Comments on: President Obama’s three percent solution http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2009/05/05/president-obamas-three-percent-solution/ Thu, 21 Jul 2016 07:57:19 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=4.2.5 By: Leonard Zane http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2009/05/05/president-obamas-three-percent-solution/#comment-14094 Fri, 08 May 2009 08:03:47 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=3306#comment-14094 It’s regrettable “Real Deal” was the only one other than me who posted regarding the Superconducting Supercollider (SSC). Real Deal does not appear to be a professional scientist, and yet expresses discouragement toward reviving the SSC, even without supporting why such a major stride in particle physics should be abandoned and surrendered to Europe’s LHC at CERN, at only one-quarter of the SSC’s energy. In fact, much of the scientific community doubts the LHC will have enough energy (at 8 tera eV) even to discover or disprove the hypothetical Higgs boson that’s purported by various theorists to be the particle that can account for the origin of mass; or to investigate the existence of the graviton particle that’s believed to carry the force of gravity. The SSC (at 40 tera eV) will have by far the best chance of unlocking these secrets.

While Real Deal’s suggested research projects such as these below* are also laudable, the USA should not give up on the SSC and its enormous long-range benefits.

– nuclear fusion power generator*
– national electric transportation grid*
– next generation Internet*

Please see my first post on the subject for information and arguments why the USA very much needs the SSC, and let’s please hear from informed scientific sources on this most important endeavor that’s more momentous than even current space research.

]]>
By: Joan Koerber-Walker http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2009/05/05/president-obamas-three-percent-solution/#comment-13937 Wed, 06 May 2009 14:33:35 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=3306#comment-13937 Making a focused commitment to increase federal spending on science and technology is a smart move. So many of the ‘stimulus’ dollars are being invested in one time expenditures that serve an immediate physical infrastructure want or need, but create little ongoing economic stimulus after project completion. Past investments in science and technology by the Federal Government, like those at NASA in the past century, have resulted in new technological advancements that then migrated to the private sector across many segments and applications spawning new industries, jobs, and more innnovation. This is not science for science’s sake, this is an investment in our future.

]]>
By: Benny Acosta http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2009/05/05/president-obamas-three-percent-solution/#comment-13923 Wed, 06 May 2009 11:37:38 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=3306#comment-13923 Let it go. Why are we still so transfixed on the “economic issues”?. This is just a system. Wipe the debt clean. Forget printing more money. Just forgive all debt and write it off. Let transactions occur as normal and focus on creating an artificially intelligent, self sustaining automated, central accounting system, free of central human control.

Make money do what it is supposed to do, which is facilitate the transfer of resources from one location to another for human use. Are we seriously trying to fix a system that ACTUALLY REQUIRES HUMAN ECONOMIC LOOSERS IN ORDER TO FUNCTION? We are still approaching this “problem” from the perspective of dependence and reliance upon the system. This is absolutely absurd. How on God’s green Earth is a money problem even remotely as important as the prospect of homeless, starving, and dieing human beings? Especially when we consider that the world’s children suffer to a much higher degree because of our ridiculous over emphasis on money as a means of control rather than as a tool to aid human progress.

Why should one person get the best health care available while another dies simply because of a lack of funds? Are you kidding me?! Seriously? Are we still willing to accept this as “normal”? Are we willing to let minds go undeveloped, and potential human treasure simply wither and die because money is actually given a higher priority than your child or mine? No one can possibly be so stupid as to accept such a condition when they realize the implications.

How many Americans find themselves forced into being “professional” for the majority of their most creative and energetic waking moments? If you have to spend so much time being professional, then someone tell me where we are supposed to discover and live up to our greatest potential as human beings?

This isn’t some idealistic rhetorical question either. I’m serious. To what end will we devote all of our technology? To what end will we devote our human and material treasure? To what end will we devote our efforts? Do we really want to spend all of that, on fixing a system that prioritizes money over the value of your home, your community, and your family? Or do we want to devote all of those resources to forging a human centered course for the next millennium?

We are, as citizens, in the position making and enforcing this choice. We will choose by way of our actions. And we will choose by our lack of action. But make no mistake. We will choose. Let us please choose wisely.

]]>
By: dv http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2009/05/05/president-obamas-three-percent-solution/#comment-13914 Wed, 06 May 2009 07:23:20 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=3306#comment-13914 Very little known regarding efficiency of US R&D spending. Some say that 70% of global patent registrations originate from US – but this figure is hardly illustrative, if you look at what is there on the market. If take solar and wind power, it is the European companies that lead the way. Eco-solution – the same thing. Of course US is big in IT, but this is built on ealier achievements and competitors are closing the gap pretty fast.

