. Was the CIA not actually part of the U.S. federal government?
      - deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
    - CalChris 10y ago
      The NASA Administrator, Charlie Bolden, was nominated by President Obama and confirmed by the United States Senate. NASA is not part of any department but rather reports directly to the President of the United States. https://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/hqlibrary/ic/faqs.html https://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/hqlibrary/ic/faqs.html DARPA is part of a department, the United States Department of Defense. http://www.darpa.mil/ http://www.darpa.mil/ Both NASA and DARPA are as Federal as Federal gets and as govmint as govmint gets. Full disclosure: my daddy worked for NASA on Mercury thru Apollo. He worked for the govmint.
- ceejayoz 10y ago
  > This is just societ bolstering the resources of our greatest minds. Via government.
  - wheelerwj 10y ago
    The funding is provided by the people VIA government. But the government doesn't participate in its administration nor does NASA participate in the execution of the Constitution. There are A LOT of independent agencies that are owned or otherwise funded by the federal government but they do not participate in governance, and because of that, they are not PART of the federal government.
    - hackuser 10y ago
      > they do not participate in governance, and because of that, they are not PART of the federal government. The military does not participate in governance, by law. Is the U.S. military not part of the U.S. government? What about intelligence agencies? It's an interesting definition, but I'm not sure that many people will accept it.
      - deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
    - scott_s 10y ago
      NASA employees are federal civil servants. You are trying to make a distinction that is not supported by the federal bureaucracy.
- jrcii 10y ago
  He made a small mistake, GET HIM! Everyone licks their lips His examples of academia and DARPA were correct. The mentality of people here who can't wait to pile on and attack someone at the slightest error is sickening.
olivercreashe 10y ago
>> the most high-tech systems in the world... Calm down. The technology is from the 1990s. It's in the article: " In the late 1990s, they began designing instruments for the next generation of satellites." Also, enough with the empty comparisons between the US and "the world". There are many other countries that have developed "the most high-tech" devices too, you know? Like Plank from ESA, which is used to map the background radiation. And regarding taxpayer dollars: do you know how long it takes for governmend-funded projects to complete? DECADES because the process is so slow precisely due to government red tape. So, calm down boy.
- Nadya 10y ago
  They never specified US government or US tax dollars. Merely that government and tax dollars funds science projects. You're reading into and attacking something that isn't there, then ended it on a smug and rude note. >Calm down. The technology is from the 1990s. It's in the article: The article states that instrument design began in the late 90's - not that that is what eventually made it into the satellites after two decades. They knew these satellites were approaching EOL and needed to be replaced so began R&D is how I read it. >And regarding taxpayer dollars: do you know how long it takes for governmend-funded projects to complete? DECADES because the process is so slow precisely due to government red tape. These are also often projects that would never be privately funded because there isn't necessarily a return on investment. They do, however, perform a public service. Maybe I'm naive - but I don't think weather satellites are a very good investment if one is looking for profit. Though I do admit I don't know how much one can make selling the data it produces.
  - olivercreashe 10y ago
    Calm down, kid. Re-read the title sweetheart: it talks about the US, so it must obviously pertain to US gov't and US dollars. From your profile: >> Message To Self: It is okay to be wrong. Yes, you are wrong, so calm down, kid.
    - sctb 10y ago
      > Calm down, kid. Please stop. We don't treat other users this way on Hacker News, and we have to ban accounts that continue like this.
ethbro 10y ago
Exactly, and moreover, it would be an incredible waste of resources not to share. Nice to see an example of the world scientific community being allowed to take the practical approach.
mindcrime 10y ago
There is a benefit to countries and to the world when the people pool their money for something big. Yes there is, at least sometimes. But, the choice to do that should be voluntary, otherwise it's an immoral and unjust situation. And given that the State is - at it's core - a mechanism rooted in violence, this kind of thing is not an appropriate role for government.
- simonh 10y ago
  It's immoral and unjust that someone should grow up and live within the protective environment of a society, enjoying use of it's shared services and resources, while refusing to contribute towards the support of the services which make that environment possible. If you don't think it's a good deal, leave.
  - malloryerik 10y ago
    While I'm sympathetic to most of your argument, it does beg the question, move where?
    - sangnoir 10y ago
      Somalia[1] looks like a good place to go if I didn't want to be burdened by government. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somalia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somalia
    - simonh 10y ago
      Perhaps my final statement was a bit glib, but personally I feel we are born into this world with a whole ton of obligations. We are nurtured, educated, protected. In many parts of the world, we are assigned inalienable rights just through the fact of being human beings. Whatever we do is founded on the hard work and achievements of others, but in most countries in the modern era very few claims are made on us in return. In past ages we were expected, or even required to die or at least kill and risk death in defense of our society. Nowadays you can be brought up, educated to a decent standard, benefit from all of society's resources and benefits to the age of adulthood and then swan off to some other part of the world for the rest of our lives, obligation free. That's a pretty amazing deal, by historical or really any standards.

