8 ms·

What this really underscores is that conventional capitalism provides little incentive for fundamental innovation. All this stuff we're gluing together is the

by api 14y ago

What this really underscores is that conventional capitalism provides little incentive for fundamental innovation. All this stuff we're gluing together is the product of state-funded research, mostly from the cold war era. DARPANet, the web (CERN), DARPA research on "augmented human intelligence," etc. Stuff like: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJDv-zdhzMY http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJDv-zdhzMY (I bet you thought Xerox PARC invented that stuff, right? Or Apple? Nope. DARPA and SRI invented the entire modern user experience in the 1960s.) Few companies ever fund that kind of thing. There's two reasons. One is risk vs. reward-- such projects are typically "high risk, high payoff" as DARPA likes to say. Most lead nowhere. The second reason is that there is no good mechanism for monetizing the result. Fundamental innovations are often too fundamental to patent effectively, and are easy to copy once understood. They're also often worthless in themselves. They are enablers of value that is built on top of them. Fundamental innovation is a lot like infrastructure -- something else free market players seldom invest in. This is a problem for today's generation of enthusiastic free-market proponents. Who is going to pay for the next generation of innovation? It's also very unjust. Where were Douglas Engelbart's billions? Tim Berners-Lee, is he a billionaire? No, we have 17 year olds making quick millions gluing together the work of dozens of Ph.D's who will never see that kind of money in their lifetimes. It's a big thing that turned me off the Ph.D path. I don't feel like taking a vow of poverty and toiling in the dungeons to develop some fundamental, difficult concept that someone else then takes, glues to something else, flips, and gets rich.

