<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_06_10_2317238</id>
	<title>Why Isn't the US Government Funding Research?</title>
	<author>samzenpus</author>
	<datestamp>1244651400000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>thesandbender writes <i>"The recent post about GM opening its own battery research facility led me to wonder why the US government is pouring billions into buying companies instead of heavily funding useful research.  You can give $10 billion to a company to squander or you can invest $10 billion into a battery research and just give the findings to the whole of the US industry for free.  From a historical standpoint, the US government has little experience with commercial enterprise ... but has an amazing record for driving innovation.  The Manhattan Project and the Apollo moon missions are two of the pinnacles of 20th century scientific achievement, yet it seems to me that this drive died in the '70s and that's when the US started its slow decline. To be true to the 'Ask Slashdot' theme, what practical research do you think the US government should embark upon to get the most return for its citizens and the world?"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>thesandbender writes " The recent post about GM opening its own battery research facility led me to wonder why the US government is pouring billions into buying companies instead of heavily funding useful research .
You can give $ 10 billion to a company to squander or you can invest $ 10 billion into a battery research and just give the findings to the whole of the US industry for free .
From a historical standpoint , the US government has little experience with commercial enterprise ... but has an amazing record for driving innovation .
The Manhattan Project and the Apollo moon missions are two of the pinnacles of 20th century scientific achievement , yet it seems to me that this drive died in the '70s and that 's when the US started its slow decline .
To be true to the 'Ask Slashdot ' theme , what practical research do you think the US government should embark upon to get the most return for its citizens and the world ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>thesandbender writes "The recent post about GM opening its own battery research facility led me to wonder why the US government is pouring billions into buying companies instead of heavily funding useful research.
You can give $10 billion to a company to squander or you can invest $10 billion into a battery research and just give the findings to the whole of the US industry for free.
From a historical standpoint, the US government has little experience with commercial enterprise ... but has an amazing record for driving innovation.
The Manhattan Project and the Apollo moon missions are two of the pinnacles of 20th century scientific achievement, yet it seems to me that this drive died in the '70s and that's when the US started its slow decline.
To be true to the 'Ask Slashdot' theme, what practical research do you think the US government should embark upon to get the most return for its citizens and the world?
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289927</id>
	<title>Fuck Fusion; push micro power and efficiency</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244661120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The purpose of government in markets and research is to ensure that externalities are manifested in the market (pollution costs etc.) and to promote long-term research needs which would not be worth the investment for companies which have a much shorter time horizon (darpa being a huge success IMO).</p><p>Hot fusion research is a huge waste; we already have one, it's called the sun and will continue to power our earth for millions more years. Even if it does pan out we still have huge industrial sized installations+transmission and storage problems. Bleah.</p><p>I'm not a big believer in cold-fusion, but if it pans out, it's probably worth the risk of a few million a year. We should be working on industrial bio-fuels (not that ridiculously inefficient corn ethanol crap). Micro-power generation using fuels/bio-fuels could distribute power generation and lay the foundation for better efficiencies throughout the world without the need for huge infrastructure projects. More efficient transmission and storage methods would be worthwhile investments for long-term research. Also research into more efficient buildings, efficient urban transportation systems, more efficient urban design research would be beneficial.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The purpose of government in markets and research is to ensure that externalities are manifested in the market ( pollution costs etc .
) and to promote long-term research needs which would not be worth the investment for companies which have a much shorter time horizon ( darpa being a huge success IMO ) .Hot fusion research is a huge waste ; we already have one , it 's called the sun and will continue to power our earth for millions more years .
Even if it does pan out we still have huge industrial sized installations + transmission and storage problems .
Bleah.I 'm not a big believer in cold-fusion , but if it pans out , it 's probably worth the risk of a few million a year .
We should be working on industrial bio-fuels ( not that ridiculously inefficient corn ethanol crap ) .
Micro-power generation using fuels/bio-fuels could distribute power generation and lay the foundation for better efficiencies throughout the world without the need for huge infrastructure projects .
More efficient transmission and storage methods would be worthwhile investments for long-term research .
Also research into more efficient buildings , efficient urban transportation systems , more efficient urban design research would be beneficial .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The purpose of government in markets and research is to ensure that externalities are manifested in the market (pollution costs etc.
) and to promote long-term research needs which would not be worth the investment for companies which have a much shorter time horizon (darpa being a huge success IMO).Hot fusion research is a huge waste; we already have one, it's called the sun and will continue to power our earth for millions more years.
Even if it does pan out we still have huge industrial sized installations+transmission and storage problems.
Bleah.I'm not a big believer in cold-fusion, but if it pans out, it's probably worth the risk of a few million a year.
We should be working on industrial bio-fuels (not that ridiculously inefficient corn ethanol crap).
Micro-power generation using fuels/bio-fuels could distribute power generation and lay the foundation for better efficiencies throughout the world without the need for huge infrastructure projects.
More efficient transmission and storage methods would be worthwhile investments for long-term research.
Also research into more efficient buildings, efficient urban transportation systems, more efficient urban design research would be beneficial.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28298053</id>
	<title>Why bother.</title>
	<author>pottymouth</author>
	<datestamp>1244750160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Most of what they have they stole from the US anyway...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Most of what they have they stole from the US anyway.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most of what they have they stole from the US anyway...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289293</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28291291</id>
	<title>...because the US is bankrupt</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244723700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You can only spend so much money that you don't have... The US regime needs to cut spending, not increase it.<br>The US Federal Debt is approaching the levels required to trigger a major default. The US regime can't go on borrowing to pay its creditors for ever. There will come a point when there will be a run on the Dollar, or alternately, the US government will start printing money in supertanker loads, causing massive hyperinflation and a monumental crash in the value of the dollar.<br>Either way, the US is heading the major economic turmoil. The banking mess is only a small patch of sleaze, around the edges of a crumbling regime.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You can only spend so much money that you do n't have... The US regime needs to cut spending , not increase it.The US Federal Debt is approaching the levels required to trigger a major default .
The US regime ca n't go on borrowing to pay its creditors for ever .
There will come a point when there will be a run on the Dollar , or alternately , the US government will start printing money in supertanker loads , causing massive hyperinflation and a monumental crash in the value of the dollar.Either way , the US is heading the major economic turmoil .
The banking mess is only a small patch of sleaze , around the edges of a crumbling regime .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can only spend so much money that you don't have... The US regime needs to cut spending, not increase it.The US Federal Debt is approaching the levels required to trigger a major default.
The US regime can't go on borrowing to pay its creditors for ever.
There will come a point when there will be a run on the Dollar, or alternately, the US government will start printing money in supertanker loads, causing massive hyperinflation and a monumental crash in the value of the dollar.Either way, the US is heading the major economic turmoil.
The banking mess is only a small patch of sleaze, around the edges of a crumbling regime.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28300563</id>
	<title>also as obvious...</title>
	<author>Rue C Koegel</author>
	<datestamp>1244715720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><tt>... as everything else is to everyone else, it's obvious to me that all of earths societies problems can be solved if all nations work together to fund and encourage the use of functional non-profits throughout all forms of industry.<br><br>all manufacturers of all goods and all providers of all services, except judicial services and legislature, could in fact be small localized society serving non-profit entities. it's important that these non-profits stay small, as to limit the transportation of goods, the breadth of their control, and to maximize their ability to employ and service the needs of as many people as possible. it's also important to maintain a government and judicial system separate from the business sector, but equally focused of servicing the welfare of society, only without the responsibility of maintaining its physical needs; health care, transportation systems, entertainment, et cetera.<br><br>through such a system all goods and services could be manufactured and distributed at cost, plus a minor amount to cover taxes and possible fluctuations in up front costs. any excess money accrued after some time could then be redistributed to other non-profits via a massive International Non-Profit Monetary Fund. i include the possibility for the need for taxes here because the legislative and judicial system must also be funded, and should all businesses eventually become non-profits those non-profits would then need to aide in providing funding for those governmental systems.<br><br>i could be more specific about details, but i don't really see a need... non-profits were the first types of businesses formed both in general and within the USA after it's founding. they are obviously the most sustainable business model known currently to man, and should obviously be adopted en masse if man does in fact intend on sustaining itself indefinitely.<br><br>our current capitalist endeavors have consistently been proven to be counterproductive to our success as a species, despite how they may be made to be otherwise through the description of all the wondrous things that have been produced so swiftly by our capitalist industry... consider what more could have been produce if all proceeds from the the sale of all those wondrous things could have been used to further research toward more advanced technologies and products, or services.<br><br>we could all finally have universal health care, internationally. we could all finally have environmentally savvy vehicles, internationally. we could all finally receive a decent level of education, internationally. we could all finally have access to the best entertainment media and technologies; there would be no need for two businesses to compete over sales for their MP3 players, all manufacturers of MP3 players would simply all use the best technologies available to them to create several devices with a varied array of capabilities in order to suit the many needs of their users. there would be no need for copyrights, other than possibly to protect the right of an individual (human not corporate) to maintain the right to earn a living off their creations or ideas.<br><br>we might even find a strong sense of unity and peace, internationally.<br><br>or we could just remain as we are today, at war with ourselves over petty ideals and wealth... you decide.</tt></htmltext>
<tokenext>... as everything else is to everyone else , it 's obvious to me that all of earths societies problems can be solved if all nations work together to fund and encourage the use of functional non-profits throughout all forms of industry.all manufacturers of all goods and all providers of all services , except judicial services and legislature , could in fact be small localized society serving non-profit entities .
it 's important that these non-profits stay small , as to limit the transportation of goods , the breadth of their control , and to maximize their ability to employ and service the needs of as many people as possible .
it 's also important to maintain a government and judicial system separate from the business sector , but equally focused of servicing the welfare of society , only without the responsibility of maintaining its physical needs ; health care , transportation systems , entertainment , et cetera.through such a system all goods and services could be manufactured and distributed at cost , plus a minor amount to cover taxes and possible fluctuations in up front costs .
any excess money accrued after some time could then be redistributed to other non-profits via a massive International Non-Profit Monetary Fund .
i include the possibility for the need for taxes here because the legislative and judicial system must also be funded , and should all businesses eventually become non-profits those non-profits would then need to aide in providing funding for those governmental systems.i could be more specific about details , but i do n't really see a need... non-profits were the first types of businesses formed both in general and within the USA after it 's founding .
they are obviously the most sustainable business model known currently to man , and should obviously be adopted en masse if man does in fact intend on sustaining itself indefinitely.our current capitalist endeavors have consistently been proven to be counterproductive to our success as a species , despite how they may be made to be otherwise through the description of all the wondrous things that have been produced so swiftly by our capitalist industry... consider what more could have been produce if all proceeds from the the sale of all those wondrous things could have been used to further research toward more advanced technologies and products , or services.we could all finally have universal health care , internationally .
we could all finally have environmentally savvy vehicles , internationally .
we could all finally receive a decent level of education , internationally .
we could all finally have access to the best entertainment media and technologies ; there would be no need for two businesses to compete over sales for their MP3 players , all manufacturers of MP3 players would simply all use the best technologies available to them to create several devices with a varied array of capabilities in order to suit the many needs of their users .
there would be no need for copyrights , other than possibly to protect the right of an individual ( human not corporate ) to maintain the right to earn a living off their creations or ideas.we might even find a strong sense of unity and peace , internationally.or we could just remain as we are today , at war with ourselves over petty ideals and wealth... you decide .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... as everything else is to everyone else, it's obvious to me that all of earths societies problems can be solved if all nations work together to fund and encourage the use of functional non-profits throughout all forms of industry.all manufacturers of all goods and all providers of all services, except judicial services and legislature, could in fact be small localized society serving non-profit entities.
it's important that these non-profits stay small, as to limit the transportation of goods, the breadth of their control, and to maximize their ability to employ and service the needs of as many people as possible.
it's also important to maintain a government and judicial system separate from the business sector, but equally focused of servicing the welfare of society, only without the responsibility of maintaining its physical needs; health care, transportation systems, entertainment, et cetera.through such a system all goods and services could be manufactured and distributed at cost, plus a minor amount to cover taxes and possible fluctuations in up front costs.
any excess money accrued after some time could then be redistributed to other non-profits via a massive International Non-Profit Monetary Fund.
i include the possibility for the need for taxes here because the legislative and judicial system must also be funded, and should all businesses eventually become non-profits those non-profits would then need to aide in providing funding for those governmental systems.i could be more specific about details, but i don't really see a need... non-profits were the first types of businesses formed both in general and within the USA after it's founding.
they are obviously the most sustainable business model known currently to man, and should obviously be adopted en masse if man does in fact intend on sustaining itself indefinitely.our current capitalist endeavors have consistently been proven to be counterproductive to our success as a species, despite how they may be made to be otherwise through the description of all the wondrous things that have been produced so swiftly by our capitalist industry... consider what more could have been produce if all proceeds from the the sale of all those wondrous things could have been used to further research toward more advanced technologies and products, or services.we could all finally have universal health care, internationally.
we could all finally have environmentally savvy vehicles, internationally.
we could all finally receive a decent level of education, internationally.
we could all finally have access to the best entertainment media and technologies; there would be no need for two businesses to compete over sales for their MP3 players, all manufacturers of MP3 players would simply all use the best technologies available to them to create several devices with a varied array of capabilities in order to suit the many needs of their users.
there would be no need for copyrights, other than possibly to protect the right of an individual (human not corporate) to maintain the right to earn a living off their creations or ideas.we might even find a strong sense of unity and peace, internationally.or we could just remain as we are today, at war with ourselves over petty ideals and wealth... you decide.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289609</id>
	<title>ITER</title>
	<author>stevedcc</author>
	<datestamp>1244657940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>ITER is the world's best chance of obtaining almost infinite amounts of clean energy.  Most of the recent press about the National Ignition Facility has ignored one key fact - the NIF is about creating fusion explosions to model bombs.  Sure, it can also be used for fusion power research, but that's not the primary reason it received it's funding.  ITER is about developing commercial fusion using a tokamak.</p><p>Also, the way the US cancelled all funding for ITER for 2008 was pretty disgusting.  If a country becomes a partner in such large science projects, they need to stick with it, rather than screwing everyone around</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>ITER is the world 's best chance of obtaining almost infinite amounts of clean energy .
Most of the recent press about the National Ignition Facility has ignored one key fact - the NIF is about creating fusion explosions to model bombs .
Sure , it can also be used for fusion power research , but that 's not the primary reason it received it 's funding .
ITER is about developing commercial fusion using a tokamak.Also , the way the US cancelled all funding for ITER for 2008 was pretty disgusting .
If a country becomes a partner in such large science projects , they need to stick with it , rather than screwing everyone around</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ITER is the world's best chance of obtaining almost infinite amounts of clean energy.
Most of the recent press about the National Ignition Facility has ignored one key fact - the NIF is about creating fusion explosions to model bombs.
Sure, it can also be used for fusion power research, but that's not the primary reason it received it's funding.
ITER is about developing commercial fusion using a tokamak.Also, the way the US cancelled all funding for ITER for 2008 was pretty disgusting.
If a country becomes a partner in such large science projects, they need to stick with it, rather than screwing everyone around</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289395</id>
