Has the US gone communist yet? It's hard to tell.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There are confidentiality agreements that prevent me from naming them or their companies.

[/ QUOTE ]

Climate scientist + confidentiality agreements that prevent naming names

I know a lot of people at NOAA, WHOI, Cambridge and Goddard. I've NEVER heard of anything like this. One more thing I can't take seriously.

[ QUOTE ]
*** You are ignoring this user ***

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Again you would rather twist words than engage in a reasonable discussion. The confidentiality agreements and my work have nothing to do with climate studies, it has merely brought me into contact with those climatologists.

If you dont recognize that confidentiality agreements are used in any major corporoate financial study then you have no clue about how business is done.

I'll respond to substance, not this nonsense any longer. buh bye.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
I would put the microchip and dna technologies far above the ones you listed in terms of importance.

[/ QUOTE ]

I hope you are aware that a microchip is impossible without a transistor. I also hope you are aware that 99.9999999999999999% of DNA tech is also impossible without the aid of transistors. Also, the leap from vacuum tube to transistor took a lot more brainpower than simply printing multiple transistors on a sheet instead of just one.

Glad to see you are still avoiding my questions.

[kurto]

This guy is funny.

[ QUOTE ]
My life doesnt center around these boards. In fact a lot of the "board closure" thread and the new post by myrtle on board decorum make me wonder how pathetic the lives of some posters must be. Its a freaking internet bulletin board. On a scale of importance it ranks somewhere well below weeding the walkway.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is from a guy who has written close to 20% of this thread... who spends hours on the forum (how long does one think it took him to write his 25 posts yesterday? Many of them rathar lengthy) He then proceeds to call others on the forum pathetic for their attention to the forum.

[ QUOTE ]
On a scale of importance it ranks somewhere well below weeding the walkway.

[/ QUOTE ]

So... how much time to do you spend weeding the walkway?

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I would put the microchip and dna technologies far above the ones you listed in terms of importance.

[/ QUOTE ]

I hope you are aware that a microchip is impossible without a transistor. I also hope you are aware that 99.9999999999999999% of DNA tech is also impossible without the aid of transistors. Also, the leap from vacuum tube to transistor took a lot more brainpower than simply printing multiple transistors on a sheet instead of just one.

Glad to see you are still avoiding my questions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Layer on top of that quantum transistors being developed in government sponsored labs promises to be the next big leap in computing. AC type arguments that the market will always allocate resources to society's maximum advantage are naive beyond belief.

[natedogg]

The microchip has had a bigger impact than the transistor in my opinion. Identifying precursors to the important innovation is interesting but not relevant, since you can take this chain of reasoning all the way back to the first campfire in a cave, you realize that don't you? It's a silly argument and you should be able to see that, being a scientist and all.

natedogg

[natedogg]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I would put the microchip and dna technologies far above the ones you listed in terms of importance.

[/ QUOTE ]

I hope you are aware that a microchip is impossible without a transistor. I also hope you are aware that 99.9999999999999999% of DNA tech is also impossible without the aid of transistors. Also, the leap from vacuum tube to transistor took a lot more brainpower than simply printing multiple transistors on a sheet instead of just one.

Glad to see you are still avoiding my questions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Layer on top of that quantum transistors being developed in government sponsored labs promises to be the next big leap in computing. AC type arguments that the market will always allocate resources to society's maximum advantage are naive beyond belief.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let me repeat: I'm not an ACist. I have never argues that the market will allocate resources to "society's maximum advantage" (which is a normative statement anyway and therefore meaningless here, we're simply talking about the logic behind believing only federal research dollars can result in innovation)

regardless, I also do not care about *your* definition of society's maximum advantage whatever you think that means. It is coercion I care about. My definition of "society's maximum advantage" is the least amount of coercion.

All federal spending represents a loss of freedom, therefore I oppose it in most cases.

There is also no question that innovation occurs without govt spending, therefore it is only splitting hairs to argue about which innovations would or would not occur with the interfernce of the govt apparatchiks and the political battles that go into the allocation of the money.

And it is absurdly naive and woefully poor critical thinking to assume that since B follows A, B can only occur as a result of A. I.E> since the federal govt is spending money on quantum computing research only the federal govt can develop such innovations. To believe this is so utterly bereft of even elemental basic thinking skills that I have to wonder if i'm being trolled here.

natedogg

EDIT: let me clarify one thing. Arguing over 'maximum advantage to society' is a useless endeavor because it is a normative statement. Everyone has a different idea of what that means. This is the crux of the problem when you start ipmlementing public policy with "maximum advantage to society" in mind. Mao and Stalin also had that goal in mind do you see?