BCM43 14y ago
It's also very unjust. Where were Douglas Engelbart's billions? Tim Berners-Lee, is he a billionaire? No, we have 17 year olds making quick millions gluing together the work of dozens of Ph.D's who will never see that kind of money in their lifetimes. I'm not sure this is fair. Look at the number of entrepreneurs that actually succeed, then look at the positions that people with a CS Ph.D actually end up in. On average (using a median), I'm willing to bet those with a CS Ph.d do a lot better than your average startup founder. We just hear about success stories. All of this is also ignoring the huge benefits that come with becoming a professor, if you are able to. The kind of pay, job security, and benefits that come with the MIT professorship that Berners-Lee has are enormously beneficial to ones peace of mind.
rollo_tommasi 14y ago
If those PhD are really so smart, they should have had the foresight to be born to Morgan Stanley executives, like the Summly kid.
- xtracto 14y ago
  When I was about to start my PhD, a professor and good friend of mine (who already had one) told me: "The people who finish a PhD are not the most intelligent, but the most perseverant".
- dmpk2k 14y ago
  Some people don't live their lives to interact with high-power investors, but contribute vastly more value to society than people who do live their lives to do so.
- MartinCron 14y ago
  Most of the people who don't succeed financially made a terrible choice of who there parents were. It's probably the single most important choice one can make.
  - kaonashi 14y ago
    Why should we be rewarding such poor decision making? What ever happened personal responsibility?
- DilipJ 14y ago
  that's not really fair to the kid. All of us are born with advantages that others lack. Every person living in America has access to wealth and connections that the average African can only dream of. That shouldn't take away from anyone's success here or diminish any of our accomplishments
  - nitrogen 14y ago
    The "appeal to Africa" fallacy: comparing one's problems to problems that are worse does absolutely nothing to address either set of problems.
thom 14y ago
CHAIRMAN: Yes, and, and, and the wheel. What about this wheel thingy? Sounds a terribly interesting project to me. MARKETING GIRL: Er, yeah, well we’re having a little, er, difficulty here… FORD: Difficulty?! It’s the single simplest machine in the entire universe! MARKETING GIRL: Well alright mister wise guy, if you’re so clever you tell us what colour it should be! FORD: Oh Mighty Zarquon! Has no-one done anything?
- alanh 14y ago
  For those who don’t recognize this, it is a quote from the Hitch-Hiker’s Guide to the Galaxay [1]. The context is: Ford is an (intelligent) hitch-hiker and CHAIRMAN and MARKETING GIRL are parts of the "useless third" of the population of Golgafrincham (basically, middle managers and the like), who were exiled from the planet entirely. (Perceived sexism attributable to Douglas Adams and/or the fact this was a radio broadcast, so everyone has an assigned gender) [1]: http://www.clivebanks.co.uk/THHGTTG/THHGTTGradio6.htm http://www.clivebanks.co.uk/THHGTTG/THHGTTGradio6.htm
notaddicted 14y ago
If you aren't satisfied with the way the government is being run, is it a failure of Representative Democracy? You can petition your representative. If you still aren't satisfied you can cast your vote for another representative. If you aren't satisfied with the way your capital is being allocated, is it a failure of Capitalism? You can petition your board members. If still aren't satisfied you can vote for new board members in the next election. If you still aren't satisfied you can sell -- in Yahoo's case many shareholders have chosen this option since Microsoft's $31/share offer. If you want to allocate other people's capital, see previous paragraph. Leaving aside the notion of justice, since it is a Difficult Philosophical Issue ♪, to me the only thing that this underscores is that Yahoo is a poor allocator of capital. ♪ http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/equality/#PriEquJus http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/equality/#PriEquJus
rayiner 14y ago
People don't really realize it, but the mid 1950's through mid 1970's, besides being the golden age of the American economy, was also the golden age of American innovation, and much of it was bankrolled by DOD money (SRI is, of course, a major defense contractor). Not only was the infrastructure around us mostly built during that time (the highways, power plants, etc) but most concepts in computing: programming languages, AI, GUIs, databases, etc. Over time I become more and more convinced that the market doesn't produce (much) real innovation. If you look at the stuff that really matters, it's come from one of three sources: 1) Government research labs (NASA) or government funded defense contractors (Lockeed-Martin, SRI, BBN, etc) 2) Government funded universities (MIT and its $1 billion in defense contracts each year) 3) Private companies that have either monopolies (AT&T Bell Labs) or massive market power with entrenched cash-cow products (IBM, Xerox PARC). Look at innovation that's happening now. Where is it happening? Self-driving cars got a big boost from DARPA in the early 2000's (DARPA Grand Challenge), and is now being funded by Google (which has a ton of cash from its deeply entrenched position in search).
- snowwrestler 14y ago
  I think that undervalues the innovation that goes into taking a new technology and turning it into a widely available, affordable product. That is not easy, and without that step, no invention is going to change the world very much. I also think it undervalues the role of the market in creating the capital to fund these activities, and the many different companies and universities (many private) who compete to spend that money in innovative ways. By comparison, the Soviet Union centrally funded their core research too, but were not able to keep up technologically with market economies like the U.S. or western Europe.
  - rayiner 14y ago