	<title>Re:Its simple....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244656260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What about fire departments, hospitals, police, and electricity?  I would say that pretty much anything that a person "NEEDS" on a day to day basis should be government owned, and available to all at no cost.  I would put police, fire, and health services above roads, personally.  You need the first three to ensure a decent quality of life.  Roads ensure a decent standard of living by encouraging trade.  Which is where the submitter was going with funding research.  It will help boost the standard of living by inventing new technology for the public.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What about fire departments , hospitals , police , and electricity ?
I would say that pretty much anything that a person " NEEDS " on a day to day basis should be government owned , and available to all at no cost .
I would put police , fire , and health services above roads , personally .
You need the first three to ensure a decent quality of life .
Roads ensure a decent standard of living by encouraging trade .
Which is where the submitter was going with funding research .
It will help boost the standard of living by inventing new technology for the public .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What about fire departments, hospitals, police, and electricity?
I would say that pretty much anything that a person "NEEDS" on a day to day basis should be government owned, and available to all at no cost.
I would put police, fire, and health services above roads, personally.
You need the first three to ensure a decent quality of life.
Roads ensure a decent standard of living by encouraging trade.
Which is where the submitter was going with funding research.
It will help boost the standard of living by inventing new technology for the public.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289341</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289923</id>
	<title>Re:Why Isn't the US Government Funding Research?</title>
	<author>nido</author>
	<datestamp>1244661060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>We Don't Have Any Money!</p></div><p>Exactly. And why don't we have any money? BECAUSE THE BANKS WON'T LEND IT TO US!</p><p>The obvious followup question is, why are we dependent on banks to create money?</p><p>So that we can better concentrate wealth, of course!</p><p>There's a better way to <a href="http://www.monetary.org/" title="monetary.org">create money</a> [monetary.org], of course, but the plutocracy won't be happy...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>We Do n't Have Any Money ! Exactly .
And why do n't we have any money ?
BECAUSE THE BANKS WO N'T LEND IT TO US ! The obvious followup question is , why are we dependent on banks to create money ? So that we can better concentrate wealth , of course ! There 's a better way to create money [ monetary.org ] , of course , but the plutocracy wo n't be happy.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We Don't Have Any Money!Exactly.
And why don't we have any money?
BECAUSE THE BANKS WON'T LEND IT TO US!The obvious followup question is, why are we dependent on banks to create money?So that we can better concentrate wealth, of course!There's a better way to create money [monetary.org], of course, but the plutocracy won't be happy...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289371</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289577</id>
	<title>let corporations do it</title>
	<author>circletimessquare</author>
	<datestamp>1244657700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>3x the investment, 1/4 the bureaucracy, none of the political risk, none of the cost</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>3x the investment , 1/4 the bureaucracy , none of the political risk , none of the cost</tokentext>
<sentencetext>3x the investment, 1/4 the bureaucracy, none of the political risk, none of the cost</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28290601</id>
	<title>Re:Its simple....</title>
	<author>dangitman</author>
	<datestamp>1244712480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The government exists to pave roads, protect the borders, pick up the trash (at least in my city), and maintain parks. Public water is a good idea too. Everything else is a waste of good tax payer dollars. The more dollars that are in your pocket the more you can spend on things that drive innovation.</p></div><p>That's your opinion. My opinion is that the government is there to serve society, and if research is what society wants, then there's nothing wrong with the government undertaking it.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>How is getting some public governmental research entity started going to be remotely cost effective and efficient, because we all know that government departments are the model of efficiency?</p></div><p>Plenty of governments around the world carry out certain activities in an efficient and cost-effective manner, often much more effective than the private sector.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The government exists to pave roads , protect the borders , pick up the trash ( at least in my city ) , and maintain parks .
Public water is a good idea too .
Everything else is a waste of good tax payer dollars .
The more dollars that are in your pocket the more you can spend on things that drive innovation.That 's your opinion .
My opinion is that the government is there to serve society , and if research is what society wants , then there 's nothing wrong with the government undertaking it.How is getting some public governmental research entity started going to be remotely cost effective and efficient , because we all know that government departments are the model of efficiency ? Plenty of governments around the world carry out certain activities in an efficient and cost-effective manner , often much more effective than the private sector .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The government exists to pave roads, protect the borders, pick up the trash (at least in my city), and maintain parks.
Public water is a good idea too.
Everything else is a waste of good tax payer dollars.
The more dollars that are in your pocket the more you can spend on things that drive innovation.That's your opinion.
My opinion is that the government is there to serve society, and if research is what society wants, then there's nothing wrong with the government undertaking it.How is getting some public governmental research entity started going to be remotely cost effective and efficient, because we all know that government departments are the model of efficiency?Plenty of governments around the world carry out certain activities in an efficient and cost-effective manner, often much more effective than the private sector.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289341</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28290103</id>
	<title>Resilient Homes</title>
	<author>Woodengineer</author>
	<datestamp>1244662980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They actually fund my research for creating homes that can survive natural (and some other) disasters. They also fund my other research on recycling wood in homes into bio-fuels. So it's out there (in fact the DOE has some pretty huge grant programs going right now). More money for the scientific community is definitely needed however.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They actually fund my research for creating homes that can survive natural ( and some other ) disasters .
They also fund my other research on recycling wood in homes into bio-fuels .
So it 's out there ( in fact the DOE has some pretty huge grant programs going right now ) .
More money for the scientific community is definitely needed however .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They actually fund my research for creating homes that can survive natural (and some other) disasters.
They also fund my other research on recycling wood in homes into bio-fuels.
So it's out there (in fact the DOE has some pretty huge grant programs going right now).
More money for the scientific community is definitely needed however.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28299673</id>
	<title>...or you can not be a Socialist</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244712660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or you can leave the 10 Billion in the pockets of those that earned it and they'll go out and spend it on innovative products and the market will thrive and more innovative products will be released.</p><p>Or you can be a Socialist and take that which others earn and invest in research like why men like sex, why fruit flies eat fruit and making glowing cats. Government research seldom results in true broad reaching innovations that affect the consumer market.</p><p>There are some good examples from NASA like Tang, cordless power tools, golf ball aerodynamics, and scratch-resistant lenses.</p><p>Of course currently our new Administration is busy cutting NASA funding. I highly doubt giving a failed motor company like GM that has had years to develop alternative fuel systems is going to result in innovative products.</p><p>There are already many other companies working on alternative fuel products and some viable solutions out. Like Honda's FCV. A European designe car being built in India powered by compressed air and battery based cars from many other sources.</p><p>Perhaps, that 10 Billion would be better spent by the people who EARNED it and not a Federal government that can't even run a simple retirement fund.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or you can leave the 10 Billion in the pockets of those that earned it and they 'll go out and spend it on innovative products and the market will thrive and more innovative products will be released.Or you can be a Socialist and take that which others earn and invest in research like why men like sex , why fruit flies eat fruit and making glowing cats .
Government research seldom results in true broad reaching innovations that affect the consumer market.There are some good examples from NASA like Tang , cordless power tools , golf ball aerodynamics , and scratch-resistant lenses.Of course currently our new Administration is busy cutting NASA funding .
I highly doubt giving a failed motor company like GM that has had years to develop alternative fuel systems is going to result in innovative products.There are already many other companies working on alternative fuel products and some viable solutions out .
Like Honda 's FCV .
A European designe car being built in India powered by compressed air and battery based cars from many other sources.Perhaps , that 10 Billion would be better spent by the people who EARNED it and not a Federal government that ca n't even run a simple retirement fund .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or you can leave the 10 Billion in the pockets of those that earned it and they'll go out and spend it on innovative products and the market will thrive and more innovative products will be released.Or you can be a Socialist and take that which others earn and invest in research like why men like sex, why fruit flies eat fruit and making glowing cats.
Government research seldom results in true broad reaching innovations that affect the consumer market.There are some good examples from NASA like Tang, cordless power tools, golf ball aerodynamics, and scratch-resistant lenses.Of course currently our new Administration is busy cutting NASA funding.
I highly doubt giving a failed motor company like GM that has had years to develop alternative fuel systems is going to result in innovative products.There are already many other companies working on alternative fuel products and some viable solutions out.
Like Honda's FCV.
A European designe car being built in India powered by compressed air and battery based cars from many other sources.Perhaps, that 10 Billion would be better spent by the people who EARNED it and not a Federal government that can't even run a simple retirement fund.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28300597</id>
	<title>Is it Private or Public Values/ROI...?</title>
	<author>OldHawk777</author>
	<datestamp>1244715840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is it better to buy private agenda research or fund public domain research?<br>Is it better to rule US or serve US?<br>Is it better to regurgitate dogma or think?<br>Is it better to treat a disease or cure a disease?<br>Is it better to be a greedy gorilla or creative human?<br>Is it better to support private interest or public interest?<br>Is it better to get welfare money or provide value for money?<br>Is it better to protect dogs/cats or provide child health care?<br>Is it better to praise mega-church Lords or feed/educate children?<br>Is it better to have large privatized government or public governance?<br>Is it better to fear all the unknowns or live life discovering the unknown?<br>WELL! Is it better for them or for US, EU, and others?<br>Is it better to create drug-war economies or prevent crime/murder?<br>Is it better to have a dogma-war or disenfranchise dogmatist from politics?</p><p>===<br>What about Wars for abstract concepts (nation dominoes, drugs/power economics, ain'ts/is's gods...), do they count?</p><p>Religion is a very abstract, maybe hallucinatory, concept for war and genocide.</p><p>Religions and political/corporate institutional dogma is at war with Public Governance (Democracy, I think), meritocracy economics (Capitalism, I think), and seeking global draconian-welfare entitlement authority by blame-storming with other low-IQ agreeable-dogmatist.</p><p>Soon we may just whoops ourselves into extinction, while we point at you!</p><p>The quality of life (debt, pollution, corruption, war, crime, unemployment...) we leave for our children is "DOGMA" based, and your own god-damn faults.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is it better to buy private agenda research or fund public domain research ? Is it better to rule US or serve US ? Is it better to regurgitate dogma or think ? Is it better to treat a disease or cure a disease ? Is it better to be a greedy gorilla or creative human ? Is it better to support private interest or public interest ? Is it better to get welfare money or provide value for money ? Is it better to protect dogs/cats or provide child health care ? Is it better to praise mega-church Lords or feed/educate children ? Is it better to have large privatized government or public governance ? Is it better to fear all the unknowns or live life discovering the unknown ? WELL !
Is it better for them or for US , EU , and others ? Is it better to create drug-war economies or prevent crime/murder ? Is it better to have a dogma-war or disenfranchise dogmatist from politics ? = = = What about Wars for abstract concepts ( nation dominoes , drugs/power economics , ain'ts/is 's gods... ) , do they count ? Religion is a very abstract , maybe hallucinatory , concept for war and genocide.Religions and political/corporate institutional dogma is at war with Public Governance ( Democracy , I think ) , meritocracy economics ( Capitalism , I think ) , and seeking global draconian-welfare entitlement authority by blame-storming with other low-IQ agreeable-dogmatist.Soon we may just whoops ourselves into extinction , while we point at you ! The quality of life ( debt , pollution , corruption , war , crime , unemployment... ) we leave for our children is " DOGMA " based , and your own god-damn faults .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is it better to buy private agenda research or fund public domain research?Is it better to rule US or serve US?Is it better to regurgitate dogma or think?Is it better to treat a disease or cure a disease?Is it better to be a greedy gorilla or creative human?Is it better to support private interest or public interest?Is it better to get welfare money or provide value for money?Is it better to protect dogs/cats or provide child health care?Is it better to praise mega-church Lords or feed/educate children?Is it better to have large privatized government or public governance?Is it better to fear all the unknowns or live life discovering the unknown?WELL!
Is it better for them or for US, EU, and others?Is it better to create drug-war economies or prevent crime/murder?Is it better to have a dogma-war or disenfranchise dogmatist from politics?===What about Wars for abstract concepts (nation dominoes, drugs/power economics, ain'ts/is's gods...), do they count?Religion is a very abstract, maybe hallucinatory, concept for war and genocide.Religions and political/corporate institutional dogma is at war with Public Governance (Democracy, I think), meritocracy economics (Capitalism, I think), and seeking global draconian-welfare entitlement authority by blame-storming with other low-IQ agreeable-dogmatist.Soon we may just whoops ourselves into extinction, while we point at you!The quality of life (debt, pollution, corruption, war, crime, unemployment...) we leave for our children is "DOGMA" based, and your own god-damn faults.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289855</id>
	<title>Solar Power</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244660280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why try fusion here on Earth? We've got access to a massive fusion reactor that spews out terrawatts of free power, every second, every day for another 5 billion or so years. (give or take a few) Harnessing the sun, at a cheap price, will change humanity, and it should be viewed as our next step. All other problems are far more easily solved with a massive, free energy supply. Of course, it can't be free, but good sturdy funding can help us crack the expense of solar. It's such an obvious power source that it's.... blinding<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why try fusion here on Earth ?
We 've got access to a massive fusion reactor that spews out terrawatts of free power , every second , every day for another 5 billion or so years .
( give or take a few ) Harnessing the sun , at a cheap price , will change humanity , and it should be viewed as our next step .
All other problems are far more easily solved with a massive , free energy supply .
Of course , it ca n't be free , but good sturdy funding can help us crack the expense of solar .
It 's such an obvious power source that it 's.... blinding : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why try fusion here on Earth?
We've got access to a massive fusion reactor that spews out terrawatts of free power, every second, every day for another 5 billion or so years.
(give or take a few) Harnessing the sun, at a cheap price, will change humanity, and it should be viewed as our next step.
All other problems are far more easily solved with a massive, free energy supply.
Of course, it can't be free, but good sturdy funding can help us crack the expense of solar.
It's such an obvious power source that it's.... blinding :)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289439</id>
	<title>Strange story</title>
	<author>imneverwrong</author>
	<datestamp>1244656560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>why the US government is pouring billions into buying companies instead of heavily funding useful research. You can give $10 billion to a company to squander or you can invest $10 billion into a battery research and just give the findings to the whole of the US industry for free</p></div><p>You're linking two not-really-related issues. Bailouts for large companies are intended to avoid a chain reaction of collapses and thus preserve economic confidence. Publicly funded <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue\_skies\_research" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">"Blue Sky"</a> [wikipedia.org] research will provide for very long term improvements to the human race from scientific progress. If you're wanting to increase the money supply to prevent a recession, you're better off allocating the cash to areas that can absorb them readily (such as construction and consumer finance). Or just get Ben Bernanke a helicopter...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>why the US government is pouring billions into buying companies instead of heavily funding useful research .
You can give $ 10 billion to a company to squander or you can invest $ 10 billion into a battery research and just give the findings to the whole of the US industry for freeYou 're linking two not-really-related issues .
Bailouts for large companies are intended to avoid a chain reaction of collapses and thus preserve economic confidence .
Publicly funded " Blue Sky " [ wikipedia.org ] research will provide for very long term improvements to the human race from scientific progress .
If you 're wanting to increase the money supply to prevent a recession , you 're better off allocating the cash to areas that can absorb them readily ( such as construction and consumer finance ) .
Or just get Ben Bernanke a helicopter.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>why the US government is pouring billions into buying companies instead of heavily funding useful research.
You can give $10 billion to a company to squander or you can invest $10 billion into a battery research and just give the findings to the whole of the US industry for freeYou're linking two not-really-related issues.
Bailouts for large companies are intended to avoid a chain reaction of collapses and thus preserve economic confidence.
Publicly funded "Blue Sky" [wikipedia.org] research will provide for very long term improvements to the human race from scientific progress.
If you're wanting to increase the money supply to prevent a recession, you're better off allocating the cash to areas that can absorb them readily (such as construction and consumer finance).
Or just get Ben Bernanke a helicopter...
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28302575</id>
	<title>Re:Baby Boomers</title>
	<author>coopersnick</author>
	<datestamp>1244725620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I blame the baby-boomers, they were raised on idea of continual gain of benefits.  Whether it was from capitalism, increased government benefits, or lower taxes.  They continually have driven everything out of total self interest an screw society.</p><p>You say I am crazy?  It was not my generation that,</p></div><p>So what generation are you? Generation X is now having their turn to fuck up the world, I'm sure they are going to do a far better job than the Boomers.

