Originally posted by Vapataa slingshot shot does not exhibit controlled flight.
It turned out that Star Wars was about as effective as tring to hit a bird with a sling-shot from a mile away. The whole point was to drain the Soviets.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/THAAD
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Defense_Initiative
"Teller countered that Bethe and the other anti-defense activists could not have it both ways. Teller said Bethe had helped him usher in the nuclear age, had become opposed to nuclear weapons and afraid of nuclear war. But, Bethe was also opposed to stopping the threat of offensive capabilities through massive defensive programs. Teller testified before Congress that Bethe, "instead of objecting on scientific and technical grounds, which he thoroughly understands, he now objects on the grounds of politics, on grounds of military feasibility of military deployment, on other grounds of difficult issues which are quite outside the range of his professional cognizance or mine."
"
1 edit
Originally posted by scottishinnzsez the guy that would rather spend 125K on researching protein turnover in ryegrass than donate it to Live8.
Zeeb and his lot would say something along the lines of "hundreds of billions of dollars" is the harm in being cautious. This is the argument that you get from people who value money more than people.
hasn't anyone else ever looked at protein turnover?
how long of a shot is this longshot?
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by zeeblebotwhich is more usefull, giving people money so that they can buy food for a year from you or developing the means (with the same money) for them to feed themselves and sell on the excess for profit? also given that billions of people are currently lookinglike running out of water then food in the near future (next decade or two, not centuries) then crops which grow with less water and other similar developements might not be a bad idea.
sez the guy that would rather spend 125K on researching protein turnover in ryegrass than donate it to Live8.
hasn't anyone else ever looked at protein turnover?
how long of a shot is this longshot?
Originally posted by googlefudgethat's an awful lot of money to spend on crops that aren't going to be grown anyway cause a bunch of yokels crying "GM GM ..."
which is more usefull, giving people money so that they can buy food for a year from you or developing the means (with the same money) for them to feed themselves and sell on the excess for profit? also given that billions of people are currently lookinglike running out of water then food in the near future (next decade or two, not centuries) then crops which grow with less water and other similar developements might not be a bad idea.
Originally posted by scottishinnzOoof the hypocrisy of it, here he is gloating about all the OPM (other peoples money) he's spending. Have you ever thought where we'd be without money....what would happen?
Zeeb and his lot would say something along the lines of "hundreds of billions of dollars" is the harm in being cautious. This is the argument that you get from people who value money more than people.
http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=1826
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by Wajomamoney is an over complex system of barter. curently nesecery but will eventually be abandoned. money of it self is neither good nor bad it is as always the actions of people and the system that they work within that are of issue. the fact we currently have nothing better to replace it with does not make money a good system, simply the best system currently available, although that may be debateable I don't know which side of that debate I would come down on.
Ooof the hypocrisy of it, here he is gloating about all the OPM (other peoples money) he's spending. Have you ever thought where we'd be without money....what would happen?
http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=1826
Originally posted by googlefudgeDidn't read the link....nemind
money is an over complex system of barter. curently nesecery but will eventually be abandoned. money of it self is neither good nor bad it is as always the actions of people and the system that they work within that are of issue. the fact we currently have nothing better to replace it with does not make money a good system, simply the best system current ...[text shortened]... e, although that may be debateable I don't know which side of that debate I would come down on.
Originally posted by WajomaThere is no hypocracy. He is happy to have gotten grants to research something that could help us. He is merely saying that to some people, money is more important than the environment.
Ooof the hypocrisy of it, here he is gloating about all the OPM (other peoples money) he's spending. Have you ever thought where we'd be without money....what would happen?
http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=1826
Originally posted by WajomaThe grant was from a charitable trust, set up for the promotion of scientific research in agriculture. It was set up by a philanphropic gentleman who made a couple of million from having a good ryegrass variety on his land. Of course, he'd never have known it was good if there hadn't been government funded research scientists to tell him. So, you shuld be more than happy.