wheelerwj 10y ago

*taxpayer funded research Government doesn't do shit, except write the check. this all comes from acadamia, nasa, darpa, etc. You're point that science is pushed forward by people pooling resources is absolutely correct, I just want to make it clear that Government has very little to do with it. This is just societ bolstering the resources of our greatest minds.

tw04 10y ago
>Government doesn't do shit >nasa, darpa I don't think you understand...
- wheelerwj 10y ago
  They are government funded but have exactly nothing to do with governance. They could be privately funded and accomplish the exact same things.
  - MPSimmons 10y ago
    In a mathematical sense, yes, every citizen who gives a certain amount of tax money to the government to pay for research bodies could, instead, give money straight to some sort of central body to distribute it to the same various groups. But they wouldn't. And you know it. Even the Science Philanthropy Alliance (http://www.sciencephilanthropyalliance.org/what-we-do/resources/faqs/ http://www.sciencephilanthropyalliance.org/what-we-do/resour...), which funds researchers using privately-donated money, says that taxes are necessary to have scientific progress.
    - wheelerwj 10y ago
      I didn't say anything IF taxes were important or IF people's WOULD pay them. And yes, we are talking about semantics (mathematical sense). People couldn't give money to the DoD and accomplish the same thing, nor could they give money to DHS or any of the other Executive Departments. NASA is an independent, federally funded, civilian agency. The part of it that is Federal, is its budget.
      - deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
SEJeff 10y ago
What do you think NASA and DARPA are exactly, private companies? They're both part of the federal government.
- wheelerwj 10y ago
  Sort of, yes. Neither one of them are actually PART of the federal government. They are separate, independent organizations whose largest (and probably exclusive) customer is the United States government. NASA for example doesn't actually rollup to any cabinet position. As opposed to the Department of Energy or Department of Education for example.
  - hackuser 10y ago
    > Neither one of them are actually PART of the federal government. Indeed they are. Their budgets are paid for by taxpayers and established by laws passed in Congress and signed by the President. Their employees are federal employees, AFAIK. > NASA for example doesn't actually rollup to any cabinet position. The agencies report to the President, whatever the org chart is. The President chooses their administrators, and directs their operations (assuming she/he has time and interest). DAPRA is in the Department of Defense. Finally, I believe the CIA was an independent agency, like NASA, before the DNI was created about a decade ago. Was the CIA not actually part of the U.S. federal government?
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
  - CalChris 10y ago
    The NASA Administrator, Charlie Bolden, was nominated by President Obama and confirmed by the United States Senate. NASA is not part of any department but rather reports directly to the President of the United States. https://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/hqlibrary/ic/faqs.html https://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/hqlibrary/ic/faqs.html DARPA is part of a department, the United States Department of Defense. http://www.darpa.mil/ http://www.darpa.mil/ Both NASA and DARPA are as Federal as Federal gets and as govmint as govmint gets. Full disclosure: my daddy worked for NASA on Mercury thru Apollo. He worked for the govmint.
ceejayoz 10y ago
> This is just societ bolstering the resources of our greatest minds. Via government.
- wheelerwj 10y ago
  The funding is provided by the people VIA government. But the government doesn't participate in its administration nor does NASA participate in the execution of the Constitution. There are A LOT of independent agencies that are owned or otherwise funded by the federal government but they do not participate in governance, and because of that, they are not PART of the federal government.
  - hackuser 10y ago
    > they do not participate in governance, and because of that, they are not PART of the federal government. The military does not participate in governance, by law. Is the U.S. military not part of the U.S. government? What about intelligence agencies? It's an interesting definition, but I'm not sure that many people will accept it.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
  - scott_s 10y ago
    NASA employees are federal civil servants. You are trying to make a distinction that is not supported by the federal bureaucracy.
jrcii 10y ago
He made a small mistake, GET HIM! Everyone licks their lips His examples of academia and DARPA were correct. The mentality of people here who can't wait to pile on and attack someone at the slightest error is sickening.