I'm sure.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I blame the baby-boomers , they were raised on idea of continual gain of benefits .
Whether it was from capitalism , increased government benefits , or lower taxes .
They continually have driven everything out of total self interest an screw society.You say I am crazy ?
It was not my generation that,So what generation are you ?
Generation X is now having their turn to fuck up the world , I 'm sure they are going to do a far better job than the Boomers .
I 'm sure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I blame the baby-boomers, they were raised on idea of continual gain of benefits.
Whether it was from capitalism, increased government benefits, or lower taxes.
They continually have driven everything out of total self interest an screw society.You say I am crazy?
It was not my generation that,So what generation are you?
Generation X is now having their turn to fuck up the world, I'm sure they are going to do a far better job than the Boomers.
I'm sure.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289415</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28291863</id>
	<title>What about SBIRs?</title>
	<author>erikvcl</author>
	<datestamp>1244728260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The government funds lots of research.  What about SBIRs?</p><p><a href="http://www.sbir.gov/" title="sbir.gov" rel="nofollow">http://www.sbir.gov/</a> [sbir.gov]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The government funds lots of research .
What about SBIRs ? http : //www.sbir.gov/ [ sbir.gov ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The government funds lots of research.
What about SBIRs?http://www.sbir.gov/ [sbir.gov]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28290223</id>
	<title>Spneding money on research..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244750940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...would make too much sense.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...would make too much sense .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...would make too much sense.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28310701</id>
	<title>Re:What research we should do</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244831520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We need to stimulate THE ELECTRIC CAR INDUSTRY.  Build them ONE BY ONE for a NICHE MARKET to allow the Industry to GROW and COMPETE with Gas Guzzlers.</p><p>See our proposal desperately in need of YOUR SUPPORT HERE.  DOE is not doing their job.</p><p>http://www.america2inc.com/proposal.htm</p><p>WRITE YOUR CONGRESSMAN today.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We need to stimulate THE ELECTRIC CAR INDUSTRY .
Build them ONE BY ONE for a NICHE MARKET to allow the Industry to GROW and COMPETE with Gas Guzzlers.See our proposal desperately in need of YOUR SUPPORT HERE .
DOE is not doing their job.http : //www.america2inc.com/proposal.htmWRITE YOUR CONGRESSMAN today .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We need to stimulate THE ELECTRIC CAR INDUSTRY.
Build them ONE BY ONE for a NICHE MARKET to allow the Industry to GROW and COMPETE with Gas Guzzlers.See our proposal desperately in need of YOUR SUPPORT HERE.
DOE is not doing their job.http://www.america2inc.com/proposal.htmWRITE YOUR CONGRESSMAN today.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28291313</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28290645</id>
	<title>Re:The US does spend money on research LOTS OF IT</title>
	<author>jmcbain</author>
	<datestamp>1244712960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I agree, this was an extremely ignorant question. Even more amazing are the replies (e.g. "we just need a big, old-fashioned war" to fund research, "The government exists to pave roads"). Have these folks never been to college and graduate school? Have they never heard of the National Science Foundation? DARPA? National Institute of Health? The Department of Energy? NASA? Who do you think is paying for the Space Shuttle, Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, and several thousand grad student salaries?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree , this was an extremely ignorant question .
Even more amazing are the replies ( e.g .
" we just need a big , old-fashioned war " to fund research , " The government exists to pave roads " ) .
Have these folks never been to college and graduate school ?
Have they never heard of the National Science Foundation ?
DARPA ? National Institute of Health ?
The Department of Energy ?
NASA ? Who do you think is paying for the Space Shuttle , Lawrence Livermore Laboratory , and several thousand grad student salaries ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree, this was an extremely ignorant question.
Even more amazing are the replies (e.g.
"we just need a big, old-fashioned war" to fund research, "The government exists to pave roads").
Have these folks never been to college and graduate school?
Have they never heard of the National Science Foundation?
DARPA? National Institute of Health?
The Department of Energy?
NASA? Who do you think is paying for the Space Shuttle, Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, and several thousand grad student salaries?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289829</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28304817</id>
	<title>Re:That's Obvious</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244748000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I get tired of (in particular European) psuedo-intellectuals who proclaim a general distain for US foreign policy while they sit in the luxury provided by the protection of the US defense forces.  I get tired of the people who believe that the US should never intervene themselves in foreign conflict, or alternatively believe that the US should involve itself in every foreign conflict.  The US won the cold war not by physically conquering the Russian state but by ensuring that enough countries around the world remained free so as to be able to destroy communism through economy instead of bombs.<br>
&nbsp;</p> </div><p>Hail US, the saviour of humanity and the force against injustice!<br>It cannot be farther from truth that the US won by supporting (or, blissfully ignoring) the Islamic Extremism that rocked Russia back at the time of the Cold War. The fact remains, that US pokes its nose into those places only, where there is a huge opportunity of expanding its post world-war economic colonialism. And, yes, the Europeans do leave in the luxury of protection provided by US security policies, but, it would be a terrible mistake to assume that same reasons stand true for Middle East and Asia. The US is just hungry for more economic power. Wait, till US gets a chance (which seems an impossibilty now) to declare the government of China a dictatorship, and turns local forces in Taiwan, Tibet and neighborhoods against her. And, when that becomes unmanageable, the US will come ranting in the name of security and peace for India, Japan, Pakistan and Russia.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I get tired of ( in particular European ) psuedo-intellectuals who proclaim a general distain for US foreign policy while they sit in the luxury provided by the protection of the US defense forces .
I get tired of the people who believe that the US should never intervene themselves in foreign conflict , or alternatively believe that the US should involve itself in every foreign conflict .
The US won the cold war not by physically conquering the Russian state but by ensuring that enough countries around the world remained free so as to be able to destroy communism through economy instead of bombs .
  Hail US , the saviour of humanity and the force against injustice ! It can not be farther from truth that the US won by supporting ( or , blissfully ignoring ) the Islamic Extremism that rocked Russia back at the time of the Cold War .
The fact remains , that US pokes its nose into those places only , where there is a huge opportunity of expanding its post world-war economic colonialism .
And , yes , the Europeans do leave in the luxury of protection provided by US security policies , but , it would be a terrible mistake to assume that same reasons stand true for Middle East and Asia .
The US is just hungry for more economic power .
Wait , till US gets a chance ( which seems an impossibilty now ) to declare the government of China a dictatorship , and turns local forces in Taiwan , Tibet and neighborhoods against her .
And , when that becomes unmanageable , the US will come ranting in the name of security and peace for India , Japan , Pakistan and Russia .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I get tired of (in particular European) psuedo-intellectuals who proclaim a general distain for US foreign policy while they sit in the luxury provided by the protection of the US defense forces.
I get tired of the people who believe that the US should never intervene themselves in foreign conflict, or alternatively believe that the US should involve itself in every foreign conflict.
The US won the cold war not by physically conquering the Russian state but by ensuring that enough countries around the world remained free so as to be able to destroy communism through economy instead of bombs.
  Hail US, the saviour of humanity and the force against injustice!It cannot be farther from truth that the US won by supporting (or, blissfully ignoring) the Islamic Extremism that rocked Russia back at the time of the Cold War.
The fact remains, that US pokes its nose into those places only, where there is a huge opportunity of expanding its post world-war economic colonialism.
And, yes, the Europeans do leave in the luxury of protection provided by US security policies, but, it would be a terrible mistake to assume that same reasons stand true for Middle East and Asia.
The US is just hungry for more economic power.
Wait, till US gets a chance (which seems an impossibilty now) to declare the government of China a dictatorship, and turns local forces in Taiwan, Tibet and neighborhoods against her.
And, when that becomes unmanageable, the US will come ranting in the name of security and peace for India, Japan, Pakistan and Russia.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28292139</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28294217</id>
	<title>The Bushista: there's not immediateROI</title>
	<author>whitroth</author>
	<datestamp>1244736780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can say for a fact (speaking to someone who supports a government agency, and knows, but I should not name), that the Obama administration *has* started pumping money, both straight and as part of the stimulus, directly into actual research.</p><p>Dick "Halliburton's profits" Cheney and George "vacationing on my photo-op ranch" Bush saw no profits in it; besides, it might want to do or say something that conflicts with their Christian supporters.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; mark</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I can say for a fact ( speaking to someone who supports a government agency , and knows , but I should not name ) , that the Obama administration * has * started pumping money , both straight and as part of the stimulus , directly into actual research.Dick " Halliburton 's profits " Cheney and George " vacationing on my photo-op ranch " Bush saw no profits in it ; besides , it might want to do or say something that conflicts with their Christian supporters .
          mark</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can say for a fact (speaking to someone who supports a government agency, and knows, but I should not name), that the Obama administration *has* started pumping money, both straight and as part of the stimulus, directly into actual research.Dick "Halliburton's profits" Cheney and George "vacationing on my photo-op ranch" Bush saw no profits in it; besides, it might want to do or say something that conflicts with their Christian supporters.
          mark</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289357</id>
	<title>Medical research</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244655900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It seems to me that the first and heaviest place to go is medical research.  Healthcare costs in the United States are so high that international health insurance plans generally just cover every country that isn't America.  A huge part of the problem is the extreme expense associated with the opaque nature of the pharmaceutical industry.  When it's actually profitable to run extremely long primetime commercials advertising certain medicines, it's blatantly obvious that there's something horrendously wrong with the system -- clearly the proper medication shouldn't depend on what you saw on TV last night.</p><p>Worse, a lot of drug research is publicly funded, but then the results wind up privatized.  I'm guessing that if we got healthcare costs down on the supply end we wouldn't have so many problems with health insurance in this country.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It seems to me that the first and heaviest place to go is medical research .
Healthcare costs in the United States are so high that international health insurance plans generally just cover every country that is n't America .
A huge part of the problem is the extreme expense associated with the opaque nature of the pharmaceutical industry .
When it 's actually profitable to run extremely long primetime commercials advertising certain medicines , it 's blatantly obvious that there 's something horrendously wrong with the system -- clearly the proper medication should n't depend on what you saw on TV last night.Worse , a lot of drug research is publicly funded , but then the results wind up privatized .
I 'm guessing that if we got healthcare costs down on the supply end we would n't have so many problems with health insurance in this country .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It seems to me that the first and heaviest place to go is medical research.
Healthcare costs in the United States are so high that international health insurance plans generally just cover every country that isn't America.
A huge part of the problem is the extreme expense associated with the opaque nature of the pharmaceutical industry.
When it's actually profitable to run extremely long primetime commercials advertising certain medicines, it's blatantly obvious that there's something horrendously wrong with the system -- clearly the proper medication shouldn't depend on what you saw on TV last night.Worse, a lot of drug research is publicly funded, but then the results wind up privatized.
I'm guessing that if we got healthcare costs down on the supply end we wouldn't have so many problems with health insurance in this country.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28299793</id>
	<title>Re:Its simple....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244713140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Most people are not interested in a National Healthcare system. In fact a vast majority do not support Nationalizing Healthcare.</p><p>Now if you say, that most people are willing to look at Healthcare reform that might be true but Nationalizing Healthcare is far from reforming it.</p><p>The Insurance industry already has a very viable and fair proposal on the table to make Health insurance affordable for everyone. To the point where even covering the dirt poor in this Country would be more cost effective than current efforts in that arena.</p><p>Check where your statistics are coming from because it's not reality.</p><p>Of course those in Washington aren't interested in quality reform. They are interested in POWER, they already control the banking industry, a large part of our automotive industry and now it's healthcare.</p><p>We already have plenty of good, if you can call them that, examples of Nationalized Healthcare. Including one right North of the border. Rationed Healthcare does not benefit anyone.</p><p>Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater.</p><p>American's for true reform not a larger Federal bureaucracy stand up. I for one don't want my Healthcare to be run with the efficiency of the Post Office and the compassion of the IRS.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Most people are not interested in a National Healthcare system .
In fact a vast majority do not support Nationalizing Healthcare.Now if you say , that most people are willing to look at Healthcare reform that might be true but Nationalizing Healthcare is far from reforming it.The Insurance industry already has a very viable and fair proposal on the table to make Health insurance affordable for everyone .
To the point where even covering the dirt poor in this Country would be more cost effective than current efforts in that arena.Check where your statistics are coming from because it 's not reality.Of course those in Washington are n't interested in quality reform .
They are interested in POWER , they already control the banking industry , a large part of our automotive industry and now it 's healthcare.We already have plenty of good , if you can call them that , examples of Nationalized Healthcare .
Including one right North of the border .
Rationed Healthcare does not benefit anyone.Let 's not throw the baby out with the bathwater.American 's for true reform not a larger Federal bureaucracy stand up .
I for one do n't want my Healthcare to be run with the efficiency of the Post Office and the compassion of the IRS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most people are not interested in a National Healthcare system.
In fact a vast majority do not support Nationalizing Healthcare.Now if you say, that most people are willing to look at Healthcare reform that might be true but Nationalizing Healthcare is far from reforming it.The Insurance industry already has a very viable and fair proposal on the table to make Health insurance affordable for everyone.
To the point where even covering the dirt poor in this Country would be more cost effective than current efforts in that arena.Check where your statistics are coming from because it's not reality.Of course those in Washington aren't interested in quality reform.
They are interested in POWER, they already control the banking industry, a large part of our automotive industry and now it's healthcare.We already have plenty of good, if you can call them that, examples of Nationalized Healthcare.
Including one right North of the border.
Rationed Healthcare does not benefit anyone.Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater.American's for true reform not a larger Federal bureaucracy stand up.
I for one don't want my Healthcare to be run with the efficiency of the Post Office and the compassion of the IRS.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28290035</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28297809</id>
	<title>hmm. U.S Gov. does not fund research?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244749320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't know if the term "practical" means some other form of research than the type going on at Universities and companies across the United States, but the U.S. Government spends a great deal of money on research. Including biomedical research. NSF has $ 6 Billion in 2009 and NIH has $29 Billion this year. I'm sure there are other programs but that is not chump change. <a href="http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy09/browse.html" title="gpoaccess.gov" rel="nofollow">Budget of the United States Government</a> [gpoaccess.gov].</p><p>The problem with doing U.S Government funded research is that they expect you to tell people what you found. I think a car company doing its own research kinda implies they want to keep what the learn proprietary. IMHO.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know if the term " practical " means some other form of research than the type going on at Universities and companies across the United States , but the U.S. Government spends a great deal of money on research .
Including biomedical research .
NSF has $ 6 Billion in 2009 and NIH has $ 29 Billion this year .
I 'm sure there are other programs but that is not chump change .
Budget of the United States Government [ gpoaccess.gov ] .The problem with doing U.S Government funded research is that they expect you to tell people what you found .
I think a car company doing its own research kinda implies they want to keep what the learn proprietary .
IMHO .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know if the term "practical" means some other form of research than the type going on at Universities and companies across the United States, but the U.S. Government spends a great deal of money on research.
Including biomedical research.
NSF has $ 6 Billion in 2009 and NIH has $29 Billion this year.
I'm sure there are other programs but that is not chump change.
Budget of the United States Government [gpoaccess.gov].The problem with doing U.S Government funded research is that they expect you to tell people what you found.
I think a car company doing its own research kinda implies they want to keep what the learn proprietary.
IMHO.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28291313</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28298423</id>
	<title>A research sure worth funding</title>
	<author>Klistvud</author>
	<datestamp>1244751420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"what practical research do you think the US government should embark upon to get the most return for its citizens and the world?"