    I'm not really disagreeing with you, at least in the sense that I do agree that market economies create wealth and wealth is a necessary pre-requisite for funding research. What I think I'm getting at is that I disagree with the common trope that market competition creates fundamental innovation. I think market competition makes companies slaves to the bottom line, fighting tooth and nail in the dirt just to survive. To the extent that the market creates innovation, it does so in companies well-insulated from market competition (monopolies, oligopolies, etc). The decline of Hewlett Packard is a great example. When they became just another hardware company, competing on price in printers, PC's, etc, they ceased to be innovative. Interesting reading: http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/features/2010/the_great_american_information_emperors/how_theodore_vail_built_the_att_monopoly.html http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/features.... You should really buy a copy of Tim Wu's book to appreciate Vail's line of thought.
robomartin 14y ago
First: Je viens en paix. So, please, don't turn this into a mud-slinging competition. Also, because of the ambiguity that exists in the English language I should clarify that this is addressed to the general HN audience rather than to api. In other words, when I use "you" it is generally meant as the plural "you". I have a genuine problem understanding where anti-capitalism sentiment, particularly in HN, comes from. I also have a huge problem with pro-government sentiment bordering on socialism and even going as far as having a communist undertone. I keep seeing this come up again and again on HN and I just don't get it. I don't understand it. So, this is me asking for help. Why do you (plural) think this way? Again, please, I am looking for a respectful conversation. This is about you, not me. I want to understand you. I have lots of questions. Some might sound dumb and maybe even off-base. Go with me, if you will, humor me, and see if you can help me --and others-- understand where you are coming from. How far back in human history do we have to go until you would concede we don't owe what existed at that point in time to state-funded research? Fire? Hunting? The wheel? Agriculture? Making clothes? Making boats? Domestication of animals? Medieval time? Industrial revolution? And, when feudal lords enslaved the population, was that population to be thankful because of the developments that came from such "state-funded" efforts? Communism funded lots of things. Not sure anything of use to the world at large came out of any communist country. Do you think communism is better than capitalism? Why? How about socialist ideas? Better than capitalism? The Nazi's funded a lot of medical research in the context of killing millions of Jews. Are you suggesting that we all benefit from that today? Are there a few million people somewhere in the world you would be willing to kill today in order to do some state-funded research that would benefit us all? I know this is a ridiculous and grotesque question to ask, but it is a valid question. If you are deriving any benefit whatsoever from what the Nazi's did then you either have to reject all technology derived from that research --even if it costs your own life or that of your loved ones-- or be willing to do the same in the name of progress. I am not proposing, for even an instant, that what they did was acceptable. Where do you stop singing the praises of state-funded research? How many people did ARPANET help kill? If we owe the modern Internet to all the military programs between 1960 and 199x or so and you recognize this as good; what's the difference between that and the various Nazi programs. Killing is killing, isn't it? Well, virtually all state-funded research is motivated by war. War means killing people. Sometimes by the millions. Certainly by the thousands. And, in that regard --in terms of the mass killings-- it is no different from genocide. How about nuclear power? A great result of state-funded research? Killed millions. So, in embracing your belief system, do we ever fault governments or do we always look at the rosy side of state-funded research and ignore the ugly parts. As I asked before, how many people did ARPANET help kill? Is that ever a consideration? I am not sure Compuserve and other civilian BBS's helped kill nearly as many people --if any-- as the various means of communication resulting from state-funded research. When I was younger the realities of war never really hit my radar. As I got older it really started to turn my stomach. And that's why I developed this idea that we should limit our government to throwing fancy dinners for visiting dignitaries and pull ALL non essential funding from their hands. All they do is kill people, one way or the other. The research would be done far better, cheaper, faster and with less violent purposes in the private sector. I prefer capitalism and profit-driven entrepreneurship than war-driven state-sponsored research who's aim is to kill millions. Do you see the difference? How does that align with your pro-state belief system? That aside, on the assumption a rare state-funded project produces something of note, for how many decades or centuries should we be thankful? Do advancements ever become part of human culture and intellectual property upon which we can build without being labeled as having taken advantage of those before us? Are you of this opinion because you have studied the subject or because you were indoctrinated into this manner of thinking at school or at home? It's an honest question. Please don't be offended by it. As an example, most religions folks were indoctrinated into their religion. I don't know anyone who grew up without any kind of religion shoveled at them as a kid, only to choose one independently as an adult. It is a fair question: Are you pro state/government/communism/socialism because you chose to believe this way or because the thoughts were shoveled into your head? Can you remove yourself from your mind far enough to even make that evaluation? All forms of governments, from democratic to communist seem to be great at devising ways to kill people. If WW1 and WW2 --with over a hundred million people dead-- did not prove that, I don't know what would. It is also interesting to note that governments seem to need war as a motivator to invent anything. Why? Is that the only goal they understand? Can you reconcile your "more government is good" view of the