Hacker News Reader

Comment by crocowhile | Hacker News Reader

Government sucks at innovation? What are you talking about? Pretty much everything that is basic science is paid by government in every nation. It is govt that gave us the internet, the bomb, and the man on the moon. Virtually every nobel prize in history has been given to people who worked for public universities.

View on HN

See my other reply:

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1465601

That's not really fair. The government funds more than "development of military technology".

What percentage of the technologies that people cite as being made possible by the government were developed for non-military purposes?

Edit: The NSF started out as a way of enhancing military research: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Science_Foundation

What's wrong with the NSF starting that way? Are they not a significant source of funds for "basic science" research?

Even if you want to be cynical about this issue, haven't we been doing this long enough to know that research for military purposes often translates to advances in non-military applications?

EDIT: and don't get me wrong; I would love to see some shift in the way funds are allocated.

My point isn't that central coordination doesn't work, it was just that central coordination is extremely unsophisticated and is typically not a source of added insight, just a source of funds.

In my experience in academe, researchers tailor their work to what the NSF is funding, not what they consider most interesting/important.

1) Please show me "pretty much everything" that government developed in the last 30 years. http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1465878 2) "Man on the moon" is pretty much useless for us. 3) Government didn't give us Internet as we know it now. Not even close. Government contributed may be ~1% into Internet (if even that). Considering how much that contribution costs to taxpayers every year -- government performance looks pretty bleak.

1) I have been working as researcher for the past 12 years or so (cancer and neurobiology). Pretty much everything in the field of medical science is founded mainly by public money: this goes for salary and research money. Private contribution is quite minimal and proximal to zero in basic research.

2) Wut? Do you have any idea on the level of technological transfer that space research brings to your everyday life? This goes from materials that keep your home warm to GPS, really.

3) dude, arpanet is a project of DARPA. WWW is a project of CERN. I got money from DARPA and I study fruitflies for god sake.

You have no idea what you're talking about.

1) I see now where misunderstanding is coming from. I'm stating that government is poor at innovating. You are stating that government is a good source of funding. These statements do not contradict to each other. I agree that government funds lots of projects. It's just that practical results are not impressive at all.

2) Considering the cost of "Man on the Moon" project, the benefits for us are pretty slim. If I take from you, say, $10K, and then give you back $3K, I can claim that you should be happy, because I'm helping you by giving $3K. Right? 3) CERN is NOT a government.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com