What about: Why US is failing epically as a world leader and what can be done to expedite the process?</htmltext>
<tokenext>" what practical research do you think the US government should embark upon to get the most return for its citizens and the world ?
" What about : Why US is failing epically as a world leader and what can be done to expedite the process ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"what practical research do you think the US government should embark upon to get the most return for its citizens and the world?
"

What about: Why US is failing epically as a world leader and what can be done to expedite the process?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289367</id>
	<title>Teach you "its" instead of "it's"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244655960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The US government should teach you when to use "its" instead of "it's".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The US government should teach you when to use " its " instead of " it 's " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The US government should teach you when to use "its" instead of "it's".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289909</id>
	<title>Re:Its simple....</title>
	<author>westlake</author>
	<datestamp>1244660940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>The more dollars that are in your pocket the more you can spend on things that drive innovation.</i> </p><p>Such as what, specifically?</p><p>The early American auto maker was mostly content with the luxury market.</p><p>His  handcrafted product as much an exercise in custom coach work - little changed since the days of Louis XIV - as in twentieth century mechanics.</p><p>The rare exceptions were still tied to the notion of a "horseless carriage."</p><p>Ford put innovation on the road.</p><p> The buyer followed him - not the other way around.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The more dollars that are in your pocket the more you can spend on things that drive innovation .
Such as what , specifically ? The early American auto maker was mostly content with the luxury market.His handcrafted product as much an exercise in custom coach work - little changed since the days of Louis XIV - as in twentieth century mechanics.The rare exceptions were still tied to the notion of a " horseless carriage .
" Ford put innovation on the road .
The buyer followed him - not the other way around .
   </tokentext>
<sentencetext>The more dollars that are in your pocket the more you can spend on things that drive innovation.
Such as what, specifically?The early American auto maker was mostly content with the luxury market.His  handcrafted product as much an exercise in custom coach work - little changed since the days of Louis XIV - as in twentieth century mechanics.The rare exceptions were still tied to the notion of a "horseless carriage.
"Ford put innovation on the road.
The buyer followed him - not the other way around.
   </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289341</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289897</id>
	<title>Re:Baby Boomers</title>
	<author>Macrat</author>
	<datestamp>1244660820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It was not my generation that,</p></div><p>Funny, usually the people behind the desk running most everything behind your list are fresh out of MBA school looking to make money fast like they saw on TV.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It was not my generation that,Funny , usually the people behind the desk running most everything behind your list are fresh out of MBA school looking to make money fast like they saw on TV .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It was not my generation that,Funny, usually the people behind the desk running most everything behind your list are fresh out of MBA school looking to make money fast like they saw on TV.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289415</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28291521</id>
	<title>Starting from scratch...</title>
	<author>mikael</author>
	<datestamp>1244725920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you were to create a research department from scratch, you would first have to procure land, office buildings, equipment, furniture, research directors, PA's, managers, engineers, and technicians. All of this is going to take money (lawyers, recruiters, adverts). By buying a company, all of this has been done already.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you were to create a research department from scratch , you would first have to procure land , office buildings , equipment , furniture , research directors , PA 's , managers , engineers , and technicians .
All of this is going to take money ( lawyers , recruiters , adverts ) .
By buying a company , all of this has been done already .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you were to create a research department from scratch, you would first have to procure land, office buildings, equipment, furniture, research directors, PA's, managers, engineers, and technicians.
All of this is going to take money (lawyers, recruiters, adverts).
By buying a company, all of this has been done already.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28290435</id>
	<title>Re:Because they're funding Iraq</title>
	<author>FleaPlus</author>
	<datestamp>1244753880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You do realize that the amount of money spent in the past few months on the so-called "stimulus" has already dwarfed the total amount spent over several years on the wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan, right?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You do realize that the amount of money spent in the past few months on the so-called " stimulus " has already dwarfed the total amount spent over several years on the wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan , right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You do realize that the amount of money spent in the past few months on the so-called "stimulus" has already dwarfed the total amount spent over several years on the wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan, right?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289383</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289467</id>
	<title>It was not the 70's.</title>
	<author>WindBourne</author>
	<datestamp>1244656860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>It was the 80's. reagan and the neo-cons PURPOSELY cut the RD in science that we had back then. MASSIVE CUTS. The idea was that the large number of RD labs that we had would do the work. Bell Labs, Watson Labs, Ge Labs and nearly all major labs were killed, cut, or moved to other nations. Basically, the RD labs that we had were tied to the gov's huge budgets as well as our education, which was THE TOPS. Now, they are simply moved elsewhere and we have been witness to the largest 30 year dismantling of one of the few historical superpower nations.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It was the 80 's .
reagan and the neo-cons PURPOSELY cut the RD in science that we had back then .
MASSIVE CUTS .
The idea was that the large number of RD labs that we had would do the work .
Bell Labs , Watson Labs , Ge Labs and nearly all major labs were killed , cut , or moved to other nations .
Basically , the RD labs that we had were tied to the gov 's huge budgets as well as our education , which was THE TOPS .
Now , they are simply moved elsewhere and we have been witness to the largest 30 year dismantling of one of the few historical superpower nations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It was the 80's.
reagan and the neo-cons PURPOSELY cut the RD in science that we had back then.
MASSIVE CUTS.
The idea was that the large number of RD labs that we had would do the work.
Bell Labs, Watson Labs, Ge Labs and nearly all major labs were killed, cut, or moved to other nations.
Basically, the RD labs that we had were tied to the gov's huge budgets as well as our education, which was THE TOPS.
Now, they are simply moved elsewhere and we have been witness to the largest 30 year dismantling of one of the few historical superpower nations.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289453</id>
	<title>Food Production</title>
	<author>MaizeMan</author>
	<datestamp>1244656740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The US funding for international plant breeding projects has dropped dramatically in the last decade. Dollar for dollar I'm pretty sure nothing else provides the same mitigation of human suffering as breeding crops that yield more, and fail less often (with greater tolerance or resistance to pests, drought, flooding, you name it).<br> <br>
And the great thing is when the government funds the research, the seeds go for almost or completely free to the people who need them the most around the world, instead of getting entangled in webs of patients and trade secrets.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The US funding for international plant breeding projects has dropped dramatically in the last decade .
Dollar for dollar I 'm pretty sure nothing else provides the same mitigation of human suffering as breeding crops that yield more , and fail less often ( with greater tolerance or resistance to pests , drought , flooding , you name it ) .
And the great thing is when the government funds the research , the seeds go for almost or completely free to the people who need them the most around the world , instead of getting entangled in webs of patients and trade secrets .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The US funding for international plant breeding projects has dropped dramatically in the last decade.
Dollar for dollar I'm pretty sure nothing else provides the same mitigation of human suffering as breeding crops that yield more, and fail less often (with greater tolerance or resistance to pests, drought, flooding, you name it).
And the great thing is when the government funds the research, the seeds go for almost or completely free to the people who need them the most around the world, instead of getting entangled in webs of patients and trade secrets.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28290185</id>
	<title>The Manhattan Project was a good thing?</title>
	<author>Punto</author>
	<datestamp>1244750520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>or does "pinnacle" also apply for the lowest points too?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>or does " pinnacle " also apply for the lowest points too ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>or does "pinnacle" also apply for the lowest points too?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28291229</id>
	<title>Re:Its simple....</title>
	<author>icebrain</author>
	<datestamp>1244722800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>In basic, the "Guvmint" exists to keep us safe and provide basic infrastructure. I would add in water, police, firemen... Oh, and the EPA, FDA, etc. we need those kinds of watchdog agencies.</p></div><p>Fair enough.  I will disagree with some of the <i>actions</i> those agencies have taken, but overall, we'll agree with that.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Does the government own GM now?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... No. No it does not. It's just a big shareholder.</p></div><p>Methinks you need to reacquaint yourself with the idea of shares.  When you buy a share in a company, you are buying part ownership of it, and a partial say in how it is run.  When you own a majority of the shares, you essentially do own the company, as any decision you make will stand--nobody can outvote you, unless you split your own vote.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>People whine about the inefficiency of the government, then they drive on the roads, enjoy the protections of police and firemen, use the public school systems, buy homes that aren't death traps thanks to building codes, reap the benefits of cheap shipping due to interstate highways..... etc etc etc.</p></div><p>Your argument doesn't follow.  Saying something is inefficient doesn't mean you're complaining about the existence of the thing itself.  We all enjoy the protection of the military, for example; I support having a strong and competent one (when and how it's used is another matter).  But that doesn't mean I'm happy about the horribly f'ed up and inefficient procurement process it uses.  Billions of taxpayer dollars wind up wasted due to beaurocratic screwups, political incompetence, and so on.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In basic , the " Guvmint " exists to keep us safe and provide basic infrastructure .
I would add in water , police , firemen... Oh , and the EPA , FDA , etc .
we need those kinds of watchdog agencies.Fair enough .
I will disagree with some of the actions those agencies have taken , but overall , we 'll agree with that.Does the government own GM now ?
... No .
No it does not .
It 's just a big shareholder.Methinks you need to reacquaint yourself with the idea of shares .
When you buy a share in a company , you are buying part ownership of it , and a partial say in how it is run .
When you own a majority of the shares , you essentially do own the company , as any decision you make will stand--nobody can outvote you , unless you split your own vote.People whine about the inefficiency of the government , then they drive on the roads , enjoy the protections of police and firemen , use the public school systems , buy homes that are n't death traps thanks to building codes , reap the benefits of cheap shipping due to interstate highways..... etc etc etc.Your argument does n't follow .
Saying something is inefficient does n't mean you 're complaining about the existence of the thing itself .
We all enjoy the protection of the military , for example ; I support having a strong and competent one ( when and how it 's used is another matter ) .
But that does n't mean I 'm happy about the horribly f'ed up and inefficient procurement process it uses .
Billions of taxpayer dollars wind up wasted due to beaurocratic screwups , political incompetence , and so on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In basic, the "Guvmint" exists to keep us safe and provide basic infrastructure.
I would add in water, police, firemen... Oh, and the EPA, FDA, etc.
we need those kinds of watchdog agencies.Fair enough.
I will disagree with some of the actions those agencies have taken, but overall, we'll agree with that.Does the government own GM now?
... No.
No it does not.
It's just a big shareholder.Methinks you need to reacquaint yourself with the idea of shares.
When you buy a share in a company, you are buying part ownership of it, and a partial say in how it is run.
When you own a majority of the shares, you essentially do own the company, as any decision you make will stand--nobody can outvote you, unless you split your own vote.People whine about the inefficiency of the government, then they drive on the roads, enjoy the protections of police and firemen, use the public school systems, buy homes that aren't death traps thanks to building codes, reap the benefits of cheap shipping due to interstate highways..... etc etc etc.Your argument doesn't follow.
Saying something is inefficient doesn't mean you're complaining about the existence of the thing itself.
We all enjoy the protection of the military, for example; I support having a strong and competent one (when and how it's used is another matter).
But that doesn't mean I'm happy about the horribly f'ed up and inefficient procurement process it uses.
Billions of taxpayer dollars wind up wasted due to beaurocratic screwups, political incompetence, and so on.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289741</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28293177</id>
	<title>Bayh-Dole act etc.</title>
	<author>Paul Fernhout</author>
	<datestamp>1244732880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One of the biggest problems is that the money that is being spent by the US government (and foundations) for basic research is being less effective because of a misguided notion that research results are worthless unless they are exclusively owned by someone and turned into a proprietary business in a narrow way. See:<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayh-Dole\_Act" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayh-Dole\_Act</a> [wikipedia.org]<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2000/03/press.htm" title="theatlantic.com">http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2000/03/press.htm</a> [theatlantic.com]<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; <a href="http://www.pdfernhout.net/open-letter-to-grantmakers-and-donors-on-copyright-policy.html" title="pdfernhout.net">http://www.pdfernhout.net/open-letter-to-grantmakers-and-donors-on-copyright-policy.html</a> [pdfernhout.net]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One of the biggest problems is that the money that is being spent by the US government ( and foundations ) for basic research is being less effective because of a misguided notion that research results are worthless unless they are exclusively owned by someone and turned into a proprietary business in a narrow way .
See :     http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayh-Dole \ _Act [ wikipedia.org ]     http : //www.theatlantic.com/issues/2000/03/press.htm [ theatlantic.com ]     http : //www.pdfernhout.net/open-letter-to-grantmakers-and-donors-on-copyright-policy.html [ pdfernhout.net ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One of the biggest problems is that the money that is being spent by the US government (and foundations) for basic research is being less effective because of a misguided notion that research results are worthless unless they are exclusively owned by someone and turned into a proprietary business in a narrow way.
See:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayh-Dole\_Act [wikipedia.org]
    http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2000/03/press.htm [theatlantic.com]
    http://www.pdfernhout.net/open-letter-to-grantmakers-and-donors-on-copyright-policy.html [pdfernhout.net]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28290709</id>
	<title>Re:Its simple....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244714160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm inclined to think the govt should buy research and give it back out to US companies for free on a confidential basis.  In a sense it amounts to something like multi-core processing.  It also lowers to level of success a company needs to be financially effective.  If GM wants to make a battery, it had better be ready for sale or they get nothing from it.  But if say a company developing batteries discovered something new and valuable that produced no marketable success they could still sell that research to the govt and stay solvent.</p><p>Mind you I'm no scientist or economist, so there may some sorta huge flaw in my reasoning.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm inclined to think the govt should buy research and give it back out to US companies for free on a confidential basis .
In a sense it amounts to something like multi-core processing .
It also lowers to level of success a company needs to be financially effective .
If GM wants to make a battery , it had better be ready for sale or they get nothing from it .
But if say a company developing batteries discovered something new and valuable that produced no marketable success they could still sell that research to the govt and stay solvent.Mind you I 'm no scientist or economist , so there may some sorta huge flaw in my reasoning .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm inclined to think the govt should buy research and give it back out to US companies for free on a confidential basis.
In a sense it amounts to something like multi-core processing.
It also lowers to level of success a company needs to be financially effective.
If GM wants to make a battery, it had better be ready for sale or they get nothing from it.
But if say a company developing batteries discovered something new and valuable that produced no marketable success they could still sell that research to the govt and stay solvent.Mind you I'm no scientist or economist, so there may some sorta huge flaw in my reasoning.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289341</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289569</id>
	<title>The Internet</title>
	<author>Louis Savain</author>
	<datestamp>1244657640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The US government pioneered the internet and, IMO, this has been the greatest enabler of research and innovation since the the invention of the movable type. What we're seeing now is just the tip of the iceberg. I don't think historians will ever be able to comprehend the full impact of the internet on science and technology. The cross-pollination of ideas and the easy availability of information is so mind boggling, it's scary. You are living in truly interesting times.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The US government pioneered the internet and , IMO , this has been the greatest enabler of research and innovation since the the invention of the movable type .
What we 're seeing now is just the tip of the iceberg .
I do n't think historians will ever be able to comprehend the full impact of the internet on science and technology .
The cross-pollination of ideas and the easy availability of information is so mind boggling , it 's scary .
You are living in truly interesting times .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The US government pioneered the internet and, IMO, this has been the greatest enabler of research and innovation since the the invention of the movable type.
What we're seeing now is just the tip of the iceberg.
I don't think historians will ever be able to comprehend the full impact of the internet on science and technology.
The cross-pollination of ideas and the easy availability of information is so mind boggling, it's scary.
You are living in truly interesting times.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28291677</id>
	<title>Re:Its simple....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244727060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>batteries and capacitors. We need this very badly.</p></div></blockquote><p>I disagree. The innovation being driven by market forces for mobile devices (laptops, tablets, cell phones, hybrid and electric vehicles, etc) has been driving this market well.</p><blockquote><div><p>infrastructure... build high speed rails so we can ship a house across the country for a nickel.</p></div></blockquote><p>I agree, but would also like to add safety and environmental friendliness into that desire. Specifically, fuel economy and track path concerns should play a role in such investments. I do not want to connect Miami to New York by rail in 6 hours if it meant killing all the Florida Scrub Jays, for example.</p><blockquote><div><p>Power savings... Why isn't there an open source home design for builders to use? Seriously, something so simple....</p></div></blockquote><p>The reality is that there are several different home designs available commercially today and a variety of people who will custom design homes. For the highest levels of efficiency, the home must be viewed as a system in its entirety, including specific location (flat or mountainous, foundation, available building materials, climate, lattitude, etc). All of this ends up requiring cost. It would be more like hiring a consulting firm that uses open source solutions. Add to that the fact that aesthetics often play a vital role. There are home owner association, for example, who disallow mounting things on the roof. This makes solar panels impossible. A more viable approach is to mandate additional environmental requirements on commercial and industrial structures.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>batteries and capacitors .
We need this very badly.I disagree .
The innovation being driven by market forces for mobile devices ( laptops , tablets , cell phones , hybrid and electric vehicles , etc ) has been driving this market well.infrastructure... build high speed rails so we can ship a house across the country for a nickel.I agree , but would also like to add safety and environmental friendliness into that desire .
Specifically , fuel economy and track path concerns should play a role in such investments .
I do not want to connect Miami to New York by rail in 6 hours if it meant killing all the Florida Scrub Jays , for example.Power savings... Why is n't there an open source home design for builders to use ?
Seriously , something so simple....The reality is that there are several different home designs available commercially today and a variety of people who will custom design homes .
For the highest levels of efficiency , the home must be viewed as a system in its entirety , including specific location ( flat or mountainous , foundation , available building materials , climate , lattitude , etc ) .
All of this ends up requiring cost .
It would be more like hiring a consulting firm that uses open source solutions .
Add to that the fact that aesthetics often play a vital role .
There are home owner association , for example , who disallow mounting things on the roof .
This makes solar panels impossible .
A more viable approach is to mandate additional environmental requirements on commercial and industrial structures .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>batteries and capacitors.
We need this very badly.I disagree.
The innovation being driven by market forces for mobile devices (laptops, tablets, cell phones, hybrid and electric vehicles, etc) has been driving this market well.infrastructure... build high speed rails so we can ship a house across the country for a nickel.I agree, but would also like to add safety and environmental friendliness into that desire.
Specifically, fuel economy and track path concerns should play a role in such investments.
I do not want to connect Miami to New York by rail in 6 hours if it meant killing all the Florida Scrub Jays, for example.Power savings... Why isn't there an open source home design for builders to use?
Seriously, something so simple....The reality is that there are several different home designs available commercially today and a variety of people who will custom design homes.
For the highest levels of efficiency, the home must be viewed as a system in its entirety, including specific location (flat or mountainous, foundation, available building materials, climate, lattitude, etc).
All of this ends up requiring cost.
It would be more like hiring a consulting firm that uses open source solutions.
Add to that the fact that aesthetics often play a vital role.
There are home owner association, for example, who disallow mounting things on the roof.
This makes solar panels impossible.
A more viable approach is to mandate additional environmental requirements on commercial and industrial structures.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289741</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289745</id>
	<title>Re:Its simple....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244659140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I would put police, fire, and health services above roads, personally.  You need the first three to ensure a decent quality of life.</p></div><p>Roads also let the fire and police services get to those who need them.  And roads allow those who need health services get to those who provide health services.</p><p>Or did you expect to have everyone walk cross country?</p><p><i>*Red Foreman voice*</i>  Dumbass!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I would put police , fire , and health services above roads , personally .
You need the first three to ensure a decent quality of life.Roads also let the fire and police services get to those who need them .
And roads allow those who need health services get to those who provide health services.Or did you expect to have everyone walk cross country ?
* Red Foreman voice * Dumbass !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would put police, fire, and health services above roads, personally.
You need the first three to ensure a decent quality of life.Roads also let the fire and police services get to those who need them.
And roads allow those who need health services get to those who provide health services.Or did you expect to have everyone walk cross country?
*Red Foreman voice*  Dumbass!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289395</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28297383</id>
	<title>Decisions aren't based on science, but politics</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244747700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When government funds research, the result is usually a joke or disaster.  Exhibit A (Govt funding alternative medicine): http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US\_MED\_UNPROVEN\_REMEDIES\_RESEARCH?SITE=TNKNN&amp;SECTION=HOME&amp;TEMPLATE=DEFAULT<br>" several powerful members [of congress]" ---  Decisions aren't based on science, but politics.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When government funds research , the result is usually a joke or disaster .
Exhibit A ( Govt funding alternative medicine ) : http : //hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US \ _MED \ _UNPROVEN \ _REMEDIES \ _RESEARCH ? SITE = TNKNN&amp;SECTION = HOME&amp;TEMPLATE = DEFAULT " several powerful members [ of congress ] " --- Decisions are n't based on science , but politics .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When government funds research, the result is usually a joke or disaster.
Exhibit A (Govt funding alternative medicine): http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US\_MED\_UNPROVEN\_REMEDIES\_RESEARCH?SITE=TNKNN&amp;SECTION=HOME&amp;TEMPLATE=DEFAULT" several powerful members [of congress]" ---  Decisions aren't based on science, but politics.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28291315</id>
	<title>Re:Next question, please</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244723940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>GM HAD VIABLE ELECTRIC CARS IN THE 1960's,  you never heard of them because they allowed drivers to use less/no oil/fuel.....  which conflicts with the oil interests in the US.  As for auto workers, if you only have a GED, you should NEVER make 30/hr....  Sorry, just not right.  If on the other hand, you have a degree in anything decent you have no business doing a simple assembly line job.  No factory assembly line worker should be making the pay these GM/union workers were getting, THEY BLED GM to death, and built CRAPPY cars in the process.  My point:  GM has had NUMEROUS chances to make real positive change in the way we travel, and thus the way we do this business, but they didn't.  They have worked for 40 yrs to find a way to sell a 5-10000 vehicle for 25-50k.  You buy a BMW or a land rover or even just a toyota/honda (or just test-drive one, or anything else that is actually well built, and compare it to<br>ANY 1980-2009 GM car.  You will be shocked if you check things like welds, body panel alignment, basic quality of individual components (just scoure both vehicles top to bottom, and you'll never buy an american car again).</p><p>Example: My brother bought a 2001 chevy malibu.  Within 6mos, replaced, steering column, transmission twice, intake manifold seal, then engine blew.  ALL from factory work on a 1yr old model car.  THEN GM refused to reconcile with him, forced him to go to court.  He won in court and was released from the purchase.  He got nothing back for it, just spent 15k on basically nothing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>GM HAD VIABLE ELECTRIC CARS IN THE 1960 's , you never heard of them because they allowed drivers to use less/no oil/fuel..... which conflicts with the oil interests in the US .
As for auto workers , if you only have a GED , you should NEVER make 30/hr.... Sorry , just not right .
If on the other hand , you have a degree in anything decent you have no business doing a simple assembly line job .
No factory assembly line worker should be making the pay these GM/union workers were getting , THEY BLED GM to death , and built CRAPPY cars in the process .
My point : GM has had NUMEROUS chances to make real positive change in the way we travel , and thus the way we do this business , but they did n't .
They have worked for 40 yrs to find a way to sell a 5-10000 vehicle for 25-50k .
You buy a BMW or a land rover or even just a toyota/honda ( or just test-drive one , or anything else that is actually well built , and compare it toANY 1980-2009 GM car .
You will be shocked if you check things like welds , body panel alignment , basic quality of individual components ( just scoure both vehicles top to bottom , and you 'll never buy an american car again ) .Example : My brother bought a 2001 chevy malibu .
Within 6mos , replaced , steering column , transmission twice , intake manifold seal , then engine blew .
ALL from factory work on a 1yr old model car .
THEN GM refused to reconcile with him , forced him to go to court .
He won in court and was released from the purchase .
He got nothing back for it , just spent 15k on basically nothing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>GM HAD VIABLE ELECTRIC CARS IN THE 1960's,  you never heard of them because they allowed drivers to use less/no oil/fuel.....  which conflicts with the oil interests in the US.
As for auto workers, if you only have a GED, you should NEVER make 30/hr....  Sorry, just not right.
If on the other hand, you have a degree in anything decent you have no business doing a simple assembly line job.
No factory assembly line worker should be making the pay these GM/union workers were getting, THEY BLED GM to death, and built CRAPPY cars in the process.
My point:  GM has had NUMEROUS chances to make real positive change in the way we travel, and thus the way we do this business, but they didn't.
They have worked for 40 yrs to find a way to sell a 5-10000 vehicle for 25-50k.
You buy a BMW or a land rover or even just a toyota/honda (or just test-drive one, or anything else that is actually well built, and compare it toANY 1980-2009 GM car.
You will be shocked if you check things like welds, body panel alignment, basic quality of individual components (just scoure both vehicles top to bottom, and you'll never buy an american car again).Example: My brother bought a 2001 chevy malibu.
Within 6mos, replaced, steering column, transmission twice, intake manifold seal, then engine blew.
ALL from factory work on a 1yr old model car.
THEN GM refused to reconcile with him, forced him to go to court.
He won in court and was released from the purchase.
He got nothing back for it, just spent 15k on basically nothing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289751</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28304923</id>
	<title>Re:Because they're funding Iraq</title>
	<author>ibsteve2u</author>
	<datestamp>1244749860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You do realize that the amount of money spent in the past few months on the so-called "stimulus" has already dwarfed the total amount spent over several years on the wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan, right?</p></div><p>I would add that Iraq provided the distraction needed to conceal the shenanigans on Wall Street and in banking - to use only examples that are public knowledge - that necessitated the later expenditures on the stimulus.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You do realize that the amount of money spent in the past few months on the so-called " stimulus " has already dwarfed the total amount spent over several years on the wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan , right ? I would add that Iraq provided the distraction needed to conceal the shenanigans on Wall Street and in banking - to use only examples that are public knowledge - that necessitated the later expenditures on the stimulus .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You do realize that the amount of money spent in the past few months on the so-called "stimulus" has already dwarfed the total amount spent over several years on the wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan, right?I would add that Iraq provided the distraction needed to conceal the shenanigans on Wall Street and in banking - to use only examples that are public knowledge - that necessitated the later expenditures on the stimulus.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28290435</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28291397</id>
	<title>The government does fund research.</title>
	<author>d0n0vAn</author>
	<datestamp>1244724840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You make the statement that the government should have invested x dollars in research instead of giving x dollars to a corporation, GM, in your query, to squander.

<p> 

Two responses come to mind:
</p><p> 
1) The government does fund research. Most of the dollars spent in the form of grants and such go to science. I know because my fiance teaches at a research university and her area of expertise, non-science, receives virtually nothing compared to the sciences. The budget for the entire department is less than $40,000 for the acquisition of books vs. millions for science.
</p><p> 
2) The government gave billions of dollars to Chysler and GM as an investment in political capital rather than technological capital. Feel free to disagree with me, but I would ask you explain why the Chrysler deal gives billions of assets to the UAW while completely fucking over the smaller retirement funds such as the Indiana fund which just lost 61\% of the value of those investments.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You make the statement that the government should have invested x dollars in research instead of giving x dollars to a corporation , GM , in your query , to squander .
Two responses come to mind : 1 ) The government does fund research .
Most of the dollars spent in the form of grants and such go to science .
I know because my fiance teaches at a research university and her area of expertise , non-science , receives virtually nothing compared to the sciences .
The budget for the entire department is less than $ 40,000 for the acquisition of books vs. millions for science .
2 ) The government gave billions of dollars to Chysler and GM as an investment in political capital rather than technological capital .
Feel free to disagree with me , but I would ask you explain why the Chrysler deal gives billions of assets to the UAW while completely fucking over the smaller retirement funds such as the Indiana fund which just lost 61 \ % of the value of those investments .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You make the statement that the government should have invested x dollars in research instead of giving x dollars to a corporation, GM, in your query, to squander.
Two responses come to mind:
 