world with the fact that governments --not people-- have started all known wars and that they have caused the death of hundreds of millions of people throughout history? People don't start wars. Governments do. I sincerely reject the idea that "All this stuff we're gluing together is the product of state-funded research". There are countless innovations that originated far, far away from government. Too many examples to list, but such things as flying machines, the telegraph and the light bulb come to mind. Now, it is natural for entrepreneurs to look for markets for their inventions. Governments are flush with cash. In the US, if you can mold your idea or invention into something that can be of benefit to our mighty armed forces you can get tons of money for further development and even hugely profitable contracts through programs such as SBIR. Entrepreneurs look for markets where they can make money. This means that while I am sure someone is going to claim that aviation was funded by government, I will propose the opposite: Aviation entrepreneurs went where the money was: Military contracts. I could go on, but it is time to listen. There are a lot of questions above. I ask you to think, really think about them and then give me your perspective. And, again, I mean this with the utmost respect. I truly want to understand. I have seen enough pro socialist/communist/government/state posts on HN to cause me pause. I don't know if these are coming from outside the US (or outside democratic/capitalistic cultures) or from within. Don't know. Please, help me understand you.
scythe 14y ago
I think you're being a little unfair. I work in quantum computing. I'll probably work in the public sector for most of my life. I have every incentive to plug government-funded research, and oh by the way, you guys all need to vote for politicians who will increase my puny grad student stipend. Researchers in the private sector publish a healthy amount of papers in peer-reviewed journals. The elephant in the room is drug design. Many of the drugs on the market today were indeed developed and funded by pharmaceutical companies; yes, pharma companies do occasionally push bullshit products. But imatinib works. It's a trillion-dollar industry for a reason. As an aside, academia probably shouldn't be lumped under the banner of "state" -- the independence of academia helps it succeed. >This is a problem for today's generation of enthusiastic free-market proponents. Who is going to pay for the next generation of innovation? Take a deep breath. The bottom line is this: scientific research is cheap. The US spends a paltry portion of its budget on research. Hell, I think they even spend more on education. Funny, right? So in the context of the great economic circus, publically funding scientific research affects the "freeness" of the market about as much as publically funding, say, the police. Even Ron Paul wasn't looking to make very large cuts to research. And that's another reason you should vote for whoever is going to increase my salary: it won't hardly cost you anything.
- michaelochurch 14y ago
  I think you're being a little unfair. I work in quantum computing. I'll probably work in the public sector for most of my life. I have every incentive to plug government-funded research, and oh by the way, you guys all need to vote for politicians who will increase my puny grad student stipend. Quantum computing is fucking cool. Very intellectually challenging stuff. Props for that. I agree on public funding for basic research. Politicians who say "these guys aren't earning their keep" are idiots, and we're worse (as a populace) for not firing these assholes. The mechanism is right there, it's unambiguously legal. Let's fucking use it. Anyway, how is a PhD who makes $85,000 per year while advancing the state of science, who is giving all the work away for the public good, not earning her keep? It makes no damn sense. Researchers in the private sector publish a healthy amount of papers in peer-reviewed journals. The elephant in the room is drug design. Many of the drugs on the market today were indeed developed and funded by pharmaceutical companies; yes, pharma companies do occasionally push bullshit products. But imatinib works. It's a trillion-dollar industry for a reason. My issue with the drug industry is that the profit motive seems to be generating 20 variations on the same theme (e.g. statins) and underfunding a lot of greater advancements. The US spends a paltry portion of its budget on research Damn right. It's pathetic. We spend more on this "war on terror" in one year than on cancer research in 50. Yet cancer kills orders of magnitude more people than terrorism.
blablabla123 14y ago
>What this really underscores is that conventional capitalism provides little incentive for fundamental innovation. No, what this really underscores is a fundamental change in thinking for equality that our civilizations seeks since centuries: taking people seriously, no matter of gender, race or in this case age. Many people have good reason to be jealous, being jealous this was not possible when they/we were so young. When I was that age I hated the fact that only old people would be taken seriously when it comes to business. We can be happy this is possible and as a further sign that age discrimination is going to be eradicated. Besides, this is about discrimination of young people but old people are discriminated against too.
mason240 14y ago
This tired bit again? Military research may have made done early development on networking protocols, but it was capitalism and the free market principals that took if from "something that could have potential" to the "humanities greatest creation." Saying that government created the internet would be like giving a government credit for creating cars because while making new weapons, they accidentally made wheel.
mason240 14y ago
This tired bit again? Military research may have made done early development on networking protocols, but it was capitalism and the free market principals that took if from "something that could have potential" to the "humanities greatest creation." Saying that government created the internet would be like giving a government credit for creating cars because while making new weapons, they accidentally made wheel.