One should not fool itself – US R&D spending was funded as US consumer spending by foreign money. Whether or not America will be able to throw money into numerous R&D projects without really caring about their efficiency. It is all about the level of debt. You can of course confrim committment, but will be able to afford it?

]]>
By: Sandy http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2009/05/05/president-obamas-three-percent-solution/#comment-13910 Wed, 06 May 2009 03:57:41 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=3306#comment-13910 To Benny Acosta
What you described was already proclaimed: “To everybody according to his needs, from everybody according to his capabilities”. It is called COMMUNISM. And take from a person who lived inthe first staged , that was called SOCIALISM. It never will work. And it looks to me we are going there full speed right now.

]]>
By: Abadon http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2009/05/05/president-obamas-three-percent-solution/#comment-13909 Wed, 06 May 2009 03:42:06 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=3306#comment-13909 There was some concern about the private sector dominating research, twenty years ago. For a while, they even seemed to be succeeding. The problem has two parts.

First is that the reason for this dominance was not just a financial concern, the private sector has more realistic goals and a less ideologically manipulated view of how to reach them. This made corporate research more productive.

However, the second part of the problem, was that the goals of the private sector became in and of themselves manipulated. The private sector has only the most selfish motives and every reason to back stab and steal from their own innovators. It did not take long for the best of a generation to realize that their gold did not lay in creating, but in stealing the creations of others, usually by enlisting the government to help them do it.

This is where the bottom falls out of any attempt to take research out of the private sector and return it to the Federal Dole. A government, particularly a government hemorrhaging it vital resources to foreign governments, can not make up in funding what it lacks in freedom. It is not possible to foster innovation while bludgeoning the populace with what amounts to Intellectual Eminent Domain and Thought Policing.

All of Western Academia is Ignoring Reality in favor of Politics with the Media acting as their Collective Consciousness and then they are left wondering why they are losing ground to more Realistic People in other Cultures.

]]>
By: norman zelvin http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2009/05/05/president-obamas-three-percent-solution/#comment-13906 Wed, 06 May 2009 03:00:46 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=3306#comment-13906 Until Obama was elected, the last decade and longer saw the growth of a political animus to intellectual activity such as would inspire and generate the growth of interest in new technological R and D activity. The capable and ambitious have been caught up in entertainment, sports,and finance lured by large financial rewards. The politically generated anti intellectualism and poor educational system countrywide has left us without the educated newcomers and resources to inspire and generate the ideas for the R & D programs, the quivalent of the JFK “moon shots”.The question now is how to turn it around.

]]>
By: Daniel http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2009/05/05/president-obamas-three-percent-solution/#comment-13905 Wed, 06 May 2009 02:37:52 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=3306#comment-13905 Just look at the backers behind this guy.
Corporate members of the U.S. chamber of commerce.

Since when have they done anything except strive to ensure their upper management make an even higher multiple of the line worker.

Really, haven’t we seen thru these shills.
Folks, how’s your career going? your retirement?
Then look at them. Golden Parachutes as far as the eye can see.

They have ZERO credibility in my book. If they propose something it is surly meant to benefit primarily them.
Oh wait, there’s a crumb worker….scramble for it!

]]>
By: The Real Deal http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2009/05/05/president-obamas-three-percent-solution/#comment-13904 Wed, 06 May 2009 01:06:30 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=3306#comment-13904 @Leonard Zane

It is just about too late for the US to revive the SSC. Too late scientifically, too late technologically, and too late financially.

The LCH at CERN (which the US has invested about $0.5B, participated in design, and will play a vital role in analysis and theoretical work) is *it* for at least the next 2 decades. There are sound scientific grounds not to consider another super collider for this period of time. Therefor the next collider is for the next generation of physicists, assuming there are still physicists and that kind of money around in 2020!

But not to worry. There are many challenges of the highest order to conquer, such as:
– nuclear fusion power generator
– national electric transportation grid
– next generation Internet

And the biggest challenge of them all – getting people highly educated and interested in knowledge, discovery, creativity, all NOT for the sake of money.

]]>
By: Magic Dragon http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2009/05/05/president-obamas-three-percent-solution/#comment-13902 Tue, 05 May 2009 23:32:40 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=3306#comment-13902 ‘You can fool some of the people some of the time, but not all the people, all the time!’
The one problem Governments have, is educated people. We don’t believe! Why? We’ve been lied to so many times, we don’t believe you anytime!
This is why, in the past, Governments, in the case of Nepal a monarchy, didn’t allow children to go to school.
People are much easier controlled if stupid!
But, I’m afraid ‘the genie is out of the bottle’ in the U.S. And there’s more trouble ahead for Governments (as people wise up)!
And it appears from these comments many Americans have already!
‘Citizens of the world unite! You have only your own corrupt government to lose!’

]]>