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
Let me repeat: I'm not an ACist. I have never argues that the market will allocate resources to "society's maximum advantage" (which is a normative statement anyway and therefore meaningless here, we're simply talking about the logic behind believing only federal research dollars can result in innovation)

[/ QUOTE ]

I am an "ACist" and I don't argue that the market will allocate resources to society's maximum advantage, either. It very well may turn out that way, and market distribution probably comes closer to maximum advantage than any forced distribution (if it's advantageous, why does it need to be forced?), but efficiency is not my motivation. Morality is.

[ QUOTE ]
All federal spending represents a loss of freedom, therefore I oppose it in most cases.

[/ QUOTE ]

You favor a loss of freedom in some cases?

[ QUOTE ]
EDIT: let me clarify one thing. Arguing over 'maximum advantage to society' is a useless endeavor because it is a normative statement. Everyone has a different idea of what that means. This is the crux of the problem when you start ipmlementing public policy with "maximum advantage to society" in mind. Mao and Stalin also had that goal in mind do you see?


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes! You realize that the argument from efficiency is essentially pointless, and that the argument from morality is much, much more important. Once you realize this, you are, for practical purposes, an ACist. You're just in denial. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Let me repeat: I'm not an ACist. I have never argues that the market will allocate resources to "society's maximum advantage" (which is a normative statement anyway and therefore meaningless here, we're simply talking about the logic behind believing only federal research dollars can result in innovation)

[/ QUOTE ]

I am an "ACist" and I don't argue that the market will allocate resources to society's maximum advantage, either. It very well may turn out that way, and market distribution probably comes closer to maximum advantage than any forced distribution (if it's advantageous, why does it need to be forced?), but efficiency is not my motivation. Morality is.

[ QUOTE ]
All federal spending represents a loss of freedom, therefore I oppose it in most cases.

[/ QUOTE ]

You favor a loss of freedom in some cases?

[ QUOTE ]
EDIT: let me clarify one thing. Arguing over 'maximum advantage to society' is a useless endeavor because it is a normative statement. Everyone has a different idea of what that means. This is the crux of the problem when you start ipmlementing public policy with "maximum advantage to society" in mind. Mao and Stalin also had that goal in mind do you see?


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes! You realize that the argument from efficiency is essentially pointless, and that the argument from morality is much, much more important. Once you realize this, you are, for practical purposes, an ACist. You're just in denial. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

morality is subjective and cant be the basis for allocating anything

[wacki]

"I'm not an ACist."

hrm.... you could of fooled me.



"All federal spending represents a loss of freedom"

taxes = theft.... gee that's in just about 100% of the AC threads. You and borodog make a lot of the exact same arguments.

"Mao and Stalin also had that goal in mind do you see?"

taxes = communism..... gee that's in just about 100% of the AC threads

lets make a list of what else you believe in.....


-against public schools
-against gov science funding
-you want to eliminate the FDA
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showfl...rue#Post2905496
-you seem to be against regulating restaurant cleanliness
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showfl...rue#Post3211890
***** classic thread ****** I love the title THE FREE MARKET WORKS!!!!!

-during oil spikes and animosity towards oil companies you make threads titled "gouge away, you can gouge away "
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...age=0&vc=1
to which andyfox responds "Did the Greeks and Romans have oligopolies and corporations that were bigger than most other countries?" **** classic thread ****

-against drug war
-against farm subsidies
-against many health care laws
- you want to eliminate the department of education
- you want to eliminate foreign aid
-you want to eliminate minimum wage laws
- you want to eliminate payroll tax
- you want to eliminate the withholding law
- you want the California Teachers Association to be abolished
- you make threads titled "thank you, price gougers "
-you are anti usury laws
-you confuse smalleys Apollo program with energy subsidies (which I agree are horrible) and waste
- you tend to think the Xprize is proof that NASA is incompetent
-constantly shouting “Free Market” is best, government is a waste. You even use Gandhi quotes to support your free market movement.
-you want to eliminate the commerce clause
-You want to eliminate social security
http://archiveserver.twoplustwo.com/...page=&vc=1
-you claim I am biased because I am a scientist seeking grant money. (even though I'm not grant funded right now)

I could go on but I think I made my point. I'm sure if I combed through your posts I could find plenty more but I think my memory is sufficient. Honestly, I wonder who has a higher "free market" vs post count. You or borodog?

It walks like a duck, it talks like a duck, it even looks like a duck. It sure seems to be a duck to me. BTW, I call you a quasi-AC'er not a full blown AC'er. So stop misquoting me.

[wacki]

pvn:

[ QUOTE ]
You're just in denial.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is your best post ever. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]



Copernicus:

After natedogg quoted your post, I must say I'm in shock. I simply didn't expect you to say that about grant funded research. AC'land and loyalty to oil seems to be the two primary motivations against AGW.