|
|
#61
07-24-2006, 07:30 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Has the US gone communist yet? It\'s hard to tell.
[ QUOTE ]
Heck, even the Borgata cost $1 billion just to erect, and that's a casino! [/ QUOTE ] Not relevant. Not novel. And sure as hell didn't take decades to build. [ QUOTE ] pharmaceutical companies invest upwards of $40 billion before a dime is returned on it [/ QUOTE ] Can you show me a drug that took $40 billion? The average is "Discovering and bringing one new drug to the public typically costs a pharmaceutical or biotechnology company nearly $900 million and takes an average of 10 to 12 years." http://www.ppdi.com/corporate/faq/ab...pment/home.htm Keep in mind most of those 12 years are clinical trials and not "discovery". There is a huge difference. The longer the discovery cycle the bigger the risk. Drugs also have the convenience of patents being applied immediatly after discovery is finished and not before. This is not true of projects like fusion where multiple patents will be filed during a couple of decades of research. 
|
|
#62
07-24-2006, 07:40 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Has the US gone communist yet? It\'s hard to tell.
[ QUOTE ]
If Wacki doesnt think that a company will make that kind of investment to corner the market in a viable and potentially profitable competitive technology he's.....Wacki [/ QUOTE ] So you are saying fusion isn't viable? Or potentially profitable?
|
|
#63
07-24-2006, 08:27 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Has the US gone communist yet? It\'s hard to tell.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] If Wacki doesnt think that a company will make that kind of investment to corner the market in a viable and potentially profitable competitive technology he's.....Wacki [/ QUOTE ] So you are saying fusion isn't viable? Or potentially profitable? [/ QUOTE ] I'm not saying either. I am saying if Exxon thought it was viable and potentially profitable they would be working on it.
|
|
#64
07-24-2006, 10:22 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Has the US gone communist yet? It\'s hard to tell.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] If Wacki doesnt think that a company will make that kind of investment to corner the market in a viable and potentially profitable competitive technology he's.....Wacki [/ QUOTE ] So you are saying fusion isn't viable? Or potentially profitable? [/ QUOTE ] I'm not saying either. I am saying if Exxon thought it was viable and potentially profitable they would be working on it. [/ QUOTE ] They also may decide not to invest in it because they think the government might fund it for them.
|
|
#65
07-25-2006, 11:20 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Has the US gone communist yet? It\'s hard to tell.
[ QUOTE ]
Unless you work in pharma as a janitor that is. [/ QUOTE ] This reminded me, Copernicus, you said previously that you work for a couple of climate scientists. I don't think I ever caught their names. Which climate scientists are they?
|
|
#66
07-25-2006, 12:15 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Has the US gone communist yet? It\'s hard to tell.
lol I forgot about that feeney. You seem to ask this question a lot.
You mentioned before that you work for some climatologists, or something to that effect. I'll ask again, who are these climate scientists you work for? http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showfl...rue#Post6064233 What climatologists do you work for? http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...age=0&vc=1 What climatologists do you work for? http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...age=0&vc=1 None of which have been answered. So far he claims energy, pharma, telecom and a climatologist on his CV. That CV would be an interesting read for sure. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]
|
|
#67
07-25-2006, 12:56 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Has the US gone communist yet? It\'s hard to tell.
Just for the sake of continuing to lift the blindfold off of your head:
[ QUOTE ] Show me a project similar to ITER that has been accomplished in history using private funds. [/ QUOTE ] Leading pharm's invest over $50 billion in 2005 alone Company may make $6 billion alternative fuel investment IBM announces $6 billion dollar investment Ford plans $1.84 billion hybrid car investment GM's $6.1 billion, 10 year investment Ford's 6 year, $9.2 billion investment in plants
|
|
#68
07-25-2006, 01:19 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Has the US gone communist yet? It\'s hard to tell.