Ooof the hypocrisy of it, here he is gloating about all the OPM (other peoples money) he's spending. Have you ever thought where we'd be without money....what would happen?
http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=1826
You should know, of course, apart from AgMardt, this is the only place one can apply for funds, and to be honest, the amounts are tiny. Centralised funding is good for everyone. How long do you think businesses will stay in NZ and do their research in NZ if we don't have a highly trained, highly skilled workforce. Do you think these companies will stay if the government isn't investing in research? How do you train up young scientists except by research? And who has to pay for that, do you think? How many students will pay the $100,000 to do their PhD for the crappy wages you get out the other side?
Originally posted by scottishinnz"Centralised funding is good for everyone."
The grant was from a charitable trust, set up for the promotion of scientific research in agriculture. It was set up by a philanphropic gentleman who made a couple of million from having a good ryegrass variety on his land. Of course, he'd never have known it was good if there hadn't been government funded research scientists to tell him. So, you shu ...[text shortened]... dents will pay the $100,000 to do their PhD for the crappy wages you get out the other side?
Any person or business that puts more in than they take out and are in some way struggling to pay for something else eg, after school piano lessons for their kid, a new piece of machinery to keep their business competitive, car repairs for essential family transport.....on and on.....anything. None of these people are better off. What you're saying is that you know better how they must set their priorities. What you're saying is that you know better how to spend THEIR money. Oh that money is bad stuff alright....oops unless you're controling it eh scottish.
"How long do you think businesses will stay in NZ and...."
They will stay in NZ as long as it is profitable for them to do so, this is as it should be. A profitable business should pay for a non-profitable business that may even be in competition with them? sheeeee-it
"Do you think these companies will stay if...."
Yes, let companies keep some of the money that is now being spent on stuff that is not relevant to them. When a company looks at their budget there are some costs that are essential, utilities(purchasing a good or service at an agreed price), wages(employing people on the open market at an agreed price) and taxes(pay for someone to say the grass is good). Other costs marketing and R&D are flexible, GM is struggling in the States one of the first things to be trimmed....R&D.
"And who will pay for that, do you think?"
Anyone that stands to benefit from that research should pay. No-one else.
"How many students will pay..."
This suggests there is an over supply of crappy PhD's out the other side.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by Wajomahowever as discovery implies that you don't know what you will find or 'discover' and even less idea what benifits uses it will have at some future date then it is impossible to know in advance what it will be usefull for or whome it will be usefull too. you also don't nesecerilly know who stands to benifit from reasurch that does have a clear predefined aim. take reaserch into bionic lims, only usefull if you loose a limb. I would say that most people don't know that they will lose a limb very much in advance of it happening. any particular advance or discovery may not help you but it may help someone else, and what doesn't help them might help you, so everyone chips in a little bit for everything and everyone is entitled and able to reap whatever benifits they need or require.
"And who will pay for that, do you think?"
Anyone that stands to benefit from that research should pay. No-one else.
1 edit
Originally posted by WajomaWhy not move somewhere else, instead of complaining?
"Centralised funding is good for everyone."
Any person or business that puts more in than they take out and are in some way struggling to pay for something else eg, after school piano lessons for their kid, a new piece of machinery to keep their business competitive, car repairs for essential family transport.....on and on.....anything. None of these peop y..."
This suggests there is an over supply of crappy PhD's out the other side.
[edit; indeed, if you'd read my post concisely you'd note that the contribution the farmers make to research is too small to support the levels of investment that is put into the research that keeps farming, NZ's #1 industry, at the forefront worldwide. NZ companies, such as Fonterra, are making increasing proportions of their profits by exporting the business models and practices, researched using NZ public money, to other countries. You think NZ will supply the world with cheap lamb forever? You're dreaming mate. High quality products, and selling the know-how we've got in NZ is the future of the economy. No way can 4, 5, 6 or 8 million people exist on farming alone.]