5 ms·

The "toys" could be purchased more coherently and consistently by teams who know the field if they had equivalent funding. And used for projects of significantl

The "toys" could be purchased more coherently and consistently by teams who know the field if they had equivalent funding. And used for projects of significantly more historical and scientific value (though probably less media value). Although it's better than nothing, I'm not sure relying on arbitrary funding from wealthy hobbyists on projects they happen to find fun is the best way to decide the direction of research. >it's certainly more worthwhile than trolling around HN/reddit. Once you squeeze enough on wages there's not enough disposable income to do much else.

melling 12y ago
Yeah, there's always some guy who says this. Well, then do it. Raise the funds and get the team or convince taxpayers to to fund it. The team looking for Amelia Earhart, for example, has been at it for a long time by raising private funds. http://gizmodo.com/5936462/a-search-team-might-have-finally-found-amelia-earhart-after-75-years http://gizmodo.com/5936462/a-search-team-might-have-finally-... Here's another privately/self funded team looking for WW2 planes. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/anderson-cooper-diving-deep-for-the-forgotten/ http://www.cbsnews.com/news/anderson-cooper-diving-deep-for-... But for goodness sakes, don't be The Critic: http://www.theodore-roosevelt.com/trsorbonnespeech.html http://www.theodore-roosevelt.com/trsorbonnespeech.html
- whybroke 12y ago
  There's nothing unusual or evil about Paul Allen in particular. But there is a disastrous trend at reducing public funding for research and education and pretending that that a few volunteer enthusiast or fund raisers can compensate for it. Or that the amusement of and for the increasingly super rich are adequate technical compensation. Such much so that a company devoted to amusement rides into sub orbit is often called the superior of NASA and the word philanthropy now, incredibly, applies to the subject mater of this article. With a posting worded as over the top as this one, it's an opportunity to clearly point out this silliness. Calls to additional action are quite right as you say. But likewise, pointing these issues out here does not preclude other action. >Yeah, there's always some guy who says this I certainly hope so. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_gadfly http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_gadfly
  - melling 12y ago
    Yeah, telling HN readers that we should spend more on science and technology is really attacking the status quo. Saying "There's a better way..." is like saying "I've got an idea for a company." Sure, it would be better that Allen didn't have to spend $300 million on brain research but until you convince the right audience to spend the taxpayer dollars, I don't see you adding any value to the conversation. Execution really is important. I'd love to see other ways for people to fund real science, etc in a big way.
    - whybroke 12y ago
      Yes execution is important. But failing to discuss a problem does not improve execution, surely it is always the first step. So where would the right audience be? If perhaps there were some corner of the web where technologist, scientist and innovators gather (albeit mixed with plenty of crackpots). A place so influential that it is flooded by astro-turf when subjects involving large industries come up and so ugly that ordinary people are afraid of it. Maybe there. >Yeah, telling HN readers that we should spend more on science and technology is really attacking the status quo. Well I also denigrated a tech billionaire, criticized space-x, called for higher taxes and said this site was ugly. On HN that's not a gadfly as so much an invitation to be lynched.
      - melling 12y ago
        More likely to simply be called out as an idiot or crackpot yourself. Think about it, you think the American public would fund searching for WW2 Japanese battleships? I never could understand why people pride themselves in being Armchair Generals: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Armchair+General http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Armchair+Gene...
        whybroke 12y ago
        What a strange redefinition of "armchair general". Probably the standard meaning http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/armchair_general http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/armchair_general is too offensive to conservatives. But since when did the public decide every archeology project? Did this one have any merit? Even so, they did pay for it. Just not with normal taxes but instead with the exorbitant expense of supporting an empire built on unscrupulous business practices. Some surplus was spent on whimsy now sycophantically called "philanthropy". An even more bizarre word misuse. So the web should be a place solely for advertisement, astroturf and ludicrous self-aggrandizement? No one should criticize bull when they see it? You should have told this guy http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/ http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/ Then he could have had a deeply meaningful career writing apps.

melling 12y ago

Yeah, there's always some guy who says this. Well, then do it. Raise the funds and get the team or convince taxpayers to to fund it. The team looking for Amelia Earhart, for example, has been at it for a long time by raising private funds. http://gizmodo.com/5936462/a-search-team-might-have-finally-found-amelia-earhart-after-75-years http://gizmodo.com/5936462/a-search-team-might-have-finally-... Here's another privately/self funded team looking for WW2 planes. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/anderson-cooper-diving-deep-for-the-forgotten/ http://www.cbsnews.com/news/anderson-cooper-diving-deep-for-... But for goodness sakes, don't be The Critic: http://www.theodore-roosevelt.com/trsorbonnespeech.html http://www.theodore-roosevelt.com/trsorbonnespeech.html

whybroke 12y ago
There's nothing unusual or evil about Paul Allen in particular. But there is a disastrous trend at reducing public funding for research and education and pretending that that a few volunteer enthusiast or fund raisers can compensate for it. Or that the amusement of and for the increasingly super rich are adequate technical compensation. Such much so that a company devoted to amusement rides into sub orbit is often called the superior of NASA and the word philanthropy now, incredibly, applies to the subject mater of this article. With a posting worded as over the top as this one, it's an opportunity to clearly point out this silliness. Calls to additional action are quite right as you say. But likewise, pointing these issues out here does not preclude other action. >Yeah, there's always some guy who says this I certainly hope so. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_gadfly http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_gadfly
- melling 12y ago
  Yeah, telling HN readers that we should spend more on science and technology is really attacking the status quo. Saying "There's a better way..." is like saying "I've got an idea for a company." Sure, it would be better that Allen didn't have to spend $300 million on brain research but until you convince the right audience to spend the taxpayer dollars, I don't see you adding any value to the conversation. Execution really is important. I'd love to see other ways for people to fund real science, etc in a big way.
  - whybroke 12y ago
    Yes execution is important. But failing to discuss a problem does not improve execution, surely it is always the first step. So where would the right audience be? If perhaps there were some corner of the web where technologist, scientist and innovators gather (albeit mixed with plenty of crackpots). A place so influential that it is flooded by astro-turf when subjects involving large industries come up and so ugly that ordinary people are afraid of it. Maybe there. >Yeah, telling HN readers that we should spend more on science and technology is really attacking the status quo. Well I also denigrated a tech billionaire, criticized space-x, called for higher taxes and said this site was ugly. On HN that's not a gadfly as so much an invitation to be lynched.
    - melling 12y ago
      More likely to simply be called out as an idiot or crackpot yourself. Think about it, you think the American public would fund searching for WW2 Japanese battleships? I never could understand why people pride themselves in being Armchair Generals: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Armchair+General http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Armchair+Gene...
      - whybroke 12y ago
        What a strange redefinition of "armchair general". Probably the standard meaning http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/armchair_general http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/armchair_general is too offensive to conservatives. But since when did the public decide every archeology project? Did this one have any merit? Even so, they did pay for it. Just not with normal taxes but instead with the exorbitant expense of supporting an empire built on unscrupulous business practices. Some surplus was spent on whimsy now sycophantically called "philanthropy". An even more bizarre word misuse. So the web should be a place solely for advertisement, astroturf and ludicrous self-aggrandizement? No one should criticize bull when they see it? You should have told this guy http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/ http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/ Then he could have had a deeply meaningful career writing apps.