by api 14y ago

BCM43 14y ago

It's also very unjust. Where were Douglas Engelbart's billions? Tim Berners-Lee, is he a billionaire? No, we have 17 year olds making quick millions gluing together the work of dozens of Ph.D's who will never see that kind of money in their lifetimes. I'm not sure this is fair. Look at the number of entrepreneurs that actually succeed, then look at the positions that people with a CS Ph.D actually end up in. On average (using a median), I'm willing to bet those with a CS Ph.d do a lot better than your average startup founder. We just hear about success stories. All of this is also ignoring the huge benefits that come with becoming a professor, if you are able to. The kind of pay, job security, and benefits that come with the MIT professorship that Berners-Lee has are enormously beneficial to ones peace of mind.

rollo_tommasi 14y ago

If those PhD are really so smart, they should have had the foresight to be born to Morgan Stanley executives, like the Summly kid.

xtracto 14y ago
When I was about to start my PhD, a professor and good friend of mine (who already had one) told me: "The people who finish a PhD are not the most intelligent, but the most perseverant".
dmpk2k 14y ago
Some people don't live their lives to interact with high-power investors, but contribute vastly more value to society than people who do live their lives to do so.
MartinCron 14y ago
Most of the people who don't succeed financially made a terrible choice of who there parents were. It's probably the single most important choice one can make.
- kaonashi 14y ago
  Why should we be rewarding such poor decision making? What ever happened personal responsibility?
DilipJ 14y ago
that's not really fair to the kid. All of us are born with advantages that others lack. Every person living in America has access to wealth and connections that the average African can only dream of. That shouldn't take away from anyone's success here or diminish any of our accomplishments
- nitrogen 14y ago
  The "appeal to Africa" fallacy: comparing one's problems to problems that are worse does absolutely nothing to address either set of problems.

thom 14y ago

CHAIRMAN: Yes, and, and, and the wheel. What about this wheel thingy? Sounds a terribly interesting project to me. MARKETING GIRL: Er, yeah, well we’re having a little, er, difficulty here… FORD: Difficulty?! It’s the single simplest machine in the entire universe! MARKETING GIRL: Well alright mister wise guy, if you’re so clever you tell us what colour it should be! FORD: Oh Mighty Zarquon! Has no-one done anything?

alanh 14y ago
For those who don’t recognize this, it is a quote from the Hitch-Hiker’s Guide to the Galaxay [1]. The context is: Ford is an (intelligent) hitch-hiker and CHAIRMAN and MARKETING GIRL are parts of the "useless third" of the population of Golgafrincham (basically, middle managers and the like), who were exiled from the planet entirely. (Perceived sexism attributable to Douglas Adams and/or the fact this was a radio broadcast, so everyone has an assigned gender) [1]: http://www.clivebanks.co.uk/THHGTTG/THHGTTGradio6.htm http://www.clivebanks.co.uk/THHGTTG/THHGTTGradio6.htm