1) The government does fund research.
Most of the dollars spent in the form of grants and such go to science.
I know because my fiance teaches at a research university and her area of expertise, non-science, receives virtually nothing compared to the sciences.
The budget for the entire department is less than $40,000 for the acquisition of books vs. millions for science.
2) The government gave billions of dollars to Chysler and GM as an investment in political capital rather than technological capital.
Feel free to disagree with me, but I would ask you explain why the Chrysler deal gives billions of assets to the UAW while completely fucking over the smaller retirement funds such as the Indiana fund which just lost 61\% of the value of those investments.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289551</id>
	<title>Research is not the function of the Fed Gov't</title>
	<author>bobbuck</author>
	<datestamp>1244657520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I know they do it but it's not constitutional. It is the role of private companies and they would probably have made much more progress if they didn't have to give all their profits over to the IRS. The free market puts research dollars where they will be most beneficial. Politicians put research dollars where they will buy the most votes.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I know they do it but it 's not constitutional .
It is the role of private companies and they would probably have made much more progress if they did n't have to give all their profits over to the IRS .
The free market puts research dollars where they will be most beneficial .
Politicians put research dollars where they will buy the most votes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know they do it but it's not constitutional.
It is the role of private companies and they would probably have made much more progress if they didn't have to give all their profits over to the IRS.
The free market puts research dollars where they will be most beneficial.
Politicians put research dollars where they will buy the most votes.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28290071</id>
	<title>super cap research</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244662500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Battery research is coming along very well in private industry due to cell phones laptops and the promise of electric cars and even small planes.  Super capacitors are very useful for certain applications but don't even come close to the energy density of LiPos so far.  There is some decent research being done about this and some of that is in universities. If the USG should sink money into engineering research for power storage I would do it through money for universities earmarked for this sort of research.  To be fair a lot of funding is actually currently available for just that.  Although universities are generally obscenely inefficient, the researchers are usually grad students making maybe 20k a year, so all things considered it's pretty cost effective when you view it in terms of killing to birds with one stone, namely education and research.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Battery research is coming along very well in private industry due to cell phones laptops and the promise of electric cars and even small planes .
Super capacitors are very useful for certain applications but do n't even come close to the energy density of LiPos so far .
There is some decent research being done about this and some of that is in universities .
If the USG should sink money into engineering research for power storage I would do it through money for universities earmarked for this sort of research .
To be fair a lot of funding is actually currently available for just that .
Although universities are generally obscenely inefficient , the researchers are usually grad students making maybe 20k a year , so all things considered it 's pretty cost effective when you view it in terms of killing to birds with one stone , namely education and research .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Battery research is coming along very well in private industry due to cell phones laptops and the promise of electric cars and even small planes.
Super capacitors are very useful for certain applications but don't even come close to the energy density of LiPos so far.
There is some decent research being done about this and some of that is in universities.
If the USG should sink money into engineering research for power storage I would do it through money for universities earmarked for this sort of research.
To be fair a lot of funding is actually currently available for just that.
Although universities are generally obscenely inefficient, the researchers are usually grad students making maybe 20k a year, so all things considered it's pretty cost effective when you view it in terms of killing to birds with one stone, namely education and research.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289415</id>
	<title>Baby Boomers</title>
	<author>Herkum01</author>
	<datestamp>1244656380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I blame the baby-boomers, they were raised on idea of continual gain of benefits.  Whether it was from capitalism, increased government benefits, or lower taxes.  They continually have driven everything out of total self interest an screw society.</p><p>You say I am crazy?  It was not my generation that,</p><ol>
    <li>Came up with sub-prime mortgages and issued them to people with no money</li><li>Speculated on do nothing on Internet companies in the hope of easy money</li><li>Bought and sold under funded financial derivatives</li><li>Removed bank regulations that were intended to prevent the current financial crisis</li><li>Exported ALL manufacturing from the US to other countries</li><li>Have greatly increased executive pay WITHOUT a corresponding increase in profits</li><li>Paying the lowest tax rates in the last 70 years</li><li>Issued the highest amount of government debt in 70 years</li><li>Sharp cut social programs, especially for the poor</li></ol><p>I may be generalizing about baby boomers as a whole, but the leadership from my generation has not become CEOs, congressmen or senators, the baby boomers have.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I blame the baby-boomers , they were raised on idea of continual gain of benefits .
Whether it was from capitalism , increased government benefits , or lower taxes .
They continually have driven everything out of total self interest an screw society.You say I am crazy ?
It was not my generation that , Came up with sub-prime mortgages and issued them to people with no moneySpeculated on do nothing on Internet companies in the hope of easy moneyBought and sold under funded financial derivativesRemoved bank regulations that were intended to prevent the current financial crisisExported ALL manufacturing from the US to other countriesHave greatly increased executive pay WITHOUT a corresponding increase in profitsPaying the lowest tax rates in the last 70 yearsIssued the highest amount of government debt in 70 yearsSharp cut social programs , especially for the poorI may be generalizing about baby boomers as a whole , but the leadership from my generation has not become CEOs , congressmen or senators , the baby boomers have .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I blame the baby-boomers, they were raised on idea of continual gain of benefits.
Whether it was from capitalism, increased government benefits, or lower taxes.
They continually have driven everything out of total self interest an screw society.You say I am crazy?
It was not my generation that,
    Came up with sub-prime mortgages and issued them to people with no moneySpeculated on do nothing on Internet companies in the hope of easy moneyBought and sold under funded financial derivativesRemoved bank regulations that were intended to prevent the current financial crisisExported ALL manufacturing from the US to other countriesHave greatly increased executive pay WITHOUT a corresponding increase in profitsPaying the lowest tax rates in the last 70 yearsIssued the highest amount of government debt in 70 yearsSharp cut social programs, especially for the poorI may be generalizing about baby boomers as a whole, but the leadership from my generation has not become CEOs, congressmen or senators, the baby boomers have.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28293889</id>
	<title>What if...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244735580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Forget putting money into business, we already should know by now that they can't be trusted... Seriously people, open your eyes, 'fool me once...' yadda yadda and all that... the government directly funding ANY kind of research is a step in the right direction but still not fixing anything. The US patents are whats keeping the batteries (and other technologies) we have now, which are already amazingly efficient, from being produced cheaply enough to be effective on the end-user price because it limits the production itself. Those same types of patents are also what keeps solar, wind, tidal, and geothermal energy from being implemented, effectively wiping out the need for the current 'dirty' energy sources we use now. All just to make sure companies with certain energy monopolies stay holding that monopoly.</p><p>Broadening the scope a bit here, the cost of the research shouldn't be an issue at all, nor who is conducting the research... because the research isn't the issue, WE ALREADY HAVE THE TECHNOLOGY (yeah yeah, don't make fun, it's true)...<br>Consider this...</p><p>http://www.thevenusproject.com/  EVERYTHING should go into this. The US government and Corporate American greed has already f****d up this entire planet all by themselves. The system is BROKEN, stop trying to fix it with money, MONEY IS THE PROBLEM. Most of us that don't live in the USA already can see that the US society simply does not give a s**t or is too ignorant to see how much THEY HAVE BEEN LIED TO by their own government. Most choose just not to listen because the mainstream media is telling them what they need to know, yet many of them would probably tell you they don't believe them either, and still do NOTHING. The world is going to hell in a hand basket. The US needs to fix their mistakes and fix them RIGHT NOW!!!... or sadly there will be no world left for the next generation, MY generation. Yes, it will end that quickly. F**K BUSINESSES. ALL OF THEM. It's been proven over and over again that money never solves anything, no matter how much money is involved, I'm only 13 years old and I already can tell you why a monetary system will never work the way society and the media try to make you believe it works, because IT DOESN'T WORK!!! It's a hard thing for people to grasp, ditching the whole idea of money gets a 13 year old kid laughed at and made fun off in school. But it needs to be done, one way or another this will HAVE to happen. every time the economy gets into trouble its much worse than the last time, and the 'collateral damage' of just a bunch of numbers going down does an amazing amount of damage to the everyday people that have nothing to do with it, even on the other side of the earth.<br>Usually that sort of devastation is classified as CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE!!!</p><p>If your an American reading this, I hope I haven't upset or offended you, that is not the point of this rant, it's to try and make people realize that this needs to change before its too late. I don't look forward to some kind of civil apocalypse before I have the chance to have my own family or whatever I chose to do with my life.</p><p>Hell, I know most of you are either laughing at this right now or just think I'm crazy or whatever. Quite truthfully, I'm f**king pissed off (if you hadn't guessed already) that I will have to grow up dealing with the social, political, economical, and environmental S**TSTORM these old MORONS started just because they thought that having more money would make them better people, or whatever perversion of reality they chose to believe. Thanks, thanks a lot you old farts.</p><p>It's time to stop worrying about who's going to do what with the money or who would do a better job with the money and start thinking about what needs to be implemented so that we (all human beings) live off of our resources and technology, not our social perception of wealth.<br>WAKE UP PEOPLE!!! Too many of you are stuck in this ideology of 'The American Dream' that is no longer realistic, the truth is, it never was realistic. Just another ploy to get you to p</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Forget putting money into business , we already should know by now that they ca n't be trusted... Seriously people , open your eyes , 'fool me once... ' yadda yadda and all that... the government directly funding ANY kind of research is a step in the right direction but still not fixing anything .
The US patents are whats keeping the batteries ( and other technologies ) we have now , which are already amazingly efficient , from being produced cheaply enough to be effective on the end-user price because it limits the production itself .
Those same types of patents are also what keeps solar , wind , tidal , and geothermal energy from being implemented , effectively wiping out the need for the current 'dirty ' energy sources we use now .
All just to make sure companies with certain energy monopolies stay holding that monopoly.Broadening the scope a bit here , the cost of the research should n't be an issue at all , nor who is conducting the research... because the research is n't the issue , WE ALREADY HAVE THE TECHNOLOGY ( yeah yeah , do n't make fun , it 's true ) ...Consider this...http : //www.thevenusproject.com/ EVERYTHING should go into this .
The US government and Corporate American greed has already f * * * * d up this entire planet all by themselves .
The system is BROKEN , stop trying to fix it with money , MONEY IS THE PROBLEM .
Most of us that do n't live in the USA already can see that the US society simply does not give a s * * t or is too ignorant to see how much THEY HAVE BEEN LIED TO by their own government .
Most choose just not to listen because the mainstream media is telling them what they need to know , yet many of them would probably tell you they do n't believe them either , and still do NOTHING .
The world is going to hell in a hand basket .
The US needs to fix their mistakes and fix them RIGHT NOW ! ! ! .. .
or sadly there will be no world left for the next generation , MY generation .
Yes , it will end that quickly .
F * * K BUSINESSES .
ALL OF THEM .
It 's been proven over and over again that money never solves anything , no matter how much money is involved , I 'm only 13 years old and I already can tell you why a monetary system will never work the way society and the media try to make you believe it works , because IT DOES N'T WORK ! ! !
It 's a hard thing for people to grasp , ditching the whole idea of money gets a 13 year old kid laughed at and made fun off in school .
But it needs to be done , one way or another this will HAVE to happen .
every time the economy gets into trouble its much worse than the last time , and the 'collateral damage ' of just a bunch of numbers going down does an amazing amount of damage to the everyday people that have nothing to do with it , even on the other side of the earth.Usually that sort of devastation is classified as CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE ! !
! If your an American reading this , I hope I have n't upset or offended you , that is not the point of this rant , it 's to try and make people realize that this needs to change before its too late .
I do n't look forward to some kind of civil apocalypse before I have the chance to have my own family or whatever I chose to do with my life.Hell , I know most of you are either laughing at this right now or just think I 'm crazy or whatever .
Quite truthfully , I 'm f * * king pissed off ( if you had n't guessed already ) that I will have to grow up dealing with the social , political , economical , and environmental S * * TSTORM these old MORONS started just because they thought that having more money would make them better people , or whatever perversion of reality they chose to believe .
Thanks , thanks a lot you old farts.It 's time to stop worrying about who 's going to do what with the money or who would do a better job with the money and start thinking about what needs to be implemented so that we ( all human beings ) live off of our resources and technology , not our social perception of wealth.WAKE UP PEOPLE ! ! !
Too many of you are stuck in this ideology of 'The American Dream ' that is no longer realistic , the truth is , it never was realistic .
Just another ploy to get you to p</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Forget putting money into business, we already should know by now that they can't be trusted... Seriously people, open your eyes, 'fool me once...' yadda yadda and all that... the government directly funding ANY kind of research is a step in the right direction but still not fixing anything.
The US patents are whats keeping the batteries (and other technologies) we have now, which are already amazingly efficient, from being produced cheaply enough to be effective on the end-user price because it limits the production itself.
Those same types of patents are also what keeps solar, wind, tidal, and geothermal energy from being implemented, effectively wiping out the need for the current 'dirty' energy sources we use now.
All just to make sure companies with certain energy monopolies stay holding that monopoly.Broadening the scope a bit here, the cost of the research shouldn't be an issue at all, nor who is conducting the research... because the research isn't the issue, WE ALREADY HAVE THE TECHNOLOGY (yeah yeah, don't make fun, it's true)...Consider this...http://www.thevenusproject.com/  EVERYTHING should go into this.
The US government and Corporate American greed has already f****d up this entire planet all by themselves.
The system is BROKEN, stop trying to fix it with money, MONEY IS THE PROBLEM.
Most of us that don't live in the USA already can see that the US society simply does not give a s**t or is too ignorant to see how much THEY HAVE BEEN LIED TO by their own government.
Most choose just not to listen because the mainstream media is telling them what they need to know, yet many of them would probably tell you they don't believe them either, and still do NOTHING.
The world is going to hell in a hand basket.
The US needs to fix their mistakes and fix them RIGHT NOW!!!...
or sadly there will be no world left for the next generation, MY generation.
Yes, it will end that quickly.
F**K BUSINESSES.
ALL OF THEM.
It's been proven over and over again that money never solves anything, no matter how much money is involved, I'm only 13 years old and I already can tell you why a monetary system will never work the way society and the media try to make you believe it works, because IT DOESN'T WORK!!!
It's a hard thing for people to grasp, ditching the whole idea of money gets a 13 year old kid laughed at and made fun off in school.
But it needs to be done, one way or another this will HAVE to happen.
every time the economy gets into trouble its much worse than the last time, and the 'collateral damage' of just a bunch of numbers going down does an amazing amount of damage to the everyday people that have nothing to do with it, even on the other side of the earth.Usually that sort of devastation is classified as CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE!!
!If your an American reading this, I hope I haven't upset or offended you, that is not the point of this rant, it's to try and make people realize that this needs to change before its too late.
I don't look forward to some kind of civil apocalypse before I have the chance to have my own family or whatever I chose to do with my life.Hell, I know most of you are either laughing at this right now or just think I'm crazy or whatever.
Quite truthfully, I'm f**king pissed off (if you hadn't guessed already) that I will have to grow up dealing with the social, political, economical, and environmental S**TSTORM these old MORONS started just because they thought that having more money would make them better people, or whatever perversion of reality they chose to believe.
Thanks, thanks a lot you old farts.It's time to stop worrying about who's going to do what with the money or who would do a better job with the money and start thinking about what needs to be implemented so that we (all human beings) live off of our resources and technology, not our social perception of wealth.WAKE UP PEOPLE!!!
Too many of you are stuck in this ideology of 'The American Dream' that is no longer realistic, the truth is, it never was realistic.
Just another ploy to get you to p</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28291085</id>
	<title>Re:Its simple....</title>
	<author>Chief Camel Breeder</author>
	<datestamp>1244720520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The government exists to <em>disburse funds</em> for paving roads etc., not to directly employ those who do the work. It's the way of collecting the money, sharing the cost across the citizenry, avoiding the arguments about who pays for what and making sure that everybody can get the essential services. In my part of the UK, government hires contractors for just about all the work, so the private sector is happy.
</p><p>
If government didn't mediate the service work, imagine the arguments about who pays for which bit of road. And just imagine the stink if you get poor and can't pay to get your garbage collected.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The government exists to disburse funds for paving roads etc. , not to directly employ those who do the work .
It 's the way of collecting the money , sharing the cost across the citizenry , avoiding the arguments about who pays for what and making sure that everybody can get the essential services .
In my part of the UK , government hires contractors for just about all the work , so the private sector is happy .
If government did n't mediate the service work , imagine the arguments about who pays for which bit of road .
And just imagine the stink if you get poor and ca n't pay to get your garbage collected .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The government exists to disburse funds for paving roads etc., not to directly employ those who do the work.
It's the way of collecting the money, sharing the cost across the citizenry, avoiding the arguments about who pays for what and making sure that everybody can get the essential services.
In my part of the UK, government hires contractors for just about all the work, so the private sector is happy.
If government didn't mediate the service work, imagine the arguments about who pays for which bit of road.
And just imagine the stink if you get poor and can't pay to get your garbage collected.
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289671</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289937</id>
	<title>Re:Its simple....</title>
	<author>johnsonav</author>
	<datestamp>1244661180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I await the people trying to figure out which political stripe they can flame me as.</p></div><p>You're a (little "d") democrat:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>The truth is the government exists to do whatever the people consent to them doing.</p></div><p>Not quite my cup of tea. But, I'll leave the flaming to someone else.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I await the people trying to figure out which political stripe they can flame me as.You 're a ( little " d " ) democrat : The truth is the government exists to do whatever the people consent to them doing.Not quite my cup of tea .
But , I 'll leave the flaming to someone else .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I await the people trying to figure out which political stripe they can flame me as.You're a (little "d") democrat:The truth is the government exists to do whatever the people consent to them doing.Not quite my cup of tea.
But, I'll leave the flaming to someone else.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289671</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28290315</id>
	<title>Re:Medical research</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244752140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Healthcare costs in the United States are so high that international health insurance plans generally just cover every country that isn't America. A huge part of the problem is the extreme expense associated with the opaque nature of the pharmaceutical industry.</p></div><p>IMHO, there are three monopoly situations driving up the cost of US health care.</p><p>One, that you identify, is an artificial monopoly imposed by the federal government on pharmaceuticals (drug patents). Because they have a monopolies, the pharmaceutical companies can charge much more than the actual cost of producing the drug - and then funnel those monopoly profits into such things as CEO compensation and marketing.</p><p>The second monopoly is an artificial shortage of medial doctors engineered by medical school admissions policies. As of result of this monopoly shortage of medical doctors, it is very difficult to see a medical doctor at all (appointments must be scheduled weeks of even months in advance) and medical doctors are free to charge exorbitant fees.</p><p>The third monopoly is about insurance, broadly stated. The costs involved in health care essentially require both patients and doctors to get insurance. What this means is that one patient ends up paying for another patient's health care (or lawsuit award). Some young healthy guy ends up paying for some other old guy to have a million dollars worth of health care in the last few weeks of his life (or for a multimillion dollar lawsuit award).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Healthcare costs in the United States are so high that international health insurance plans generally just cover every country that is n't America .
A huge part of the problem is the extreme expense associated with the opaque nature of the pharmaceutical industry.IMHO , there are three monopoly situations driving up the cost of US health care.One , that you identify , is an artificial monopoly imposed by the federal government on pharmaceuticals ( drug patents ) .
Because they have a monopolies , the pharmaceutical companies can charge much more than the actual cost of producing the drug - and then funnel those monopoly profits into such things as CEO compensation and marketing.The second monopoly is an artificial shortage of medial doctors engineered by medical school admissions policies .
As of result of this monopoly shortage of medical doctors , it is very difficult to see a medical doctor at all ( appointments must be scheduled weeks of even months in advance ) and medical doctors are free to charge exorbitant fees.The third monopoly is about insurance , broadly stated .
The costs involved in health care essentially require both patients and doctors to get insurance .
What this means is that one patient ends up paying for another patient 's health care ( or lawsuit award ) .
Some young healthy guy ends up paying for some other old guy to have a million dollars worth of health care in the last few weeks of his life ( or for a multimillion dollar lawsuit award ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Healthcare costs in the United States are so high that international health insurance plans generally just cover every country that isn't America.
A huge part of the problem is the extreme expense associated with the opaque nature of the pharmaceutical industry.IMHO, there are three monopoly situations driving up the cost of US health care.One, that you identify, is an artificial monopoly imposed by the federal government on pharmaceuticals (drug patents).
Because they have a monopolies, the pharmaceutical companies can charge much more than the actual cost of producing the drug - and then funnel those monopoly profits into such things as CEO compensation and marketing.The second monopoly is an artificial shortage of medial doctors engineered by medical school admissions policies.
As of result of this monopoly shortage of medical doctors, it is very difficult to see a medical doctor at all (appointments must be scheduled weeks of even months in advance) and medical doctors are free to charge exorbitant fees.The third monopoly is about insurance, broadly stated.
The costs involved in health care essentially require both patients and doctors to get insurance.
What this means is that one patient ends up paying for another patient's health care (or lawsuit award).
Some young healthy guy ends up paying for some other old guy to have a million dollars worth of health care in the last few weeks of his life (or for a multimillion dollar lawsuit award).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289357</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289879</id>
	<title>Re:Baby Boomers</title>
	<author>dunkelfalke</author>
	<datestamp>1244660580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>CEOs and congressmen sell neither sub-prime mortgages nor financial derivatives. Clerks in their late twenties do (and get a huge commission for that). Ah, and they hate taxes as well. So much for your generation being not greedy at all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>CEOs and congressmen sell neither sub-prime mortgages nor financial derivatives .
Clerks in their late twenties do ( and get a huge commission for that ) .
Ah , and they hate taxes as well .
So much for your generation being not greedy at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>CEOs and congressmen sell neither sub-prime mortgages nor financial derivatives.
Clerks in their late twenties do (and get a huge commission for that).
Ah, and they hate taxes as well.
So much for your generation being not greedy at all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289415</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28290325</id>
	<title>Beehive Collapse Disorder</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244752320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>US government and others should look into this and spend enough money to find out why("Money is not an option"). If it this gets out of hand; I fear what the future will become.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>US government and others should look into this and spend enough money to find out why ( " Money is not an option " ) .
If it this gets out of hand ; I fear what the future will become .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>US government and others should look into this and spend enough money to find out why("Money is not an option").
If it this gets out of hand; I fear what the future will become.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289449</id>
	<title>Re:That's Obvious</title>
	<author>JeanBaptiste</author>
	<datestamp>1244656620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>well outside maybe the 1920's, I can't think of a particular time America has been at peace for 10+ years.</p><p>not that it's good or bad, just how it is... I'd say we have such internal peace cause we've always had external conflicts, not unlike Britain or Rome's rise and fall.</p><p>-maybe we will beat the fall somehow<br>--someone's gotta be the first</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>well outside maybe the 1920 's , I ca n't think of a particular time America has been at peace for 10 + years.not that it 's good or bad , just how it is... I 'd say we have such internal peace cause we 've always had external conflicts , not unlike Britain or Rome 's rise and fall.-maybe we will beat the fall somehow--someone 's got ta be the first</tokentext>
<sentencetext>well outside maybe the 1920's, I can't think of a particular time America has been at peace for 10+ years.not that it's good or bad, just how it is... I'd say we have such internal peace cause we've always had external conflicts, not unlike Britain or Rome's rise and fall.-maybe we will beat the fall somehow--someone's gotta be the first</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289299</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28292055</id>
	<title>Ironically...</title>
	<author>mforbes</author>
	<datestamp>1244729040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>On the very day this question was posted, this <a href="http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17289" title="newscientist.com">article</a> [newscientist.com] appeared in New Scientist, talking about the $3B the US' National Science Foundation received as part of the stimulus, and the promise made by Pres. Bush and supported by Pres. Obama to double the NSF's funding in 10 years.
<br> <br>
Perhaps the government <i>does</i> fund research...</htmltext>
<tokenext>On the very day this question was posted , this article [ newscientist.com ] appeared in New Scientist , talking about the $ 3B the US ' National Science Foundation received as part of the stimulus , and the promise made by Pres .
Bush and supported by Pres .
Obama to double the NSF 's funding in 10 years .
Perhaps the government does fund research.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On the very day this question was posted, this article [newscientist.com] appeared in New Scientist, talking about the $3B the US' National Science Foundation received as part of the stimulus, and the promise made by Pres.
Bush and supported by Pres.
Obama to double the NSF's funding in 10 years.
Perhaps the government does fund research...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28291513</id>
	<title>Anti-intellectualism</title>
	<author>stewbacca</author>
	<datestamp>1244725860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why isn't the government funding research?  How about 8-years of leadership from a political party that revels in anti-intellectualism.  Everyone knows common sense is all we need--why spend money on those liberal college people!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why is n't the government funding research ?
How about 8-years of leadership from a political party that revels in anti-intellectualism .
Everyone knows common sense is all we need--why spend money on those liberal college people !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why isn't the government funding research?
How about 8-years of leadership from a political party that revels in anti-intellectualism.
Everyone knows common sense is all we need--why spend money on those liberal college people!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28295529</id>
	<title>Re:Its simple....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244741400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Government can be very good at doing basic research.  Entrepreneurial industry can be very good at turning research into a saleable product.</p><p>The two are at odds for the limited resources available (that's what the fight over tax levels is all about), but they need each other.</p><p>The <i>extremely obvious</i> and very foreseeable problem with the government exerting control over GM through its ownership (yes, ownership) of around 70\% of the restructured company is not that GM will have poor research priorities, but that governments have always, ALWAYS, proved extremely slow-moving and poorly-attuned when it comes to catering to consumers' desires in any highly competitive and style-oriented market.</p><p>During the 20th century, there were many governments that tried dabbling in the auto industry -- and not just behind the iron curtain, either.  But pretty much any time that they tried to influence business strategy or product design, the results were drab and unimaginative.  To do well with cars, it seems that you have to take huge visionary risks.  Sometimes you wind up with a flop like the Edsel, but sometimes you strike gold.</p><p>The new "Government Motors" desperately needs to strike gold with at least one model, and their chances of this are very nearly zero.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Government can be very good at doing basic research .
Entrepreneurial industry can be very good at turning research into a saleable product.The two are at odds for the limited resources available ( that 's what the fight over tax levels is all about ) , but they need each other.The extremely obvious and very foreseeable problem with the government exerting control over GM through its ownership ( yes , ownership ) of around 70 \ % of the restructured company is not that GM will have poor research priorities , but that governments have always , ALWAYS , proved extremely slow-moving and poorly-attuned when it comes to catering to consumers ' desires in any highly competitive and style-oriented market.During the 20th century , there were many governments that tried dabbling in the auto industry -- and not just behind the iron curtain , either .
But pretty much any time that they tried to influence business strategy or product design , the results were drab and unimaginative .
To do well with cars , it seems that you have to take huge visionary risks .
Sometimes you wind up with a flop like the Edsel , but sometimes you strike gold.The new " Government Motors " desperately needs to strike gold with at least one model , and their chances of this are very nearly zero .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Government can be very good at doing basic research.
Entrepreneurial industry can be very good at turning research into a saleable product.The two are at odds for the limited resources available (that's what the fight over tax levels is all about), but they need each other.The extremely obvious and very foreseeable problem with the government exerting control over GM through its ownership (yes, ownership) of around 70\% of the restructured company is not that GM will have poor research priorities, but that governments have always, ALWAYS, proved extremely slow-moving and poorly-attuned when it comes to catering to consumers' desires in any highly competitive and style-oriented market.During the 20th century, there were many governments that tried dabbling in the auto industry -- and not just behind the iron curtain, either.
But pretty much any time that they tried to influence business strategy or product design, the results were drab and unimaginative.
To do well with cars, it seems that you have to take huge visionary risks.
Sometimes you wind up with a flop like the Edsel, but sometimes you strike gold.The new "Government Motors" desperately needs to strike gold with at least one model, and their chances of this are very nearly zero.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289741</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28302999</id>
	<title>Re:Its simple....</title>
	<author>Larryish</author>
	<datestamp>1244728680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I await the people trying to figure out which political stripe they can flame me as.</p></div><p>You are a damned LIBRUL!!!1

