3 ms·

Because the biggest problems are the most expensive problems, and the most expensive problems require the deepest pockets, which belong to the government.

by kyllo 14y ago

fennecfoxen 14y ago
And when the government opens up its deep pockets, even on reasonable problems (like "low-pollution energy") you get results like Solyndra... or worse, because it's more about chasing government money than coming up with any results.
- artmageddon 14y ago
  You could also get results like Germany who has been producing record amounts of solar energy thanks to their push in that direction. There are obstacles we'd have to overcome here to make that a reality here in the US, but it's not impossible.
- bearmf 14y ago
  But you also get Sputnik, Gagarin, Apollo, Voyager. You get microprocessors and Internet. You get nuclear energy (though you will be right to mention industrial fusion reactors which are always 20 years or so away :))
  - fennecfoxen 14y ago
    One difference between solar power and Apollo is that the people in the government who did Apollo were worried about the Soviet Union handing our collective rear ends to us, possibly on a radioactive platter. Key stakeholders knew there were consequences for getting it wrong, e.g. their homes and families potentially getting vaporized. The subsidies for the Solyndra debacle are still viewed by many partisans as a reasonable price for a laudable attempt to do the right thing, instead of a massive waste of capital. Failure? What's that?
    - bearmf 14y ago
      I don't know much about Solyndra. But you are right that people getting the money for research need to be honest and motivated. In my opinion, this applies to most people working in science. It is just that research is hard (and possibly getting even harder [1],[2]) and motivation alone is not enough. If you have a "serious problem" to solve, you will most probably need to throw tons of money and people at it. [1] http://blogs.wsj.com/ideas-market/2011/02/07/the-difficulty-of-making-new-discoveries/# http://blogs.wsj.com/ideas-market/2011/02/07/the-difficulty-... [2] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/6694932/Have-we-discovered-it-all.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/6694932/Have-we-discovere...
- elteto 14y ago
  You are missing the forest for the trees. The entire technology stack behind you posting something here in HN started at some point as a government-sponsored project.
- mturmon 14y ago
  You are reciting talking points. How about GPS, weather prediction, the highway system?

Because the biggest problems are the most expensive problems, and the most expensive problems require the deepest pockets, which belong to the government.

by kyllo 14y ago

Because the biggest problems are the most expensive problems, and the most expensive problems require the deepest pockets, which belong to the government.

fennecfoxen 14y ago

And when the government opens up its deep pockets, even on reasonable problems (like "low-pollution energy") you get results like Solyndra... or worse, because it's more about chasing government money than coming up with any results.

artmageddon 14y ago
You could also get results like Germany who has been producing record amounts of solar energy thanks to their push in that direction. There are obstacles we'd have to overcome here to make that a reality here in the US, but it's not impossible.
bearmf 14y ago
But you also get Sputnik, Gagarin, Apollo, Voyager. You get microprocessors and Internet. You get nuclear energy (though you will be right to mention industrial fusion reactors which are always 20 years or so away :))
- fennecfoxen 14y ago
  One difference between solar power and Apollo is that the people in the government who did Apollo were worried about the Soviet Union handing our collective rear ends to us, possibly on a radioactive platter. Key stakeholders knew there were consequences for getting it wrong, e.g. their homes and families potentially getting vaporized. The subsidies for the Solyndra debacle are still viewed by many partisans as a reasonable price for a laudable attempt to do the right thing, instead of a massive waste of capital. Failure? What's that?
  - bearmf 14y ago
    I don't know much about Solyndra. But you are right that people getting the money for research need to be honest and motivated. In my opinion, this applies to most people working in science. It is just that research is hard (and possibly getting even harder [1],[2]) and motivation alone is not enough. If you have a "serious problem" to solve, you will most probably need to throw tons of money and people at it. [1] http://blogs.wsj.com/ideas-market/2011/02/07/the-difficulty-of-making-new-discoveries/# http://blogs.wsj.com/ideas-market/2011/02/07/the-difficulty-... [2] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/6694932/Have-we-discovered-it-all.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/6694932/Have-we-discovere...
elteto 14y ago
You are missing the forest for the trees. The entire technology stack behind you posting something here in HN started at some point as a government-sponsored project.
mturmon 14y ago
You are reciting talking points. How about GPS, weather prediction, the highway system?