Re: And this is why Science is a waste of money
When did medicine start being science…?
26130 publicly visible posts • joined 31 Dec 2009
The big difference is that we had to throw away a scanner and a bunch of printers when windows7 came out. When everybody goes to w10 we assume we are going to have to buy new printers etc.
Still have a couple of XP machines because we have a $25K bit of hardware purchased in 2012 that can only be controlled from 32bit XP
We would have had the same technologically led massive economic growth but it would have been concentrated in the hands of a few lucky owners of a few massive corporations.
Imagine if half the country's GDP and the only growth industries were owned and controlled by a handful of people who when they can't control government can simply ignore them.
And there is no job locally for the other half, and when you are made redundant in the next round of savings - what is there locally ?
Nobody lives in London, or New York, because they like it - it's because you can walk out of one job and into another without the whole family having to move across the country
Port of Felixstowe - where they invested massively to handle containers while every other traditional port was fighting to maintain it's old way of life..
Or Cambridge Science park - while the city council was blocking IBM building a chip fab near the city because it would industrialise the surrounding countryside.
It looks like olde-worlde Trinity are cutting silicon valley capitalists.
We have an extra terror here = Lawyers.
If the council pass a bylaw that restricts development in any way they are threatened with a lawsuit where even if they won it would cost our small town $$$$ to defend itself. And whenever they pass a bylaw that might allow any development they get hit by a threat of an environmental objections that would take years and cost $$$$.
The result is that nothing has happened for years - we might have invented the perfect form of government.
Alternately the council could give every other plot of land in Palo Alto permission to build a skyscraper - thus reducing the value of the mobile home park.
If the valley wanted to cure the housing problem all it has to do is give automatic planning permission to any development that will increase density. Then the marker will decide how many $10M mansions, $250K single homes and $100K studio apartments the city needs.
So on one side of a road you have houses so astronomically expensive that people are spending 2/3 of their income paying the mortgage, leaving them too poor to spend anything in the local economy, leading to stagflation.
And on the other side of the road you have fields that the farmer is being paid to keep empty because the crops they would grow are already so cheap it wouldn't be worth adding to the stockpile.
And yet the government can't give planning permission to build houses on the land because ?????
Remember though in small town America the local council is directly elected as individuals - not just a block of lib-dems or labour depending on which lot in Westminster you are currently mad at.
So the local council is often stacked with local business owners (who else can afford to run and take an unpaid post).
Our little town almost bankrupted itself 10years ago by buying a bunch of land to develop houses on. The sale of the houses would pay for the roads, water, sewage etc that it had to build first - it completed the empty lots in 2008 just into the housing crash.
Now a block of local property developers got elected and not wanting any competition to their existing market - the lots are still empty, we are paying for the infrastructure, we are paying for the loans, and we still have a shortage of housing.
It's also where the free market and Bentham-ism align.
If you wanted to create the greatest good for the greatest number of people you would sell the land to the highest bidder and let them create as many apartments as they could fit onto the land. The poor disposed would then benefit from the drop in house prices in surrounding areas as people there are able to move into the city.
Deciding that some tiny minority of the poor are allowed to live in rent controlled apartments in Manhattan or a council house in Chelsea is silly. It's like solving the problem of public transit by giving 1 person in a million a free Rolls Royce.
Competitor control.
Driverless cars are going to reduce the number of cars sold, especially small cars.
You aren't going to need a 2nd car if a driverless Car2Go/Uber will pick you up and take you to the shops.
So VW, Toyota, GM and other makers of small cars are buying up the infrastructure to stop it getting out.
It was even funnier last time they lost the records of all federal employees.
They signed everyone affected up for free credit record checks and announced in the press that your login details would be your name and the last digits of your SSN - the very details the breach had stolen.,,,,
Depends on whether you intend surviving beyond the next quarter.
If you want the company to be around in 100years and want the staff that will allow you to beat the next startup that can offer the same product 0.1% cheaper - then a little ethics can help.
Yes, we used to be taught calculus at O-level, now I have physics undergrads starting that haven't done any calculus at A level.
Not their fault, the system is for the schools to pick the options that gets the easiest good grades and we choose to admit the kids with the highest grades.
And any new design or modification has to pass expensive testing and licensing, you have to find distributors to stock it, you have to renegotiate supply contracts with insurance companies hospitals and national health services. All for a gadget that you might sell one or two per doctor per lifetime.
You can make an opthalmascope (light for looking into eye) from a pen torch and bit of silver foil and a pin hole - but buying a "proper one" still costs a few $100