Never heard of Scientific American until now (firmware engineer). Guess thats the point, they want publicity.
Two posts in a row. You must really want publicity. Scientific American is a very old publication and is not really something that would be considered obscure on a site like slashdot.
A college I once attended had really old editions of Scientific American in the stacks. In the 19th century it was the kind of print publication with technical diagrams and new patents on the front page. It was a vigorous can-do kind of magazine.
It's become more the effete intellectual kind of journal that Eisenhower warned against when he spoke of the scientific-technological elite [intellectualtakeout.org]. Yes, in that same speech where the much more quoted 'military-industrial complex' bromide was created.
As much as I dislike the military-industrial complex, it has provided a ton of jobs for engineers and manufacturers. It's one of the most successful socialist institutions (unfortunately we sacrifice things like universal healthcare to keep it going and it's an environmental nightmare). Our large investments in research have likewise paid off—government money has funded most of the basic research that has propelled America to the status of a global tech leader. I'm sure Eisenhower had Oppenheimer and Einstein in mind when he made the "scientific-technological elite" remark. His lament about the solitary inventor being overshadowed by task forces of scientists indicates that he didn't really understand science and was romanticizing a time when it was inefficient and disorganized.
It's funny that the article you cite claims the opposite—that innovation only thrives when government gets out of the way—but the history of major scientific advancement has been rooted in government dollars going to research institutes, military contractors, and direct government research like NASA. The best example of free market science is the Enlightenment period, when most scientists were curious aristocrats. We're sort of recreating that situation with our current wealth disparities, as we become dependent on private foundations like the Gates Foundation to fund research. Personally, I find the mid/late-20th century model of government funded research to be preferable.
Never heard of them (Score:0, Troll)
Re: (Score:5, Insightful)
Never heard of Scientific American until now (firmware engineer). Guess thats the point, they want publicity.
Two posts in a row. You must really want publicity. Scientific American is a very old publication and is not really something that would be considered obscure on a site like slashdot.
Re: (Score:1)
A college I once attended had really old editions of Scientific American in the stacks. In the 19th century it was the kind of print publication with technical diagrams and new patents on the front page. It was a vigorous can-do kind of magazine.
It's become more the effete intellectual kind of journal that Eisenhower warned against when he spoke of the scientific-technological elite [intellectualtakeout.org]. Yes, in that same speech where the much more quoted 'military-industrial complex' bromide was created.
Re:Never heard of them (Score:3)
As much as I dislike the military-industrial complex, it has provided a ton of jobs for engineers and manufacturers. It's one of the most successful socialist institutions (unfortunately we sacrifice things like universal healthcare to keep it going and it's an environmental nightmare). Our large investments in research have likewise paid off—government money has funded most of the basic research that has propelled America to the status of a global tech leader. I'm sure Eisenhower had Oppenheimer and Einstein in mind when he made the "scientific-technological elite" remark. His lament about the solitary inventor being overshadowed by task forces of scientists indicates that he didn't really understand science and was romanticizing a time when it was inefficient and disorganized.
It's funny that the article you cite claims the opposite—that innovation only thrives when government gets out of the way—but the history of major scientific advancement has been rooted in government dollars going to research institutes, military contractors, and direct government research like NASA. The best example of free market science is the Enlightenment period, when most scientists were curious aristocrats. We're sort of recreating that situation with our current wealth disparities, as we become dependent on private foundations like the Gates Foundation to fund research. Personally, I find the mid/late-20th century model of government funded research to be preferable.