5 ms·

I see that your only defense is that I am exhibiting a bias. And I agree its a bias, but do you have any data to say that I am wrong?

buugs 17y ago
I think you need to prove that you are right first.
Confusion 17y ago
No, but neither do you and that was my point. I'm not saying you are wrong; I'm saying there is no reason to believe you are right. It's pretty hard to quantify technological development. Other commenters provide some financial arguments, but is there a reason to believe that the number of innovative/creative/breakthrough technologies being developed depends on the amount of money spent on research? I don't think so: the way that money is distributed is all important and can turn the table entirely. The US may well be interested in spending a few billion on hardening the steel on their tanks a bit further. It's definitely R&D, but it's unlikely something groundbreaking will come of it. The answer to the question 'where else are technologies being produced like this' is: everywhere. The question is: how much? We are interested in something like the aggregate 'technological improvement' times 'impact on society' or something. If anyone has numbers on that, I will gladly concede victory to whoever turns out to be at the top.
- ryanwaggoner 17y ago
  You're really stretching here. First, with regard to your example of spending billions to harden steel on tanks, such a discovery might not be a worthy breakthrough to you, but that doesn't make it any less innovative. Many of our incremental advances in military technology have led to wider benefits in society at large. One could argue that the project that ARPA created that eventually gave birth to the Internet was one such project. Second, while the aggregate impact of R&D efforts is difficult to measure, we do have some tools at our disposal, many of which agree with the OP's statement that "no one beats the US when it comes to research and development." There is no perfect way to measure global trends involving hundreds of countries and billions of people and trillions of dollars and expect to have a nice, neat little data-point. Think about education, or economic development. Our measures for those are incredibly imperfect and ugly and hackish, but they're what we've got. R&D spending is a well-recognized measure of the level of importance a country places on innovation and technological advancement. If you have a better one, we're all ears. If not, it seems unreasonable to attack someone you don't know for being chauvinist because they used the standard measure.
- peregrine 17y ago
  Then why such strong attacks? I've always thought it was common knowledge that the US government spends trillions more then any other nation in the Millitary and a large portion of that spending goes to R&D. I apologize and in the future I will present links.
  - anamax 17y ago
    > I've always thought it was common knowledge that the US government spends trillions more then any other nation in the Military The link presented above, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_federations_by_military_expenditures#Stockholm_International_Peace_Research_Institute_figures_.282007.29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_federatio... says that the US spends a bit over $650B (650E9) on its military. That link also says that the world total is under $1.5T (1.5E12) and that the NATO total (including the US) is a bit over $1T. So, if it's "common knowledge that the US government spends trillions more then any other nation in the Military", said common knowledge appears to be significantly wrong. Note that most US military spending is not R&D.
- mnemonicsloth 17y ago
  ...spending a few billion on hardening the steel on their tanks a bit further Tank armor is made from ceramics nowadays. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chobham_armour#Material http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chobham_armour#Material ...is there a reason to believe that the number of innovative/creative/breakthrough technologies being developed depends on the amount of money spent on research? Actually, there is. A surprising amount of what goes on in research is aimed at reducing the combinatorial complexity of big search spaces -- organic compounds that might be medically useful, or doping and annealing schedules that might make better semiconductor substrates, or porous materials that might be good anchors for nanotubes or nanowires. Computer scientists call this an "embarrassingly parallel" problem. The more researchers you have, the faster you get an inventory of possible routes forward, etc.

buugs 17y ago

I think you need to prove that you are right first.

Confusion 17y ago

No, but neither do you and that was my point. I'm not saying you are wrong; I'm saying there is no reason to believe you are right. It's pretty hard to quantify technological development. Other commenters provide some financial arguments, but is there a reason to believe that the number of innovative/creative/breakthrough technologies being developed depends on the amount of money spent on research? I don't think so: the way that money is distributed is all important and can turn the table entirely. The US may well be interested in spending a few billion on hardening the steel on their tanks a bit further. It's definitely R&D, but it's unlikely something groundbreaking will come of it. The answer to the question 'where else are technologies being produced like this' is: everywhere. The question is: how much? We are interested in something like the aggregate 'technological improvement' times 'impact on society' or something. If anyone has numbers on that, I will gladly concede victory to whoever turns out to be at the top.

ryanwaggoner 17y ago
You're really stretching here. First, with regard to your example of spending billions to harden steel on tanks, such a discovery might not be a worthy breakthrough to you, but that doesn't make it any less innovative. Many of our incremental advances in military technology have led to wider benefits in society at large. One could argue that the project that ARPA created that eventually gave birth to the Internet was one such project. Second, while the aggregate impact of R&D efforts is difficult to measure, we do have some tools at our disposal, many of which agree with the OP's statement that "no one beats the US when it comes to research and development." There is no perfect way to measure global trends involving hundreds of countries and billions of people and trillions of dollars and expect to have a nice, neat little data-point. Think about education, or economic development. Our measures for those are incredibly imperfect and ugly and hackish, but they're what we've got. R&D spending is a well-recognized measure of the level of importance a country places on innovation and technological advancement. If you have a better one, we're all ears. If not, it seems unreasonable to attack someone you don't know for being chauvinist because they used the standard measure.
peregrine 17y ago
Then why such strong attacks? I've always thought it was common knowledge that the US government spends trillions more then any other nation in the Millitary and a large portion of that spending goes to R&D. I apologize and in the future I will present links.
- anamax 17y ago
  > I've always thought it was common knowledge that the US government spends trillions more then any other nation in the Military The link presented above, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_federations_by_military_expenditures#Stockholm_International_Peace_Research_Institute_figures_.282007.29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_federatio... says that the US spends a bit over $650B (650E9) on its military. That link also says that the world total is under $1.5T (1.5E12) and that the NATO total (including the US) is a bit over $1T. So, if it's "common knowledge that the US government spends trillions more then any other nation in the Military", said common knowledge appears to be significantly wrong. Note that most US military spending is not R&D.
mnemonicsloth 17y ago
...spending a few billion on hardening the steel on their tanks a bit further Tank armor is made from ceramics nowadays. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chobham_armour#Material http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chobham_armour#Material ...is there a reason to believe that the number of innovative/creative/breakthrough technologies being developed depends on the amount of money spent on research? Actually, there is. A surprising amount of what goes on in research is aimed at reducing the combinatorial complexity of big search spaces -- organic compounds that might be medically useful, or doping and annealing schedules that might make better semiconductor substrates, or porous materials that might be good anchors for nanotubes or nanowires. Computer scientists call this an "embarrassingly parallel" problem. The more researchers you have, the faster you get an inventory of possible routes forward, etc.