O.k., I'll go back to my Oolite game.

Sorry.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I await the people trying to figure out which political stripe they can flame me as.You are a damned LIBRUL ! !
! 1 O.k. , I 'll go back to my Oolite game .
Sorry .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I await the people trying to figure out which political stripe they can flame me as.You are a damned LIBRUL!!
!1

O.k., I'll go back to my Oolite game.
Sorry.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289671</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28296375</id>
	<title>Shocking</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244744400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Are you somehow implying that the government isn't 100\% efficient?  Say it isn't so!</p><p>Please.  Don't say an ill-advised bailout targeted at the ruling party's political base surprises you.  That's what government does.  It makes political decisions, not wise ones.  That's exactly why it's good to have the govt control as little of the economy as possible.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are you somehow implying that the government is n't 100 \ % efficient ?
Say it is n't so ! Please .
Do n't say an ill-advised bailout targeted at the ruling party 's political base surprises you .
That 's what government does .
It makes political decisions , not wise ones .
That 's exactly why it 's good to have the govt control as little of the economy as possible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are you somehow implying that the government isn't 100\% efficient?
Say it isn't so!Please.
Don't say an ill-advised bailout targeted at the ruling party's political base surprises you.
That's what government does.
It makes political decisions, not wise ones.
That's exactly why it's good to have the govt control as little of the economy as possible.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289967</id>
	<title>Re:That's Obvious</title>
	<author>The Master Control P</author>
	<datestamp>1244661420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>America has a hard time being at peace in the present world because, as the top dog and de facto world policeman, we inevitably get drawn into everyone's little spats.<br> <br>

We flirted with colonialism circa 1900, decided we didn't really like it too much, then got involved in WWI. Managed to hide from war for 22 years, got violently drawn into WWII. Since then I think it comes down to, we've decided it's better to intervene in those little spats before they turn into world wars. Because world wars suck.<br> <br>

And I'll come down tentatively on the side of our involvement being good... If we don't want to play World Policeman I'm sure China would be happy to step in.</htmltext>
<tokenext>America has a hard time being at peace in the present world because , as the top dog and de facto world policeman , we inevitably get drawn into everyone 's little spats .
We flirted with colonialism circa 1900 , decided we did n't really like it too much , then got involved in WWI .
Managed to hide from war for 22 years , got violently drawn into WWII .
Since then I think it comes down to , we 've decided it 's better to intervene in those little spats before they turn into world wars .
Because world wars suck .
And I 'll come down tentatively on the side of our involvement being good... If we do n't want to play World Policeman I 'm sure China would be happy to step in .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>America has a hard time being at peace in the present world because, as the top dog and de facto world policeman, we inevitably get drawn into everyone's little spats.
We flirted with colonialism circa 1900, decided we didn't really like it too much, then got involved in WWI.
Managed to hide from war for 22 years, got violently drawn into WWII.
Since then I think it comes down to, we've decided it's better to intervene in those little spats before they turn into world wars.
Because world wars suck.
And I'll come down tentatively on the side of our involvement being good... If we don't want to play World Policeman I'm sure China would be happy to step in.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289449</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28293465</id>
	<title>Re:Next question, please</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244733840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>GM can't build an electric car if the company goes into liquidation. GM can't sell an electric car if its dealers go into liquidation.</i></p><p>GM already built an electric car then killed the whole program and sold all the tech for the batteries to an oil company.  So maybe they should just go into liquidation and let Ford do it since they can manage to come up with money without the goverment.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>GM ca n't build an electric car if the company goes into liquidation .
GM ca n't sell an electric car if its dealers go into liquidation.GM already built an electric car then killed the whole program and sold all the tech for the batteries to an oil company .
So maybe they should just go into liquidation and let Ford do it since they can manage to come up with money without the goverment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>GM can't build an electric car if the company goes into liquidation.
GM can't sell an electric car if its dealers go into liquidation.GM already built an electric car then killed the whole program and sold all the tech for the batteries to an oil company.
So maybe they should just go into liquidation and let Ford do it since they can manage to come up with money without the goverment.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289751</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28302915</id>
	<title>Re:That's Obvious</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244727960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>your shit is so backwards its coming out your mouth.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>your shit is so backwards its coming out your mouth .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>your shit is so backwards its coming out your mouth.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289967</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289511</id>
	<title>Remember the General Motors EV1?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244657160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The big money is in replacement parts for your POS gas guzzler. Filters, oil changes, tune-ups, sensors, you name it, these all cost you money and car manufacturers are in business to make money. They don't want to sell you a car and that be the end of it. So it does not matter, if the Government gave the money to a company that produced electric cars, that company would get bought by a combustion engine car maker. (Just look at Tesla motors). Tesla was a good idea, but the Bitches sold out. It was nice knowing you Tesla Motors... bye.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The big money is in replacement parts for your POS gas guzzler .
Filters , oil changes , tune-ups , sensors , you name it , these all cost you money and car manufacturers are in business to make money .
They do n't want to sell you a car and that be the end of it .
So it does not matter , if the Government gave the money to a company that produced electric cars , that company would get bought by a combustion engine car maker .
( Just look at Tesla motors ) .
Tesla was a good idea , but the Bitches sold out .
It was nice knowing you Tesla Motors... bye .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The big money is in replacement parts for your POS gas guzzler.
Filters, oil changes, tune-ups, sensors, you name it, these all cost you money and car manufacturers are in business to make money.
They don't want to sell you a car and that be the end of it.
So it does not matter, if the Government gave the money to a company that produced electric cars, that company would get bought by a combustion engine car maker.
(Just look at Tesla motors).
Tesla was a good idea, but the Bitches sold out.
It was nice knowing you Tesla Motors... bye.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28294521</id>
	<title>Socialists don't do research.</title>
	<author>nurb432</author>
	<datestamp>1244737920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Unless its military or better ways to control their citizens.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unless its military or better ways to control their citizens .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unless its military or better ways to control their citizens.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289341</id>
	<title>Its simple....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244655780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The government exists to pave roads, protect the borders, pick up the trash (at least in my city), and maintain parks. Public water is a good idea too. Everything else is a waste of good tax payer dollars. The more dollars that are in your pocket the more you can spend on things that drive innovation. There is surely a market for long lasting batteries, and as in the case of GM, companies have been investing heavily in new technologies. How is getting some public governmental research entity started going to be remotely cost effective and efficient, because we all know that government departments are the model of efficiency? Oh, and do you just start from scratch? I mean there are scores of next generation batteries being worked on right now, with a lot of inroads being built behind closed doors. It doesn't really make sense to just start with nothing and try to compete with that. This is also market manipulation. A public domain battery concept would ultimately undermine any company's investment in battery research and development. Doesn't the government own GM anyways now? I mean, look at it this way, your tax dollars are already going to battery research.</p><p>At least the new cameros look sweet. There might be some hope left for good old gm....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The government exists to pave roads , protect the borders , pick up the trash ( at least in my city ) , and maintain parks .
Public water is a good idea too .
Everything else is a waste of good tax payer dollars .
The more dollars that are in your pocket the more you can spend on things that drive innovation .
There is surely a market for long lasting batteries , and as in the case of GM , companies have been investing heavily in new technologies .
How is getting some public governmental research entity started going to be remotely cost effective and efficient , because we all know that government departments are the model of efficiency ?
Oh , and do you just start from scratch ?
I mean there are scores of next generation batteries being worked on right now , with a lot of inroads being built behind closed doors .
It does n't really make sense to just start with nothing and try to compete with that .
This is also market manipulation .
A public domain battery concept would ultimately undermine any company 's investment in battery research and development .
Does n't the government own GM anyways now ?
I mean , look at it this way , your tax dollars are already going to battery research.At least the new cameros look sweet .
There might be some hope left for good old gm... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The government exists to pave roads, protect the borders, pick up the trash (at least in my city), and maintain parks.
Public water is a good idea too.
Everything else is a waste of good tax payer dollars.
The more dollars that are in your pocket the more you can spend on things that drive innovation.
There is surely a market for long lasting batteries, and as in the case of GM, companies have been investing heavily in new technologies.
How is getting some public governmental research entity started going to be remotely cost effective and efficient, because we all know that government departments are the model of efficiency?
Oh, and do you just start from scratch?
I mean there are scores of next generation batteries being worked on right now, with a lot of inroads being built behind closed doors.
It doesn't really make sense to just start with nothing and try to compete with that.
This is also market manipulation.
A public domain battery concept would ultimately undermine any company's investment in battery research and development.
Doesn't the government own GM anyways now?
I mean, look at it this way, your tax dollars are already going to battery research.At least the new cameros look sweet.
There might be some hope left for good old gm....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289289</id>
	<title>easy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244655120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>WITH JEWS YOU LOSE</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>WITH JEWS YOU LOSE</tokentext>
<sentencetext>WITH JEWS YOU LOSE</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289783</id>
	<title>Check the Constitution...</title>
	<author>flyneye</author>
	<datestamp>1244659500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Frankly<nobr> <wbr></nobr>,looking over the constitutional powers allotted to the federal government they have no f**king business buying businesses, funding research, baling businesses out, or a large host of other "responsibilities" they have taken on illegally. They're supposed to protect our borders and manage to screw that up. Run a post office, they do a lousy job of that. Supposed to regulate interstate commerce which they interpret to mean "involve themselves in anything they want to" rather than just making sure trade amongst the several states is fair. They are supposed to collect tariffs on imports rather than tax the citizenry. They seem to screw up just about everything. What's worse is the population of complete morons who continually vote for Democrats and/or Republicans and expect things to change for the better rather than staying the same. Even worse the population is made up of liberal sissy wymynists who would rather cower than do anything about it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Frankly ,looking over the constitutional powers allotted to the federal government they have no f * * king business buying businesses , funding research , baling businesses out , or a large host of other " responsibilities " they have taken on illegally .
They 're supposed to protect our borders and manage to screw that up .
Run a post office , they do a lousy job of that .
Supposed to regulate interstate commerce which they interpret to mean " involve themselves in anything they want to " rather than just making sure trade amongst the several states is fair .
They are supposed to collect tariffs on imports rather than tax the citizenry .
They seem to screw up just about everything .
What 's worse is the population of complete morons who continually vote for Democrats and/or Republicans and expect things to change for the better rather than staying the same .
Even worse the population is made up of liberal sissy wymynists who would rather cower than do anything about it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Frankly ,looking over the constitutional powers allotted to the federal government they have no f**king business buying businesses, funding research, baling businesses out, or a large host of other "responsibilities" they have taken on illegally.
They're supposed to protect our borders and manage to screw that up.
Run a post office, they do a lousy job of that.
Supposed to regulate interstate commerce which they interpret to mean "involve themselves in anything they want to" rather than just making sure trade amongst the several states is fair.
They are supposed to collect tariffs on imports rather than tax the citizenry.
They seem to screw up just about everything.
What's worse is the population of complete morons who continually vote for Democrats and/or Republicans and expect things to change for the better rather than staying the same.
Even worse the population is made up of liberal sissy wymynists who would rather cower than do anything about it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289535</id>
	<title>They spend billions already</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244657400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm sorry, you think that the Government doesn't spend billions in research every year?</p><p>Just because GM is funding research doesn't mean that the government isn't.</p><p>It's not either or.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sorry , you think that the Government does n't spend billions in research every year ? Just because GM is funding research does n't mean that the government is n't.It 's not either or .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sorry, you think that the Government doesn't spend billions in research every year?Just because GM is funding research doesn't mean that the government isn't.It's not either or.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28290515</id>
	<title>Re:Medical research</title>
	<author>Carewolf</author>
	<datestamp>1244711340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Public funding combined with charity funding already covers more than half of all medical research, and more than 90\% in critical diseases. The companies making the discoveries get the patents regardless of where the funding came from.</p><p>The big money is currently in lifestyle drugs and lifestyle diseases, and this is where the drug companies own research money goes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Public funding combined with charity funding already covers more than half of all medical research , and more than 90 \ % in critical diseases .
The companies making the discoveries get the patents regardless of where the funding came from.The big money is currently in lifestyle drugs and lifestyle diseases , and this is where the drug companies own research money goes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Public funding combined with charity funding already covers more than half of all medical research, and more than 90\% in critical diseases.
The companies making the discoveries get the patents regardless of where the funding came from.The big money is currently in lifestyle drugs and lifestyle diseases, and this is where the drug companies own research money goes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289357</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28295603</id>
	<title>the US has guns and bombs to sell</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244741640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>world policing my f*cking foot!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>world policing my f * cking foot !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>world policing my f*cking foot!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28292139</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28295485</id>
	<title>Re:Check the Constitution...</title>
	<author>Hythlodaeus</author>
	<datestamp>1244741220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let me introduce you to the General Welfare Clause and the Elastic Clause.</p><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxing\_and\_Spending\_Clause" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxing\_and\_Spending\_Clause</a> [wikipedia.org]<br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessary\_and\_Proper\_Clause" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessary\_and\_Proper\_Clause</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let me introduce you to the General Welfare Clause and the Elastic Clause.http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxing \ _and \ _Spending \ _Clause [ wikipedia.org ] http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessary \ _and \ _Proper \ _Clause [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let me introduce you to the General Welfare Clause and the Elastic Clause.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxing\_and\_Spending\_Clause [wikipedia.org]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessary\_and\_Proper\_Clause [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289783</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289299</id>
	<title>That's Obvious</title>
	<author>johnsonav</author>
	<datestamp>1244655240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> The Manhattan Project and the Apollo Moon missions are two of the pinnacles of the 20th century scientific achievement</p></div><p>So, extrapolating from those two points, we just need a big, old-fashioned war. (hot or cold, as desired)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Manhattan Project and the Apollo Moon missions are two of the pinnacles of the 20th century scientific achievementSo , extrapolating from those two points , we just need a big , old-fashioned war .
( hot or cold , as desired )</tokentext>
<sentencetext> The Manhattan Project and the Apollo Moon missions are two of the pinnacles of the 20th century scientific achievementSo, extrapolating from those two points, we just need a big, old-fashioned war.
(hot or cold, as desired)
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28292367</id>
	<title>Slow Decline?</title>
	<author>b4upoo</author>
	<datestamp>1244730180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>       The decline of the U.S, relates directly to improved social justice. America was a power house when we had slavery and starvation wages for workers. We also had brutal policies in relation to foreign powers as well as our own American Indians.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; But we pulled the five year olds out of the coal mines. We freed the slaves. We established a minimum wage and insisted upon safety in the work place. We toned down actions such as kicking the Mexicans out of the ownership of most of the American west.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; And every time we improved life for the oppressed there was little thought that companies would have to compete with nations such as China and Russia that use slave labor. Our machine shop workers did not sleep next to their machines while another worker continued machining. Our Pullman workers did not starve to death on the job. And America declined.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; It has not been a recent process. Our decline relates directly to justice and fairness for the lower classes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The decline of the U.S , relates directly to improved social justice .
America was a power house when we had slavery and starvation wages for workers .
We also had brutal policies in relation to foreign powers as well as our own American Indians .
              But we pulled the five year olds out of the coal mines .
We freed the slaves .
We established a minimum wage and insisted upon safety in the work place .
We toned down actions such as kicking the Mexicans out of the ownership of most of the American west .
              And every time we improved life for the oppressed there was little thought that companies would have to compete with nations such as China and Russia that use slave labor .
Our machine shop workers did not sleep next to their machines while another worker continued machining .
Our Pullman workers did not starve to death on the job .
And America declined .
              It has not been a recent process .
Our decline relates directly to justice and fairness for the lower classes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>       The decline of the U.S, relates directly to improved social justice.
America was a power house when we had slavery and starvation wages for workers.
We also had brutal policies in relation to foreign powers as well as our own American Indians.
              But we pulled the five year olds out of the coal mines.
We freed the slaves.
We established a minimum wage and insisted upon safety in the work place.
We toned down actions such as kicking the Mexicans out of the ownership of most of the American west.
              And every time we improved life for the oppressed there was little thought that companies would have to compete with nations such as China and Russia that use slave labor.
Our machine shop workers did not sleep next to their machines while another worker continued machining.
Our Pullman workers did not starve to death on the job.
And America declined.
              It has not been a recent process.
Our decline relates directly to justice and fairness for the lower classes.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289545</id>
	<title>Re:Its simple....</title>
	<author>sumdumass</author>
	<datestamp>1244657460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't know why you are marked as Flamebait. What you said is technically true and it's about time people started realizing the truth. The US federal government has absolutely no constitutional authority to own private enterprise and it has used the same stretches of constitutional authorization that allows welfare to exist to take over GM and Amtrak and other business bailouts.</p><p>At best, congress can build and/or provide for "needful buildings" but there a demonstration of need has to be made as in it's necessity of the survival or operation of the country. Buying out businesses to promote a pet project already being tackled by private enterprise is a hard sell on that.</p><p>In short, what we are seeing today shouldn't be possible if the constitution was intact. Buying businesses to give tech away would undermine the capitol system that our economy walks upon. It would end up doing more damage economically and constitutionally then it would do any good.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know why you are marked as Flamebait .
What you said is technically true and it 's about time people started realizing the truth .
The US federal government has absolutely no constitutional authority to own private enterprise and it has used the same stretches of constitutional authorization that allows welfare to exist to take over GM and Amtrak and other business bailouts.At best , congress can build and/or provide for " needful buildings " but there a demonstration of need has to be made as in it 's necessity of the survival or operation of the country .
Buying out businesses to promote a pet project already being tackled by private enterprise is a hard sell on that.In short , what we are seeing today should n't be possible if the constitution was intact .
Buying businesses to give tech away would undermine the capitol system that our economy walks upon .
It would end up doing more damage economically and constitutionally then it would do any good .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know why you are marked as Flamebait.
What you said is technically true and it's about time people started realizing the truth.
The US federal government has absolutely no constitutional authority to own private enterprise and it has used the same stretches of constitutional authorization that allows welfare to exist to take over GM and Amtrak and other business bailouts.At best, congress can build and/or provide for "needful buildings" but there a demonstration of need has to be made as in it's necessity of the survival or operation of the country.
Buying out businesses to promote a pet project already being tackled by private enterprise is a hard sell on that.In short, what we are seeing today shouldn't be possible if the constitution was intact.
Buying businesses to give tech away would undermine the capitol system that our economy walks upon.
It would end up doing more damage economically and constitutionally then it would do any good.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289341</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28294039</id>
	<title>Re:Its simple....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244736060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The government built the highway system because Eisenhower found it to be a great military asset for moving military equipment in a time of war. People are just leeching off of it like with most military things.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The government built the highway system because Eisenhower found it to be a great military asset for moving military equipment in a time of war .
People are just leeching off of it like with most military things .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The government built the highway system because Eisenhower found it to be a great military asset for moving military equipment in a time of war.
People are just leeching off of it like with most military things.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289671</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28292081</id>
	<title>Re:Fixed</title>
	<author>NotBornYesterday</author>
	<datestamp>1244729160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yeah, I know you're only joking, but judging from the zillion+ posts that have followed regarding USA being too evil and warlike, few other slashdotters get it.  (Is there a USA corollary to Godwin's Law?  If not, I am claiming its invention, as well as its naming rights.  It shall hereby be referred to as "Alfred's Law", or more properly as "Alfred's Corollary".  Its definition shall be as follows:  As a internet discussion grows longer, the probability of it degenerating into an anti-US rant approaches 1.)
<br> <br>
The answer to the author's question is simple.  Research gives results <i>eventually</i>.  The car companies need cash <i>now</i>.  If government-funded research like this were to have helped the US car manufacturers by now, it should have been started several years ago.  If this research starts today, it will bear fruit some years from now, and take some years after that to show up in production models.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , I know you 're only joking , but judging from the zillion + posts that have followed regarding USA being too evil and warlike , few other slashdotters get it .
( Is there a USA corollary to Godwin 's Law ?
If not , I am claiming its invention , as well as its naming rights .
It shall hereby be referred to as " Alfred 's Law " , or more properly as " Alfred 's Corollary " .
Its definition shall be as follows : As a internet discussion grows longer , the probability of it degenerating into an anti-US rant approaches 1 .
) The answer to the author 's question is simple .
Research gives results eventually .
The car companies need cash now .
If government-funded research like this were to have helped the US car manufacturers by now , it should have been started several years ago .
If this research starts today , it will bear fruit some years from now , and take some years after that to show up in production models .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, I know you're only joking, but judging from the zillion+ posts that have followed regarding USA being too evil and warlike, few other slashdotters get it.
(Is there a USA corollary to Godwin's Law?
If not, I am claiming its invention, as well as its naming rights.
It shall hereby be referred to as "Alfred's Law", or more properly as "Alfred's Corollary".
Its definition shall be as follows:  As a internet discussion grows longer, the probability of it degenerating into an anti-US rant approaches 1.
)
 
