News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:We have socialised the risk of innovation but privatised ... by robotresearcher on Monday March 09, 2015 @01:39AM (#9169338)
I'd feel less comfortable without NASA, NIH, and DARPA, since I have benefitted a great deal from the work they sponsored. I doubt very much I would have had those benefits so soon without these grossly inefficient agencies that have no idea what they are doing carelessly spending other people's money on creating the space age, the Internet age, and the age of genomics respectively.

I don't believe for a second that private investment would have done these earlier or better if the greedy government had stolen less tax money from you.

edit: downvotes yay! Please enjoy using the Internet to show your distain for giving credit for revolutionary federally-funded technology projects.

Re:We have socialised the risk of innovation but privatised ... by dnautics on Monday March 09, 2015 @03:05AM (#9169610)
>I'd feel less comfortable without NASA, NIH, and DARPA, since I have benefitted a great deal from the work they sponsored. I doubt very much I would have had those benefits so soon without these grossly inefficient agencies... I don't believe for a second that private investment would have done these earlier.

“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” -Upton Sinclair

Interestingly, one of your examples, genomics, is exactly contradicted by Celera. At the time of inception the human genome project was slated to take 20 years! (We'd only be halfway done with it now). Say what you want about their idiotic and immoral business model - patenting and licensing human genes - the "private arm" of the human genomics project pushed for shotgun sequencing and got the genome sequenced in 3 years; and the hapmap shortly thereafter.

Re:We have socialised the risk of innovation but privatised ... by robotresearcher on Monday March 09, 2015 @01:14PM (#9172207)
The Celera example is a good one, and you are right they did speed up genomics in a specific way. I'm certain they used many people trained-in-NIH-funded-labs and built directly on NIH-funded work, but it's still a good point.

The "idiotic and immoral business model" is seriously not cool though. Clinton banned patenting human genes directly, which might make pure capitalists cross.

Re:We have socialised the risk of innovation but privatised ... by nmrm2 on Monday March 09, 2015 @10:04AM (#9170945)
> “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” -Upton Sinclair

The author met that they've benefited in the sense that we all have benefited.

I very much doubt that there are many people in the world who have directly benefited (i.e., received grants from) all of NASA, the NIH, and DARPA.

Re:We have socialised the risk of innovation but privatised ... by dnautics on Monday March 09, 2015 @02:44PM (#9172902)
Even if the benefit is indirect, it's still hard to see how alternatives are possible, even when the evidence is right there in front of you. Did you even know we eradicated two diseases without the NIH (Smallpox, eliminated in the US by 1897, long before the NIH existed) - and Polio, eliminated through the private nonprofit March of Dimes.
Re:We have socialised the risk of innovation but privatised ... by tsotha on Monday March 09, 2015 @02:13AM (#9169452)
Of the three, I think private investment would have done better than the first two. Even DARPA is notable for a handful of home runs that may have been just luck.
Re:We have socialised the risk of innovation but privatised ... by Fede_V on Monday March 09, 2015 @11:00AM (#9171252)
You realize that is exactly the model of VC? :) You bet on a lot of very long shots, but the few mega successes pay off sufficiently to make it all worth it.
Re:We have socialised the risk of innovation but privatised ... by tsotha on Monday March 09, 2015 @07:52PM (#9174950)
Right. Are VC's normally using public money?
Re:We have socialised the risk of innovation but privatised ... by robotresearcher on Monday March 09, 2015 @01:04PM (#9172144)
But since the first two actually did it, it's up to you to convince me of that.

For bonus points, try to do your job today without making use of federally-bootstrapped technology.

edit: also, Fede_V's sibling comment is spot-on.

Re:We have socialised the risk of innovation but privatised ... by tsotha on Monday March 09, 2015 @07:54PM (#9174959)
>But since the first two actually did it...

Did what?

Re:We have socialised the risk of innovation but privatised ... by anaolykarpov on Monday March 09, 2015 @02:19AM (#9169470)
If it wasnt for the cold war and the space race, I really doubt that NASA would have ever been created. Should we seek for another cold war because its a medium in which some kind of innovation occur? So are regular wars? Should we demand our states to start wars because technology advances during those times?
Re:We have socialised the risk of innovation but privatised ... by nmrm2 on Monday March 09, 2015 @10:11AM (#9170987)
Or we could demand our states care as much about advancing human knowledge during peace time as they do during war time.
Re:We have socialised the risk of innovation but privatised ... by marknutter on Monday March 09, 2015 @07:14AM (#9170295)
Would you feel less comfortable without the NSA? Or put another way, are you just cherry-picking the agencies you happen to like in order to make your point?
Re:We have socialised the risk of innovation but privatised ... by robotresearcher on Monday March 09, 2015 @12:59PM (#9172108)
No, I just don't know much about the NSA (and maybe they like it that way) and I mentioned the ones I am most confident about.

If you're asking if the federal government has wasted a lot of my money on things I don't like: sure they have. First, that's not the topic at hand, and second, private ventures also waste fortunes on stupid things, and sometimes with my money e.g. pension funds.

Re:We have socialised the risk of innovation but privatised ... by nmrm2 on Monday March 09, 2015 @10:12AM (#9170997)
The NSA's primary charter is security, not science. Science that happens at the NSA is a happy accident.

NASA and the NIH are explicitly research-focused. And DARPA may be part of DOD, but its charter is right in the name -- advanced research.