Talk-Polywell.org

Aero wrote:

KitemanSA wrote: Aero, do you work in the technical field? Are you an engineer or a scientist or something like that? Do you charge more for your knowledge and skills than a McDonald's worker? Why don't you give away your hard earned knowledge? Are you "not nice". I would suspect that pretty much every engineer in the world is "not nice" by your usage; and more power to them!

@KitemanSA What pray tell, does that have to do with anything? Having been bested in debate you resort to name calling and misdirection.

...no, read the entire paragraph again, and pay attention this time. It's not ad hominem; it's actually part of his argument.

93143 wrote:

Aero wrote:

KitemanSA wrote: Aero, do you work in the technical field? Are you an engineer or a scientist or something like that? Do you charge more for your knowledge and skills than a McDonald's worker? Why don't you give away your hard earned knowledge? Are you "not nice". I would suspect that pretty much every engineer in the world is "not nice" by your usage; and more power to them!

@KitemanSA What pray tell, does that have to do with anything? Having been bested in debate you resort to name calling and misdirection.

...no, read the entire paragraph again, and pay attention this time. It's not ad hominem; it's actually part of his argument.

It is ad hominem - Appealing to personal considerations (rather than to fact or reason) - This to is generally frowned upon in polite circles as it is name calling by innuendo. And just how does such an appeal cause contract deliverable data to become proprietary?

It's an analogy, not an ad hominem. I won't get into whether or not it's a good one, but it's not what you think it is.

The argument as presented assumes you are, in fact, an educated technical worker. Perhaps you got insulted (and thus failed - twice - to finish reading and understanding the paragraph) because you aren't?

vankirkc wrote:

KitemanSA wrote:

GIThruster wrote: I love Tang. I don't make a penny from it, but I do love it, especially on backpacking trips. So what's wrong that USG paid to develop it and someone gains exclusive financial benefit from it? I get to drink it and that's enough reason for USG to have paid to develop it.

Ha! Someone gets it. What a joy to behold!

And besides, the folks that paid for the development got to use it where it was REALLY needed and not available before. Such a deal!

I don't believe that financing private ventures is an appropriate use of taxpayer funds. Who is to say that the Tang inventors couldn't have produced their drink with private funds? And what is the ultimate benefit to the taxpayer if they have to pay to develop the technology and then pay again to avail themselves of it. It's just silly.

Well, I hope you won't be offended if I ask what country you're from? The US is still based upon capitalism. You're espousing socialism. Here in the US, all the national labs, all the NASA centers, all the DOD installations, when they come upon a product or technology that can be patented and put into the commercial sector, this is exactly what they do. Whether they hold the patent or sign it over, the actual work of R&D, especially the D, and the work of commercialization--all goes out to the private sector. Typically staff at such a lab will leave their jobs and form a company so that they can manage this development.

When a national lab pioneers a method for providing a stoichiometrically consistent feeding apparatus for growing semiconductor crystals much more quickly and with fewer defects, they send that tech out to the private sector. When a lab figures a way to cryogenically form metals into liquids (Liquid Metal) the folks start up a new company. When high-tech stealth technology is being developed by LockMart, USAF pays the tab and builds them Area 51. It's not owned by USAF. It's owned and operated by LockMart.

That's what this capitalist system does. All this stuff happens in the private sector. It's truly the exception to the rule when someone like NASA keeps a patent and builds their own technology, and when something like that happens, that technology never makes it to the commercial zone for the benefit of all. Note the difference: when USG keeps the tech to themselves, only USG benefits. When the private sector takes the reigns, they typically seek as broad a market as law will allow.

GIThruster wrote:Well, I hope you won't be offended if I ask what country you're from? The US is still based upon capitalism. You're espousing socialism. Here in the US, all the national labs, all the NASA centers, all the DOD installations, when they come upon a product or technology that can be patented and put into the commercial sector, this is exactly what they do. Whether they hold the patent or sign it over, the actual work of R&D, especially the D, and the work of commercialization--all goes out to the private sector. Typically staff at such a lab will leave their jobs and form a company so that they can manage this development.

When a national lab pioneers a method for providing a stoichiometrically consistent feeding apparatus for growing semiconductor crystals much more quickly and with fewer defects, they send that tech out to the private sector. When a lab figures a way to cryogenically form metals into liquids (Liquid Metal) the folks start up a new company. When high-tech stealth technology is being developed by LockMart, USAF pays the tab and builds them Area 51. It's not owned by USAF. It's owned and operated by LockMart.

That's what this capitalist system does. All this stuff happens in the private sector. It's truly the exception to the rule when someone like NASA keeps a patent and builds their own technology, and when something like that happens, that technology never makes it to the commercial zone for the benefit of all. Note the difference: when USG keeps the tech to themselves, only USG benefits. When the private sector takes the reigns, they typically seek as broad a market as law will allow.

This sounds more like communism to me! You seem to be saying 'private sector' as a euphemism for 'secretive body funded by the government'.

BTW, let me note that this thread is misnamed. It was spawned based upon the FOIA dispute in another thread concerning the Poly, but the Poly work is NOT basic research. It's applied research and development, targeted at developing a commercial reactor. It's most certainly NOT basic research.

Sounds more like fascist or neo-corporatism than communism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatis ... orporatism

chrismb wrote:This sounds more like communism to me! You seem to be saying 'private sector' as a euphemism for 'secretive body funded by the government'.