The answer to the author's question is simple.
Research gives results eventually.
The car companies need cash now.
If government-funded research like this were to have helped the US car manufacturers by now, it should have been started several years ago.
If this research starts today, it will bear fruit some years from now, and take some years after that to show up in production models.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289293</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289905</id>
	<title>Re:Baby Boomers</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244660880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, we did it on purpose.  You see,  huge deposits of untapped fun were uncovered in the 60s: sex before AIDS, cheap weed that was so bad that you only got a little stoned instead of being turned into a zombie, and the best popular music in the history of the planet. We found it all, and we used it up and we didn't leave any for you. It all got burned down and all you have is ashes and burn earth. cause that's all you deserve, you whiney twit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , we did it on purpose .
You see , huge deposits of untapped fun were uncovered in the 60s : sex before AIDS , cheap weed that was so bad that you only got a little stoned instead of being turned into a zombie , and the best popular music in the history of the planet .
We found it all , and we used it up and we did n't leave any for you .
It all got burned down and all you have is ashes and burn earth .
cause that 's all you deserve , you whiney twit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, we did it on purpose.
You see,  huge deposits of untapped fun were uncovered in the 60s: sex before AIDS, cheap weed that was so bad that you only got a little stoned instead of being turned into a zombie, and the best popular music in the history of the planet.
We found it all, and we used it up and we didn't leave any for you.
It all got burned down and all you have is ashes and burn earth.
cause that's all you deserve, you whiney twit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289415</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289823</id>
	<title>R&amp;D spending levels</title>
	<author>TheSync</author>
	<datestamp>1244659920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just FYI, US total R&amp;D spending is about $300 billion per year.  About $200 billion is private, and $100 billion is public.</p><p>GM got $50 billion, Chrysler got at least $12 billion, that represents ~60\% of all government R&amp;D spending.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just FYI , US total R&amp;D spending is about $ 300 billion per year .
About $ 200 billion is private , and $ 100 billion is public.GM got $ 50 billion , Chrysler got at least $ 12 billion , that represents ~ 60 \ % of all government R&amp;D spending .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just FYI, US total R&amp;D spending is about $300 billion per year.
About $200 billion is private, and $100 billion is public.GM got $50 billion, Chrysler got at least $12 billion, that represents ~60\% of all government R&amp;D spending.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289373</id>
	<title>It is</title>
	<author>Shipud</author>
	<datestamp>1244656020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>The National Institutes of Health annual budget: $29 billion. That money funds most of the university biomedical research in the US
<a href="http://www.nih.gov/about/budget.htm" title="nih.gov">http://www.nih.gov/about/budget.htm</a> [nih.gov]

Current NIH funded projects include among other things the human genome, the human microbiome, almost all cancer research in the US, obesity, diabetes, communicable diseases..

The National Science Foundation has an extramural grant budget of $6 billion.

The Department of Energy has an extramural research grant budget of $24 billion Among other things they fund alternative energy research, genomic research,


You might say the US federal government should be funding more, but you cannot say it is not funding anything at all.

The space race and the Manhattan project were both driven by wars: WWII and the Cold War. Maybe that is what it takes for a government to fund major research: fear of losing power and primacy to an opponent.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The National Institutes of Health annual budget : $ 29 billion .
That money funds most of the university biomedical research in the US http : //www.nih.gov/about/budget.htm [ nih.gov ] Current NIH funded projects include among other things the human genome , the human microbiome , almost all cancer research in the US , obesity , diabetes , communicable diseases. . The National Science Foundation has an extramural grant budget of $ 6 billion .
The Department of Energy has an extramural research grant budget of $ 24 billion Among other things they fund alternative energy research , genomic research , You might say the US federal government should be funding more , but you can not say it is not funding anything at all .
The space race and the Manhattan project were both driven by wars : WWII and the Cold War .
Maybe that is what it takes for a government to fund major research : fear of losing power and primacy to an opponent .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The National Institutes of Health annual budget: $29 billion.
That money funds most of the university biomedical research in the US
http://www.nih.gov/about/budget.htm [nih.gov]

Current NIH funded projects include among other things the human genome, the human microbiome, almost all cancer research in the US, obesity, diabetes, communicable diseases..

The National Science Foundation has an extramural grant budget of $6 billion.
The Department of Energy has an extramural research grant budget of $24 billion Among other things they fund alternative energy research, genomic research,