notaddicted 14y ago

If you aren't satisfied with the way the government is being run, is it a failure of Representative Democracy? You can petition your representative. If you still aren't satisfied you can cast your vote for another representative. If you aren't satisfied with the way your capital is being allocated, is it a failure of Capitalism? You can petition your board members. If still aren't satisfied you can vote for new board members in the next election. If you still aren't satisfied you can sell -- in Yahoo's case many shareholders have chosen this option since Microsoft's $31/share offer. If you want to allocate other people's capital, see previous paragraph. Leaving aside the notion of justice, since it is a Difficult Philosophical Issue ♪, to me the only thing that this underscores is that Yahoo is a poor allocator of capital. ♪ http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/equality/#PriEquJus http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/equality/#PriEquJus

rayiner 14y ago

People don't really realize it, but the mid 1950's through mid 1970's, besides being the golden age of the American economy, was also the golden age of American innovation, and much of it was bankrolled by DOD money (SRI is, of course, a major defense contractor). Not only was the infrastructure around us mostly built during that time (the highways, power plants, etc) but most concepts in computing: programming languages, AI, GUIs, databases, etc. Over time I become more and more convinced that the market doesn't produce (much) real innovation. If you look at the stuff that really matters, it's come from one of three sources: 1) Government research labs (NASA) or government funded defense contractors (Lockeed-Martin, SRI, BBN, etc) 2) Government funded universities (MIT and its $1 billion in defense contracts each year) 3) Private companies that have either monopolies (AT&T Bell Labs) or massive market power with entrenched cash-cow products (IBM, Xerox PARC). Look at innovation that's happening now. Where is it happening? Self-driving cars got a big boost from DARPA in the early 2000's (DARPA Grand Challenge), and is now being funded by Google (which has a ton of cash from its deeply entrenched position in search).

snowwrestler 14y ago
I think that undervalues the innovation that goes into taking a new technology and turning it into a widely available, affordable product. That is not easy, and without that step, no invention is going to change the world very much. I also think it undervalues the role of the market in creating the capital to fund these activities, and the many different companies and universities (many private) who compete to spend that money in innovative ways. By comparison, the Soviet Union centrally funded their core research too, but were not able to keep up technologically with market economies like the U.S. or western Europe.
- rayiner 14y ago
  I'm not really disagreeing with you, at least in the sense that I do agree that market economies create wealth and wealth is a necessary pre-requisite for funding research. What I think I'm getting at is that I disagree with the common trope that market competition creates fundamental innovation. I think market competition makes companies slaves to the bottom line, fighting tooth and nail in the dirt just to survive. To the extent that the market creates innovation, it does so in companies well-insulated from market competition (monopolies, oligopolies, etc). The decline of Hewlett Packard is a great example. When they became just another hardware company, competing on price in printers, PC's, etc, they ceased to be innovative. Interesting reading: http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/features/2010/the_great_american_information_emperors/how_theodore_vail_built_the_att_monopoly.html http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/features.... You should really buy a copy of Tim Wu's book to appreciate Vail's line of thought.