[ QUOTE ]
Leading pharm's invest over $50 billion in 2005 alone [/ QUOTE ] 1) this includes every drug from every company on the planet. Not relevant. Not a single tech. Average cost of drugs in 900 million not multibillion. Also see my explanation of drugs above. [ QUOTE ] Company may make $6 billion alternative fuel investment [/ QUOTE ] 6 billion for coal to oil. This is absolutely horrible for the environment and will cause a several hundred billion dollar increase in the US's medical expenses alone. This is still fossil fuels and not really "alternative" energy. This also doesn't qualify for the novel tech and delayed ROI requirements of my challenge. [ QUOTE ] IBM announces $6 billion dollar investment [/ QUOTE ] "The $6 billion investment announced Tuesday will go towards cost of work-force, expansion of IBM's facilities in the country, " Are you just googling for billion or what? Workforce != novel tech. Factory != delayed ROI. [ QUOTE ] Ford plans $1.84 billion hybrid car investment [/ QUOTE ] um......... what part about "ZERO ROI for at least 20 years" do you not understand? We are selling hybrids now. Maybe this will allow them to catch up with these highschool dropouts though. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/...n1329941.shtml [ QUOTE ] GM's $6.1 billion, 10 year investment [/ QUOTE ] um..... same as above. Was my retort to your casino not clear enough? [ QUOTE ] Ford's 6 year, $9.2 billion investment in plants [/ QUOTE ] Um, you don't have to read the article to figure out why this one doesn't qualify. You are really killing me here. Keep trying, but before you do try reading my instructions about 5 more times.
|
|
#69
07-25-2006, 02:15 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Has the US gone communist yet? It\'s hard to tell.
[ QUOTE ]
lol I forgot about that feeney. You seem to ask this question a lot. You mentioned before that you work for some climatologists, or something to that effect. I'll ask again, who are these climate scientists you work for? http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showfl...rue#Post6064233 What climatologists do you work for? http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...age=0&vc=1 What climatologists do you work for? http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...age=0&vc=1 None of which have been answered. So far he claims energy, pharma, telecom and a climatologist on his CV. That CV would be an interesting read for sure. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img] [/ QUOTE ] This is the first time I saw the question. I didnt say I work FOR climatologists, I said I have consulted to organizations which include climatologists, and have had the opportunity to discuss the issues with them. Without naming the organizations themselves, the focus of their work was quite a bit different. One was involved in measurement devices with technology that is used directly in establishing historical terrestrial climate changes. The other was involved with satellites, space exploration and atmospheric conditions that support/promote and help sustain life. I no longer work with the telecom companies, so can name them...ATT, Lucent, Avaya, 4 of the original RBOCs, and Verizon. On the energy side Unocal, Caltex Petroleum, and several Southwest/Western utilities.
|
|
#70
07-25-2006, 02:30 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Has the US gone communist yet? It\'s hard to tell.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Unless you work in pharma as a janitor that is. [/ QUOTE ] This reminded me, Copernicus, you said previously that you work for a couple of climate scientists. I don't think I ever caught their names. Which climate scientists are they? [/ QUOTE ] Having not seen your prior questions, I had not seen this gem: [ QUOTE ] A commion but fallacious argument. Would you say you should not summarily dismiss articles by the scientists hired by tobacco companies to "refute" the link between smoking and lung cancer? [/ QUOTE ] You are the one promoting a logical fallacy here, circumstantial ad hominen. You cannot logically dismiss an argument/position based on the prior history of the source. Every argument has to be considered based on its own merits. So no, you cannot summarily dismiss the findings of scientists hired by tobacco companies solely on that basis. Even worse than the resulting logical fallacy, to do so would present a nearly insurmountable roadblock to science. Every scientist and/or scientific project can be claimed to be biased in the area being studied...all work could be dismissed with a waive of circumstantial ad hominen. Global warming is the perfect example. Anyone hired by an energy company or the government is dismissed by one side for the bias of their employers, and anyone on the environmental Wacki side of the coin (pun intended) is dismissed as being hoplesessly biased to not report findings that would obviate their training and lifes work.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