olivercreashe 10y ago

>> the most high-tech systems in the world... Calm down. The technology is from the 1990s. It's in the article: " In the late 1990s, they began designing instruments for the next generation of satellites." Also, enough with the empty comparisons between the US and "the world". There are many other countries that have developed "the most high-tech" devices too, you know? Like Plank from ESA, which is used to map the background radiation. And regarding taxpayer dollars: do you know how long it takes for governmend-funded projects to complete? DECADES because the process is so slow precisely due to government red tape. So, calm down boy.

Nadya 10y ago
They never specified US government or US tax dollars. Merely that government and tax dollars funds science projects. You're reading into and attacking something that isn't there, then ended it on a smug and rude note. >Calm down. The technology is from the 1990s. It's in the article: The article states that instrument design began in the late 90's - not that that is what eventually made it into the satellites after two decades. They knew these satellites were approaching EOL and needed to be replaced so began R&D is how I read it. >And regarding taxpayer dollars: do you know how long it takes for governmend-funded projects to complete? DECADES because the process is so slow precisely due to government red tape. These are also often projects that would never be privately funded because there isn't necessarily a return on investment. They do, however, perform a public service. Maybe I'm naive - but I don't think weather satellites are a very good investment if one is looking for profit. Though I do admit I don't know how much one can make selling the data it produces.
- olivercreashe 10y ago
  Calm down, kid. Re-read the title sweetheart: it talks about the US, so it must obviously pertain to US gov't and US dollars. From your profile: >> Message To Self: It is okay to be wrong. Yes, you are wrong, so calm down, kid.
  - sctb 10y ago
    > Calm down, kid. Please stop. We don't treat other users this way on Hacker News, and we have to ban accounts that continue like this.

ethbro 10y ago

Exactly, and moreover, it would be an incredible waste of resources not to share. Nice to see an example of the world scientific community being allowed to take the practical approach.

mindcrime 10y ago

There is a benefit to countries and to the world when the people pool their money for something big. Yes there is, at least sometimes. But, the choice to do that should be voluntary, otherwise it's an immoral and unjust situation. And given that the State is - at it's core - a mechanism rooted in violence, this kind of thing is not an appropriate role for government.

simonh 10y ago
It's immoral and unjust that someone should grow up and live within the protective environment of a society, enjoying use of it's shared services and resources, while refusing to contribute towards the support of the services which make that environment possible. If you don't think it's a good deal, leave.
- malloryerik 10y ago
  While I'm sympathetic to most of your argument, it does beg the question, move where?
  - sangnoir 10y ago
    Somalia[1] looks like a good place to go if I didn't want to be burdened by government. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somalia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somalia
  - simonh 10y ago
    Perhaps my final statement was a bit glib, but personally I feel we are born into this world with a whole ton of obligations. We are nurtured, educated, protected. In many parts of the world, we are assigned inalienable rights just through the fact of being human beings. Whatever we do is founded on the hard work and achievements of others, but in most countries in the modern era very few claims are made on us in return. In past ages we were expected, or even required to die or at least kill and risk death in defense of our society. Nowadays you can be brought up, educated to a decent standard, benefit from all of society's resources and benefits to the age of adulthood and then swan off to some other part of the world for the rest of our lives, obligation free. That's a pretty amazing deal, by historical or really any standards.