robomartin 14y ago

First: Je viens en paix. So, please, don't turn this into a mud-slinging competition. Also, because of the ambiguity that exists in the English language I should clarify that this is addressed to the general HN audience rather than to api. In other words, when I use "you" it is generally meant as the plural "you". I have a genuine problem understanding where anti-capitalism sentiment, particularly in HN, comes from. I also have a huge problem with pro-government sentiment bordering on socialism and even going as far as having a communist undertone. I keep seeing this come up again and again on HN and I just don't get it. I don't understand it. So, this is me asking for help. Why do you (plural) think this way? Again, please, I am looking for a respectful conversation. This is about you, not me. I want to understand you. I have lots of questions. Some might sound dumb and maybe even off-base. Go with me, if you will, humor me, and see if you can help me --and others-- understand where you are coming from. How far back in human history do we have to go until you would concede we don't owe what existed at that point in time to state-funded research? Fire? Hunting? The wheel? Agriculture? Making clothes? Making boats? Domestication of animals? Medieval time? Industrial revolution? And, when feudal lords enslaved the population, was that population to be thankful because of the developments that came from such "state-funded" efforts? Communism funded lots of things. Not sure anything of use to the world at large came out of any communist country. Do you think communism is better than capitalism? Why? How about socialist ideas? Better than capitalism? The Nazi's funded a lot of medical research in the context of killing millions of Jews. Are you suggesting that we all benefit from that today? Are there a few million people somewhere in the world you would be willing to kill today in order to do some state-funded research that would benefit us all? I know this is a ridiculous and grotesque question to ask, but it is a valid question. If you are deriving any benefit whatsoever from what the Nazi's did then you either have to reject all technology derived from that research --even if it costs your own life or that of your loved ones-- or be willing to do the same in the name of progress. I am not proposing, for even an instant, that what they did was acceptable. Where do you stop singing the praises of state-funded research? How many people did ARPANET help kill? If we owe the modern Internet to all the military programs between 1960 and 199x or so and you recognize this as good; what's the difference between that and the various Nazi programs. Killing is killing, isn't it? Well, virtually all state-funded research is motivated by war. War means killing people. Sometimes by the millions. Certainly by the thousands. And, in that regard --in terms of the mass killings-- it is no different from genocide. How about nuclear power? A great result of state-funded research? Killed millions. So, in embracing your belief system, do we ever fault governments or do we always look at the rosy side of state-funded research and ignore the ugly parts. As I asked before, how many people did ARPANET help kill? Is that ever a consideration? I am not sure Compuserve and other civilian BBS's helped kill nearly as many people --if any-- as the various means of communication resulting from state-funded research. When I was younger the realities of war never really hit my radar. As I got older it really started to turn my stomach. And that's why I developed this idea that we should limit our government to throwing fancy dinners for visiting dignitaries and pull ALL non essential funding from their hands. All they do is kill people, one way or the other. The research would be done far better, cheaper, faster and with less violent purposes in the private sector. I prefer capitalism and profit-driven entrepreneurship than war-driven state-sponsored research who's aim is to kill millions. Do you see the difference? How does that align with your pro-state belief system? That aside, on the assumption a rare state-funded project produces something of note, for how many decades or centuries should we be thankful? Do advancements ever become part of human culture and intellectual property upon which we can build without being labeled as having taken advantage of those before us? Are you of this opinion because you have studied the subject or because you were indoctrinated into this manner of thinking at school or at home? It's an honest question. Please don't be offended by it. As an example, most religions folks were indoctrinated into their religion. I don't know anyone who grew up without any kind of religion shoveled at them as a kid, only to choose one independently as an adult. It is a fair question: Are you pro state/government/communism/socialism because you chose to believe this way or because the thoughts were shoveled into your head? Can you remove yourself from your mind far enough to even make that evaluation? All forms of governments, from democratic to communist seem to be great at devising ways to kill people. If WW1 and WW2 --with over a hundred million people dead-- did not prove that, I don't know what would. It is also interesting to note that governments seem to need war as a motivator to invent anything. Why? Is that the only goal they understand? Can you reconcile your "more government is good" view of the world with the fact that governments --not people-- have started all known wars and that they have caused the death of hundreds of millions of people throughout history? People don't start wars. Governments do. I sincerely reject the idea that "All this stuff we're gluing together is the product of state-funded research". There are countless innovations that originated far, far away from government. Too many examples to list, but such things as flying machines, the telegraph and the light bulb come to mind. Now, it is natural for entrepreneurs to look for markets for their inventions. Governments are flush with cash. In the US, if you can mold your idea or invention into something that can be of benefit to our mighty armed forces you can get tons of money for further development and even hugely profitable contracts through programs such as SBIR. Entrepreneurs look for markets where they can make money. This means that while I am sure someone is going to claim that aviation was funded by government, I will propose the opposite: Aviation entrepreneurs went where the money was: Military contracts. I could go on, but it is time to listen. There are a lot of questions above. I ask you to think, really think about them and then give me your perspective. And, again, I mean this with the utmost respect. I truly want to understand. I have seen enough pro socialist/communist/government/state posts on HN to cause me pause. I don't know if these are coming from outside the US (or outside democratic/capitalistic cultures) or from within. Don't know. Please, help me understand you.

