News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Why You Don't “Fucking Love Science” by hvs on Thursday September 19, 2013 @04:19PM (#6413991)
Or you could stop relying on the government -- who is broke, mind you -- to fund your livelihood.
Re:Why You Don't “Fucking Love Science” by jofer on Thursday September 19, 2013 @04:29PM (#6414070)
The problem is that corporations simply aren't going to fund pure research.

Part of the role of government is to fund research that may not pay off for 20 years, or 50 years, or a century.

Corporations do indeed do a large amount of R&D, but it's much more focused, and needs to impact the bottom line on a much shorter timeframe (say ~5 years).

Because of this, there's a large amount of very important research that will never be funded by anything other than a quasi-governmental organization.

Re:Why You Don't “Fucking Love Science” by dnautics on Thursday September 19, 2013 @04:34PM (#6414112)
> corporations simply aren't going to fund pure research.

Not all corporations are for-profit.

> Part of the role of government is to fund research that may not pay off for 20 years, or 50 years, or a century.

What? Can you point to me where it says that?

Re:Why You Don't “Fucking Love Science” by jofer on Thursday September 19, 2013 @04:36PM (#6414129)
To be fair, I guess that's partly my political leanings showing through.

Who else will fund it, though?

As far as the non-profit angle, that's what I was implying by quasi in "quasi-governmental". I definitely could have worded that better, though.

Re:Why You Don't “Fucking Love Science” by dnautics on Thursday September 19, 2013 @04:47PM (#6414197)
there are plenty of non-profit, non-governmental scientific efforts. SETI (yes, it piggybacked on some government instruments) is the best well-known one. Peter Mitchell came up with the pure "basic-science" chemiosmotic theory, founded a nonprofit research institute (Glyn Research Ltd http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_D._Mitchell) to prove and validate it. He subsequently won the nobel prize for his efforts.

HHMI also does this at its in-house Janelia Farms campus.

Not basic science, but Salk and Sabin developed the polio vaccines without much federal help (via march of dimes, a nonprofit) - and didn't even patent their vaccines.

Much basic science in the pre-1940 era was funded internally by the research institutes they were at.

And there are basic science foundations that get the patronage of industry, just because, they're so gosh derned nice, and some that do limited basic science on the side while doing applied that passes patents onto the for-profit (lucent/bell labs, Xerox PARC).

Re:Why You Don't “Fucking Love Science” by akgerber on Thursday September 19, 2013 @05:32PM (#6414465)
Bell Labs and PARC both are from a long-gone era where high tax rates meant the government would tax away high dividends or executive pay, which made empire building more appealing: http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2012/07/24/xerox_parc_an...
Re:Why You Don't “Fucking Love Science” by dnautics on Thursday September 19, 2013 @05:35PM (#6414477)
All the same, I'd rather have a more distributed, private, independent basic science effort. But then again, I'm biased, as that's what my nonprofit is trying to do.
Re:Why You Don't “Fucking Love Science” by NovemberWest on Thursday September 19, 2013 @04:33PM (#6414103)
Hmmm. Wondering what else we can do here that would be viable.
Re:Why You Don't “Fucking Love Science” by seehafer on Thursday September 19, 2013 @04:31PM (#6414083)
These guys are acting on that premise and ought to be supported:

https://www.microryza.com/

Re:Why You Don't “Fucking Love Science” by robmclarty on Thursday September 19, 2013 @04:22PM (#6414015)
Use your PhD to figure out a way to advance science at a profit. Bootstrap that shit ;)
Re:Why You Don't “Fucking Love Science” by dnautics on Thursday September 19, 2013 @04:29PM (#6414063)
not everything has to be "for profit", even!
Re:Why You Don't “Fucking Love Science” by scott_karana on Thursday September 19, 2013 @05:11PM (#6414345)
Yes, but there need to be at least as much incoming cash as outgoing, or there's a net deficit.
Re:Why You Don't “Fucking Love Science” by dnautics on Thursday September 19, 2013 @05:18PM (#6414393)
so, government science spending?