Chris, there are both good and bad reasons for being secretive. In the case of a commercial endeavor, secrets are held because they are part of trade. Build a better mousetrap and you have ethical, morally justifiable reasons to keep some secrets. That's especially true of reactor development. Whoever finds the cure for our growing need for cheap energy is going to make a boatload of cash, and they deserve to, no matter where the money comes from. It's a GOOD thing, that USG pays for this sort of work when they believe it will yield broad benefits. If there's a problem with the system, it is most certainly that there are so many promising technologies on the horizon that USG is not supporting.

How is it we're all going with no news now for so long concerning the EESTOR tech? If OBama were serious about funding breakthrough technologies, surely, they would have given the EESTOR folks a leg up. We all NEED that technology and even if it were to not work out, it is still stupid as all get out that USG is not helping. . .not helping at all!

deane wrote:

GIThruster wrote:I love Tang. I don't make a penny from it, but I do love it, especially on backpacking trips. So what's wrong that USG paid to develop it and someone gains exclusive financial benefit from it? I get to drink it and that's enough reason for USG to have paid to develop it.

The US Government didn't pay to develop Tang. It was developed by General Foods in 1957 as a commercial product. It didn't sell very well until they convinced NASA to carry it on some of the Mercury and Gemini flights.

Yes well, do you know that General Foods didn't have an SBIR to develop Tang?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_spin-off

vankirkc wrote:Who is to say that the Tang inventors couldn't have produced their drink with private funds?

A similar product may well have been produced by private funds - but where was the incentive?

And what is the ultimate benefit to the taxpayer if they have to pay to develop the technology and then pay again to avail themselves of it. It's just silly.

You haven't thought that through. Its not like the product could be given away for free. There are also manufacturing costs. The public can't avoid "playing again." Even if the recipe was public domain, there are already enough similar competing products that it would not be any cheaper. So your point it moot. Its a consumerist market. The product price will be what the market will bear.

vankirkc wrote: I don't see what is so difficult to understand here. If EMC2 wants to develop a private energy system then all is well, they just shouldn't be asking the US government to finance that research...

I don't see what is so difficult to understand here. If the Navy wants to have a private company develop a unique energy system then all is well, they just shouldn't be demanding the private company give away its proprietary technologies to any yammermouth that comes along and demands to have it.

vankirkc wrote:and similarly, the US government shouldn't be financing private research either.

This one I can almost get behind, for any FED ORG EXCEPT the military which needs unique R&D.

vankirkc wrote: That's fine. The public funding should stop, though, since it's clearly a private project.

Fundamental question for you. Do you believe the military should be doing R&D?

If you see no legitimacy in military R&D, then perhaps your statement above holds merit. But if you think the military should be doing R&D, then this is a classic example of military R&D and, IMHO, should continue so long as there is a reasonable chance of success. That does NOT mean that the military will own the data, just the rights to use it without paying a licence fee.

Aero wrote:

KitemanSA wrote: Aero, do you work in the technical field? Are you an engineer or a scientist or something like that? Do you charge more for your knowledge and skills than a McDonald's worker? Why don't you give away your hard earned knowledge? Are you "not nice". I would suspect that pretty much every engineer in the world is "not nice" by your usage; and more power to them!

@KitemanSA What pray tell, does that have to do with anything? Having been bested in debate you resort to name calling and misdirection.

I am sorry. Seems little morality play was beyond you. Let me simplify.

You stated “EMC2's denial of the FOIA request is "not nice,"”.

EMC2 is in a technical field. They have worked long and hard to develop knowledge and skills in a specific field. This K&S is probably unique to EMC2.
If you work in a technical field:
you probably worked long and hard to develop technical knowledge and skills in a specific field. Your particular K&S is probably unique to you.

EMC2 gets paid to apply their K&S to the discovery of new K&S.
If you work in a technical field:
you probably get paid to apply your K&S to the solution of technical issues, even unto the development of more K&S.

EMC2 was asked to give away their K&S for free.
If you work in a technical field and you were asked to work for free…

EMC2 declined to reveal proprietary data that they had worked hard to develop.
You would probably decline to work for free.

You stated EMC2 was "not nice".
Ergo, by your usage, you would be "not nice".

Clear enough?

Oh, and you are probably bursting with the urge to proclaim, “but they were paid by the taxpayer to develop their K&S".
Unless you are from a REALLY rich family, I would suspect the taxpayer paid to develop YOUR K&S too. I would doubt you went to private schools ALL your life.

So, no name calling, no misdirection.

vankirkc wrote:

Betruger wrote:

vankirkc wrote: If the evidence is incomplete, why is money being spent on it? There are other pressing things to research that do not suffer from this problem. At the end of the day, you have to think of this as if it were your money (since it really is), and question whether you would spend that much money with so little to justify it.

Incomplete evidence that EMC2's doing what Chrismb suspects.

When it comes to public money, this should never be the case. The only guaranteed method of ensuring public resources are not wasted is to force them to be completely and utterly transparent. Where secrecy enters the picture, corruption and waste surely follow.

Yup, lets reveal all the designs to the SR71 and the Aurora hypersonic craft and the Seawolf sub and the A1W nuclear plant and the technology behind the new stealth systems, and the details on how to build a pocket nuke...

You have got to be kidding! You are, aren't you?

93143 wrote:

Aero wrote: @KitemanSA What pray tell, does that have to do with anything? Having been bested in debate you resort to name calling and misdirection.

...no, read the entire paragraph again, and pay attention this time. It's not ad hominem; it's actually part of his argument.

Thanks for trying. Think it will do any good?