scythe 14y ago

I think you're being a little unfair. I work in quantum computing. I'll probably work in the public sector for most of my life. I have every incentive to plug government-funded research, and oh by the way, you guys all need to vote for politicians who will increase my puny grad student stipend. Researchers in the private sector publish a healthy amount of papers in peer-reviewed journals. The elephant in the room is drug design. Many of the drugs on the market today were indeed developed and funded by pharmaceutical companies; yes, pharma companies do occasionally push bullshit products. But imatinib works. It's a trillion-dollar industry for a reason. As an aside, academia probably shouldn't be lumped under the banner of "state" -- the independence of academia helps it succeed. >This is a problem for today's generation of enthusiastic free-market proponents. Who is going to pay for the next generation of innovation? Take a deep breath. The bottom line is this: scientific research is cheap. The US spends a paltry portion of its budget on research. Hell, I think they even spend more on education. Funny, right? So in the context of the great economic circus, publically funding scientific research affects the "freeness" of the market about as much as publically funding, say, the police. Even Ron Paul wasn't looking to make very large cuts to research. And that's another reason you should vote for whoever is going to increase my salary: it won't hardly cost you anything.

michaelochurch 14y ago
I think you're being a little unfair. I work in quantum computing. I'll probably work in the public sector for most of my life. I have every incentive to plug government-funded research, and oh by the way, you guys all need to vote for politicians who will increase my puny grad student stipend. Quantum computing is fucking cool. Very intellectually challenging stuff. Props for that. I agree on public funding for basic research. Politicians who say "these guys aren't earning their keep" are idiots, and we're worse (as a populace) for not firing these assholes. The mechanism is right there, it's unambiguously legal. Let's fucking use it. Anyway, how is a PhD who makes $85,000 per year while advancing the state of science, who is giving all the work away for the public good, not earning her keep? It makes no damn sense. Researchers in the private sector publish a healthy amount of papers in peer-reviewed journals. The elephant in the room is drug design. Many of the drugs on the market today were indeed developed and funded by pharmaceutical companies; yes, pharma companies do occasionally push bullshit products. But imatinib works. It's a trillion-dollar industry for a reason. My issue with the drug industry is that the profit motive seems to be generating 20 variations on the same theme (e.g. statins) and underfunding a lot of greater advancements. The US spends a paltry portion of its budget on research Damn right. It's pathetic. We spend more on this "war on terror" in one year than on cancer research in 50. Yet cancer kills orders of magnitude more people than terrorism.

blablabla123 14y ago

>What this really underscores is that conventional capitalism provides little incentive for fundamental innovation. No, what this really underscores is a fundamental change in thinking for equality that our civilizations seeks since centuries: taking people seriously, no matter of gender, race or in this case age. Many people have good reason to be jealous, being jealous this was not possible when they/we were so young. When I was that age I hated the fact that only old people would be taken seriously when it comes to business. We can be happy this is possible and as a further sign that age discrimination is going to be eradicated. Besides, this is about discrimination of young people but old people are discriminated against too.

mason240 14y ago

This tired bit again? Military research may have made done early development on networking protocols, but it was capitalism and the free market principals that took if from "something that could have potential" to the "humanities greatest creation." Saying that government created the internet would be like giving a government credit for creating cars because while making new weapons, they accidentally made wheel.

mason240 14y ago