You might say the US federal government should be funding more, but you cannot say it is not funding anything at all.
The space race and the Manhattan project were both driven by wars: WWII and the Cold War.
Maybe that is what it takes for a government to fund major research: fear of losing power and primacy to an opponent.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28292261</id>
	<title>Re:That's Obvious</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244729820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>I think you missed the mark by a factor of 1000. There has not been a single government (even down to tribal leadership) that is not marked by comprehensive lying and corruption.</p><p>People like to blind themselves to the fact that their party (country, state, etc) is not righteous; it is not always correct. As soon as you realize that party dilineations are not all that you need to worry about in terms of government, the better off as a nation we will be.</p></div></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think you missed the mark by a factor of 1000 .
There has not been a single government ( even down to tribal leadership ) that is not marked by comprehensive lying and corruption.People like to blind themselves to the fact that their party ( country , state , etc ) is not righteous ; it is not always correct .
As soon as you realize that party dilineations are not all that you need to worry about in terms of government , the better off as a nation we will be .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think you missed the mark by a factor of 1000.
There has not been a single government (even down to tribal leadership) that is not marked by comprehensive lying and corruption.People like to blind themselves to the fact that their party (country, state, etc) is not righteous; it is not always correct.
As soon as you realize that party dilineations are not all that you need to worry about in terms of government, the better off as a nation we will be.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28290743</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28290307</id>
	<title>Because...</title>
	<author>50\_1337</author>
	<datestamp>1244752080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That would be Socialism and you don't want that, do you ?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That would be Socialism and you do n't want that , do you ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That would be Socialism and you don't want that, do you ?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289293</id>
	<title>Fixed</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244655180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> From a historical standpoint, the US government has little experience with commercial enterprise... but has an amazing record for driving innovation during war-time.</p></div><p>obviously we need to get on the ball and invade china.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>From a historical standpoint , the US government has little experience with commercial enterprise... but has an amazing record for driving innovation during war-time.obviously we need to get on the ball and invade china .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> From a historical standpoint, the US government has little experience with commercial enterprise... but has an amazing record for driving innovation during war-time.obviously we need to get on the ball and invade china.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28290195</id>
	<title>Re:Its simple....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244750640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"How is getting some public governmental research entity started going to be remotely cost effective and efficient, because we all know that government departments are the model of efficiency?"</p><p>Then how can it be that public governmental road paving, border protection, trash collection, park maintenance and water is a good idea?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" How is getting some public governmental research entity started going to be remotely cost effective and efficient , because we all know that government departments are the model of efficiency ?
" Then how can it be that public governmental road paving , border protection , trash collection , park maintenance and water is a good idea ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"How is getting some public governmental research entity started going to be remotely cost effective and efficient, because we all know that government departments are the model of efficiency?
"Then how can it be that public governmental road paving, border protection, trash collection, park maintenance and water is a good idea?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289341</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28290469</id>
	<title>Re:It is</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244710980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"[I] wonder why the US government is pouring billions into buying companies instead of heavily funding useful research."</p><p>I haven't added up all the numbers, but I think the current total US government expenditure on R&amp;D is in the neighborhood of $140 billion. So, your premise that US government isn't heavily funding useful research doesn't seem particularly accurate. Besides, massive investments in companies and funding of research have very different purposes. The first is to prevent immediate job loss, to limit near-term economic impacts, and to achieve political objectives. The second is more forward looking. (FWIW, I think most government investments in companies will ultimately prove wasted, but I don't get to make those decisions.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" [ I ] wonder why the US government is pouring billions into buying companies instead of heavily funding useful research .
" I have n't added up all the numbers , but I think the current total US government expenditure on R&amp;D is in the neighborhood of $ 140 billion .
So , your premise that US government is n't heavily funding useful research does n't seem particularly accurate .
Besides , massive investments in companies and funding of research have very different purposes .
The first is to prevent immediate job loss , to limit near-term economic impacts , and to achieve political objectives .
The second is more forward looking .
( FWIW , I think most government investments in companies will ultimately prove wasted , but I do n't get to make those decisions .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"[I] wonder why the US government is pouring billions into buying companies instead of heavily funding useful research.
"I haven't added up all the numbers, but I think the current total US government expenditure on R&amp;D is in the neighborhood of $140 billion.
So, your premise that US government isn't heavily funding useful research doesn't seem particularly accurate.
Besides, massive investments in companies and funding of research have very different purposes.
The first is to prevent immediate job loss, to limit near-term economic impacts, and to achieve political objectives.
The second is more forward looking.
(FWIW, I think most government investments in companies will ultimately prove wasted, but I don't get to make those decisions.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289373</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289847</id>
	<title>Re:The US Government IS Funding Research!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244660280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I just saw something on the Colbert Report that confirms the parent post. Apparently some guys at LLNL just made a Death Star called NIF. We got a f#$\%ing Death Star man!!! There goes all arguments.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I just saw something on the Colbert Report that confirms the parent post .
Apparently some guys at LLNL just made a Death Star called NIF .
We got a f # $ \ % ing Death Star man ! ! !
There goes all arguments .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just saw something on the Colbert Report that confirms the parent post.
Apparently some guys at LLNL just made a Death Star called NIF.
We got a f#$\%ing Death Star man!!!
There goes all arguments.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289481</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28292543</id>
	<title>lets do research...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244730780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>to figure out where all our potential research money is being squandered/embezzled.</p><p>oh wait, the government gives money to entrenched political parties to run their campaigns</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>to figure out where all our potential research money is being squandered/embezzled.oh wait , the government gives money to entrenched political parties to run their campaigns</tokentext>
<sentencetext>to figure out where all our potential research money is being squandered/embezzled.oh wait, the government gives money to entrenched political parties to run their campaigns</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28290119</id>
	<title>You're full of shit.</title>
	<author>copponex</author>
	<datestamp>1244663100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From the Brookings Institution.</p><blockquote><div><p>That Canadian banks are more closely, or carefully, regulated is fairly well-known. The specifics, however, deserve more attention.</p><p>The Canadian regulatory edifice is more centralized. There is no provincial equivalent to America's state-chartered banks. All of Canada's banks are federally chartered and overseen by federal agencies. One government-owned entity -- the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) -- plays a dominant role in shaping mortgage default-insurance policy. It and five other government bureaus in Ottawa -- the Department of Finance, the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Bank of Canada, the Financial Consumer Agency, and importantly, the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institution -- set standards, coordinate the overall regulatory structure, and enforce it with sanctions. The Superintendent, for instance, has the power to remove miscreant bank directors and senior officers.</p></div></blockquote><p><a href="http://www.brookings.edu/papers/2009/0423\_canada\_nivola.aspx" title="brookings.edu">http://www.brookings.edu/papers/2009/0423\_canada\_nivola.aspx</a> [brookings.edu]</p><p>The Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 1999 basically overturned Glass Steagall. Take a look at any housing bubble chart you'd like. When did the spike start? About the same time the deregulation fantasy took effect, and corporations knowingly created bad mortgages and passed off the bad debt as good debt because no one had their eye on them. In summary, they knowingly created <b>huge leveraged risks</b> in order to <b>pocket huge comissions</b> and leave someone else holding the assets. If you can come up with a more plausible explanation, please go ahead.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>From the Brookings Institution.That Canadian banks are more closely , or carefully , regulated is fairly well-known .
The specifics , however , deserve more attention.The Canadian regulatory edifice is more centralized .
There is no provincial equivalent to America 's state-chartered banks .
All of Canada 's banks are federally chartered and overseen by federal agencies .
One government-owned entity -- the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation ( CMHC ) -- plays a dominant role in shaping mortgage default-insurance policy .
It and five other government bureaus in Ottawa -- the Department of Finance , the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation , the Bank of Canada , the Financial Consumer Agency , and importantly , the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institution -- set standards , coordinate the overall regulatory structure , and enforce it with sanctions .
The Superintendent , for instance , has the power to remove miscreant bank directors and senior officers.http : //www.brookings.edu/papers/2009/0423 \ _canada \ _nivola.aspx [ brookings.edu ] The Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 1999 basically overturned Glass Steagall .
Take a look at any housing bubble chart you 'd like .
When did the spike start ?
About the same time the deregulation fantasy took effect , and corporations knowingly created bad mortgages and passed off the bad debt as good debt because no one had their eye on them .
In summary , they knowingly created huge leveraged risks in order to pocket huge comissions and leave someone else holding the assets .
If you can come up with a more plausible explanation , please go ahead .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From the Brookings Institution.That Canadian banks are more closely, or carefully, regulated is fairly well-known.
The specifics, however, deserve more attention.The Canadian regulatory edifice is more centralized.
There is no provincial equivalent to America's state-chartered banks.
All of Canada's banks are federally chartered and overseen by federal agencies.
One government-owned entity -- the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) -- plays a dominant role in shaping mortgage default-insurance policy.
It and five other government bureaus in Ottawa -- the Department of Finance, the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Bank of Canada, the Financial Consumer Agency, and importantly, the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institution -- set standards, coordinate the overall regulatory structure, and enforce it with sanctions.
The Superintendent, for instance, has the power to remove miscreant bank directors and senior officers.http://www.brookings.edu/papers/2009/0423\_canada\_nivola.aspx [brookings.edu]The Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 1999 basically overturned Glass Steagall.
Take a look at any housing bubble chart you'd like.
When did the spike start?
About the same time the deregulation fantasy took effect, and corporations knowingly created bad mortgages and passed off the bad debt as good debt because no one had their eye on them.
In summary, they knowingly created huge leveraged risks in order to pocket huge comissions and leave someone else holding the assets.
If you can come up with a more plausible explanation, please go ahead.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289785</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28294837</id>
	<title>Scientific research still getting funded</title>
	<author>klchoward</author>
	<datestamp>1244739060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Even though some scientific funding has been hurt recently the government is still funding scientific research (i.e., my own funding). I know for a fact that the NSF (National Science Foundation) is sending out more funding since they received bailout/recovery money from the government. Global warming research is one of the most important that needs to continue to be funded. Hands down it's the most important area that needs to be realized...we're talking about saving our world! Green technologies go along with this...more research into solar energy, biofuel, etc.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Even though some scientific funding has been hurt recently the government is still funding scientific research ( i.e. , my own funding ) .
I know for a fact that the NSF ( National Science Foundation ) is sending out more funding since they received bailout/recovery money from the government .
Global warming research is one of the most important that needs to continue to be funded .
Hands down it 's the most important area that needs to be realized...we 're talking about saving our world !
Green technologies go along with this...more research into solar energy , biofuel , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even though some scientific funding has been hurt recently the government is still funding scientific research (i.e., my own funding).
I know for a fact that the NSF (National Science Foundation) is sending out more funding since they received bailout/recovery money from the government.
Global warming research is one of the most important that needs to continue to be funded.
Hands down it's the most important area that needs to be realized...we're talking about saving our world!
Green technologies go along with this...more research into solar energy, biofuel, etc.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289383</id>
	<title>Because they're funding Iraq</title>
	<author>syousef</author>
	<datestamp>1244656200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>End of transmission...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>End of transmission.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>End of transmission...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289579</id>
	<title>Re:Its simple....</title>
	<author>royallthefourth</author>
	<datestamp>1244657700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Paving roads? Car companies wouldn't exist the way they do now if we didn't have a huge road system. Every road we pave is basically a subsidy for the auto industry. We could've spent some of that money on railways. Perhaps if we had, we wouldn't be trapped in the sprawling suburban nightmare we have today.</p><p>Think about it: what do you see out the window when you're driving in the car? Where I live, I see parking lots. When I drive anywhere, I park in a parking lot that uses more land than my actual destination. If not for the proliferation of automobiles, we would not rely on them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Paving roads ?
Car companies would n't exist the way they do now if we did n't have a huge road system .
Every road we pave is basically a subsidy for the auto industry .
We could 've spent some of that money on railways .
Perhaps if we had , we would n't be trapped in the sprawling suburban nightmare we have today.Think about it : what do you see out the window when you 're driving in the car ?
Where I live , I see parking lots .
When I drive anywhere , I park in a parking lot that uses more land than my actual destination .
If not for the proliferation of automobiles , we would not rely on them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Paving roads?
Car companies wouldn't exist the way they do now if we didn't have a huge road system.
Every road we pave is basically a subsidy for the auto industry.
We could've spent some of that money on railways.
Perhaps if we had, we wouldn't be trapped in the sprawling suburban nightmare we have today.Think about it: what do you see out the window when you're driving in the car?
Where I live, I see parking lots.
When I drive anywhere, I park in a parking lot that uses more land than my actual destination.
If not for the proliferation of automobiles, we would not rely on them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289341</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289487</id>
	<title>I'm a political economist</title>
	<author>seringen</author>
	<datestamp>1244657040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>All i can say is that I cry myself to sleep every night. I don't care what administration it is, we are flushing money down the same pit. A lot of people are going to be very rich because of all the give aways going down a black hole. Few people in washington even remotely know what they are doing.</htmltext>
<tokenext>All i can say is that I cry myself to sleep every night .
I do n't care what administration it is , we are flushing money down the same pit .
A lot of people are going to be very rich because of all the give aways going down a black hole .
Few people in washington even remotely know what they are doing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All i can say is that I cry myself to sleep every night.
I don't care what administration it is, we are flushing money down the same pit.
A lot of people are going to be very rich because of all the give aways going down a black hole.
Few people in washington even remotely know what they are doing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289565</id>
	<title>We gave it all to poor people instead</title>
	<author>tjstork</author>
	<datestamp>1244657640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let's see, in 1965, we instituted Medicare and Medicaid, and that's an easy 500 billion a year</p><p>then, in 1972 we expanded SSI Disability and that's now 150 billion bucks a year</p><p>in the 1980s Reagan expanded coverage to include pregnant women</p><p>and lately we just added Medicare Part D...</p><p>If we all had our grandparents move back in and die in some quiet room upstairs, put disabled people out on the street with those old alms cups to beg for change, had pregnant women just have babies themselves or have more abortions, we'd have a lot more money for cool stuff.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's see , in 1965 , we instituted Medicare and Medicaid , and that 's an easy 500 billion a yearthen , in 1972 we expanded SSI Disability and that 's now 150 billion bucks a yearin the 1980s Reagan expanded coverage to include pregnant womenand lately we just added Medicare Part D...If we all had our grandparents move back in and die in some quiet room upstairs , put disabled people out on the street with those old alms cups to beg for change , had pregnant women just have babies themselves or have more abortions , we 'd have a lot more money for cool stuff .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's see, in 1965, we instituted Medicare and Medicaid, and that's an easy 500 billion a yearthen, in 1972 we expanded SSI Disability and that's now 150 billion bucks a yearin the 1980s Reagan expanded coverage to include pregnant womenand lately we just added Medicare Part D...If we all had our grandparents move back in and die in some quiet room upstairs, put disabled people out on the street with those old alms cups to beg for change, had pregnant women just have babies themselves or have more abortions, we'd have a lot more money for cool stuff.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28303589</id>
	<title>PBS</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244734260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Like the war on the public broadcasting system, investment money to "a bunch of liberal scientists" was one of the big hate drums of the republican party.  One of the things they did to balance the budget was get rid of that "horrible waist of money".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Like the war on the public broadcasting system , investment money to " a bunch of liberal scientists " was one of the big hate drums of the republican party .
One of the things they did to balance the budget was get rid of that " horrible waist of money " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Like the war on the public broadcasting system, investment money to "a bunch of liberal scientists" was one of the big hate drums of the republican party.
One of the things they did to balance the budget was get rid of that "horrible waist of money".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28290695</id>
	<title>Also</title>
	<author>Sycraft-fu</author>
	<datestamp>1244713980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We have to ask ourselves, do we WANT a Manhattan Project? If so what is the one and only one thing we think we should be researching? People need to remember that all science basically stopped in the US except for the Manhattan Project. All the top minds were recruited out there, all the money was funneled in there, etc. The US threw all the scientific might it had at the time at a single problem.</p><p>So is that what we want now? Do we have a single problem that deserves all the attention of basically 100\% of our research scientists and engineers?</p><p>Because if not, then you DON'T want a Manhattan Project. What you want is probably what we have: A bunch of little research groups working on their own things. I work for a research university so I can say for a fact, there is no shortage of research going on. Is it all useful? No, most certianly not. Some of it is a dead end (research is like that), in other cases the professors just don't know what they are doing. It also isn't focused. Each lab works on different things, they all have different areas they are interested in. So it is small resources on many problems, not massive resources on a single problem.</p><p>However, there's lots of research going on. A good bit of it is funded by the US government too.</p><p>Now this isn't to say that more money wouldn't be nice, perhaps the US government should be increasing research spending. However that is totally separate from having a massive, singular, government owned project that all scientists in the nation go to work on.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We have to ask ourselves , do we WANT a Manhattan Project ?
If so what is the one and only one thing we think we should be researching ?
People need to remember that all science basically stopped in the US except for the Manhattan Project .
All the top minds were recruited out there , all the money was funneled in there , etc .
The US threw all the scientific might it had at the time at a single problem.So is that what we want now ?
Do we have a single problem that deserves all the attention of basically 100 \ % of our research scientists and engineers ? Because if not , then you DO N'T want a Manhattan Project .
What you want is probably what we have : A bunch of little research groups working on their own things .
I work for a research university so I can say for a fact , there is no shortage of research going on .
Is it all useful ?
No , most certianly not .
Some of it is a dead end ( research is like that ) , in other cases the professors just do n't know what they are doing .
It also is n't focused .
Each lab works on different things , they all have different areas they are interested in .
So it is small resources on many problems , not massive resources on a single problem.However , there 's lots of research going on .
A good bit of it is funded by the US government too.Now this is n't to say that more money would n't be nice , perhaps the US government should be increasing research spending .
However that is totally separate from having a massive , singular , government owned project that all scientists in the nation go to work on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We have to ask ourselves, do we WANT a Manhattan Project?
If so what is the one and only one thing we think we should be researching?
People need to remember that all science basically stopped in the US except for the Manhattan Project.
All the top minds were recruited out there, all the money was funneled in there, etc.
The US threw all the scientific might it had at the time at a single problem.So is that what we want now?
Do we have a single problem that deserves all the attention of basically 100\% of our research scientists and engineers?Because if not, then you DON'T want a Manhattan Project.
What you want is probably what we have: A bunch of little research groups working on their own things.
I work for a research university so I can say for a fact, there is no shortage of research going on.
Is it all useful?
No, most certianly not.
Some of it is a dead end (research is like that), in other cases the professors just don't know what they are doing.
It also isn't focused.
Each lab works on different things, they all have different areas they are interested in.
So it is small resources on many problems, not massive resources on a single problem.However, there's lots of research going on.
A good bit of it is funded by the US government too.Now this isn't to say that more money wouldn't be nice, perhaps the US government should be increasing research spending.
However that is totally separate from having a massive, singular, government owned project that all scientists in the nation go to work on.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289373</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28291945</id>
	<title>Re:The US does spend money on research LOTS OF IT</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244728560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>On battery research as well, for a long time now... Try filling in the little search box at www.sandia.gov with the word "battery". I got 325 hits. Some were about technology that uses batteries but the majority was about chemical energy storage.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>On battery research as well , for a long time now... Try filling in the little search box at www.sandia.gov with the word " battery " .
I got 325 hits .
Some were about technology that uses batteries but the majority was about chemical energy storage .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On battery research as well, for a long time now... Try filling in the little search box at www.sandia.gov with the word "battery".
I got 325 hits.
Some were about technology that uses batteries but the majority was about chemical energy storage.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289829</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289741</id>
	<title>Re:Its simple....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244659080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In basic, the "Guvmint" exists to keep us safe and provide basic infrastructure. I would add in water, police, firemen... Oh, and the EPA, FDA, etc. we need  those kinds of watchdog agencies.</p><p>Does the government own GM now?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... No. No it does not. It's just a big shareholder.</p><p>You seem to place great store in the ability of the "market" to innovate. You bash the government for being inefficient. Have you ever worked for a large company? Man.... Trust me, the government doesn't have a monopoly on being stupid and slow.</p><p>And so freaking what if government did open source a battery and undermined a companies research dollars? Really... so what? Who gave companies some kind of right?  No one is guaranteed the right to profit.</p><p>I'm rather tired of this magic land where companies would do what's best for all of us due to the power of the "free market". You know what? The first thing most successful and large companies do is strangle the free market to death so they can retard innovation and competition. It's happened over and over again in pretty much every single industry I can think of. Don't go crying Commie on me... I love the theory of capitalism. It turns human greed into technological progress. It's awesome... but there has to be limits and consequences to the behaviour of large companies.  And man, they do NOT need any protections!</p><p>Think of this... Big business pays almost no taxes. They create something, sometimes with government subsidies or loans. They sell it to us at a profit. Then they dump their waste into the public rivers. We pay for them to make stuff. We pay to get the stuff. Then we pay to clean up the waste from the process. W.T.F!</p><p>Oops... calm down... no ranting... It's ok..... Phew!</p><p>I love it when the government does research and puts the results out there. Everyone benefits and we all pay so very little for such a big gain. That's the magic of government. It doesn't have to be driven by the almighty Profit. It can do  the right thing at a loss, just because it needs to be done. We all benefit, and our slice of the payment is so very tiny.</p><p>People whine about the inefficiency of the government, then they drive on the roads, enjoy the protections of police and firemen, use the public school systems, buy homes that aren't death traps thanks to building codes, reap the benefits of cheap shipping due to interstate highways..... etc etc etc.</p><p>ah, ah... calm... yes....</p><p>For my two cents, I would love to see the government do basic research in:<br>batteries and capacitors. We need this very badly.<br>infrastructure... build high speed rails so we can ship a house across the country for a nickel.<br>Power savings... Why isn't there an open source home design for builders to use? Seriously, something so simple....</p><p>I could go on, but those would be a nice start.</p><p>-Tony</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In basic , the " Guvmint " exists to keep us safe and provide basic infrastructure .
I would add in water , police , firemen... Oh , and the EPA , FDA , etc .
we need those kinds of watchdog agencies.Does the government own GM now ?
... No .
No it does not .
It 's just a big shareholder.You seem to place great store in the ability of the " market " to innovate .
You bash the government for being inefficient .
Have you ever worked for a large company ?
Man.... Trust me , the government does n't have a monopoly on being stupid and slow.And so freaking what if government did open source a battery and undermined a companies research dollars ?
Really... so what ?
Who gave companies some kind of right ?
No one is guaranteed the right to profit.I 'm rather tired of this magic land where companies would do what 's best for all of us due to the power of the " free market " .
You know what ?
The first thing most successful and large companies do is strangle the free market to death so they can retard innovation and competition .
It 's happened over and over again in pretty much every single industry I can think of .
Do n't go crying Commie on me... I love the theory of capitalism .
It turns human greed into technological progress .
It 's awesome... but there has to be limits and consequences to the behaviour of large companies .
And man , they do NOT need any protections ! Think of this... Big business pays almost no taxes .
They create something , sometimes with government subsidies or loans .
They sell it to us at a profit .
Then they dump their waste into the public rivers .
We pay for them to make stuff .
We pay to get the stuff .
Then we pay to clean up the waste from the process .
W.T.F ! Oops... calm down... no ranting... It 's ok..... Phew ! I love it when the government does research and puts the results out there .
Everyone benefits and we all pay so very little for such a big gain .
That 's the magic of government .
It does n't have to be driven by the almighty Profit .
It can do the right thing at a loss , just because it needs to be done .
We all benefit , and our slice of the payment is so very tiny.People whine about the inefficiency of the government , then they drive on the roads , enjoy the protections of police and firemen , use the public school systems , buy homes that are n't death traps thanks to building codes , reap the benefits of cheap shipping due to interstate highways..... etc etc etc.ah , ah... calm... yes....For my two cents , I would love to see the government do basic research in : batteries and capacitors .
We need this very badly.infrastructure... build high speed rails so we can ship a house across the country for a nickel.Power savings... Why is n't there an open source home design for builders to use ?
Seriously , something so simple....I could go on , but those would be a nice start.-Tony</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In basic, the "Guvmint" exists to keep us safe and provide basic infrastructure.
I would add in water, police, firemen... Oh, and the EPA, FDA, etc.
we need  those kinds of watchdog agencies.Does the government own GM now?
... No.
No it does not.
It's just a big shareholder.You seem to place great store in the ability of the "market" to innovate.
You bash the government for being inefficient.
Have you ever worked for a large company?
Man.... Trust me, the government doesn't have a monopoly on being stupid and slow.And so freaking what if government did open source a battery and undermined a companies research dollars?
Really... so what?
Who gave companies some kind of right?
No one is guaranteed the right to profit.I'm rather tired of this magic land where companies would do what's best for all of us due to the power of the "free market".
You know what?
The first thing most successful and large companies do is strangle the free market to death so they can retard innovation and competition.
It's happened over and over again in pretty much every single industry I can think of.
Don't go crying Commie on me... I love the theory of capitalism.
It turns human greed into technological progress.
It's awesome... but there has to be limits and consequences to the behaviour of large companies.
And man, they do NOT need any protections!Think of this... Big business pays almost no taxes.
They create something, sometimes with government subsidies or loans.
They sell it to us at a profit.
Then they dump their waste into the public rivers.
We pay for them to make stuff.
We pay to get the stuff.
Then we pay to clean up the waste from the process.
W.T.F!Oops... calm down... no ranting... It's ok..... Phew!I love it when the government does research and puts the results out there.
Everyone benefits and we all pay so very little for such a big gain.
That's the magic of government.
It doesn't have to be driven by the almighty Profit.
It can do  the right thing at a loss, just because it needs to be done.
We all benefit, and our slice of the payment is so very tiny.People whine about the inefficiency of the government, then they drive on the roads, enjoy the protections of police and firemen, use the public school systems, buy homes that aren't death traps thanks to building codes, reap the benefits of cheap shipping due to interstate highways..... etc etc etc.ah, ah... calm... yes....For my two cents, I would love to see the government do basic research in:batteries and capacitors.
We need this very badly.infrastructure... build high speed rails so we can ship a house across the country for a nickel.Power savings... Why isn't there an open source home design for builders to use?
Seriously, something so simple....I could go on, but those would be a nice start.-Tony</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289341</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289589</id>
	<title>As a point of fact...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244657760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...US research is just fine and growing if you look at, you know, the actual numbers.  As is Asia. Europe, by contrast, is in serious decline.</p><p>The vast majority of research in the US is privately funded, and has been for many decades.  A half century ago this was not the case, but today it is.  Furthermore, private research in the US is highly productive as such things go, so this distribution is not necessarily a bad thing.  It is not so much that the US government is cutting research funding as it is that private funding continues to grow faster than public funding.</p><p>The US government is even a declining percentage of so-called "basic research", though still the majority of such funding at around 60\%.  These are all the pure science things that would nominally never get funded if the government didn't though obviously that is overstating the case given the stats.</p><p>On the upside, total US research spending continues to grow, just faster in the private sector than the public sector as it has for many decades, and the US still invests more in public and private R&amp;D than anyone else by a large margin.</p><p>The most startling statistic related to R&amp;D funding is that Europe runs a somewhat distant *third* behind the US and Asia despite its GDP and per capita GDP.  Europe is arguably the most glaring example of a region not pulling its weight, though Germany is doing a decent job of it.  A lot of European R&amp;D has migrated to the US and Asia, but they should be a wee bit embarrassed about that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...US research is just fine and growing if you look at , you know , the actual numbers .
As is Asia .
Europe , by contrast , is in serious decline.The vast majority of research in the US is privately funded , and has been for many decades .
A half century ago this was not the case , but today it is .
Furthermore , private research in the US is highly productive as such things go , so this distribution is not necessarily a bad thing .
It is not so much that the US government is cutting research funding as it is that private funding continues to grow faster than public funding.The US government is even a declining percentage of so-called " basic research " , though still the majority of such funding at around 60 \ % .
These are all the pure science things that would nominally never get funded if the government did n't though obviously that is overstating the case given the stats.On the upside , total US research spending continues to grow , just faster in the private sector than the public sector as it has for many decades , and the US still invests more in public and private R&amp;D than anyone else by a large margin.The most startling statistic related to R&amp;D funding is that Europe runs a somewhat distant * third * behind the US and Asia despite its GDP and per capita GDP .
Europe is arguably the most glaring example of a region not pulling its weight , though Germany is doing a decent job of it .
A lot of European R&amp;D has migrated to the US and Asia , but they should be a wee bit embarrassed about that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...US research is just fine and growing if you look at, you know, the actual numbers.
As is Asia.
Europe, by contrast, is in serious decline.The vast majority of research in the US is privately funded, and has been for many decades.
A half century ago this was not the case, but today it is.
Furthermore, private research in the US is highly productive as such things go, so this distribution is not necessarily a bad thing.
It is not so much that the US government is cutting research funding as it is that private funding continues to grow faster than public funding.The US government is even a declining percentage of so-called "basic research", though still the majority of such funding at around 60\%.
These are all the pure science things that would nominally never get funded if the government didn't though obviously that is overstating the case given the stats.On the upside, total US research spending continues to grow, just faster in the private sector than the public sector as it has for many decades, and the US still invests more in public and private R&amp;D than anyone else by a large margin.The most startling statistic related to R&amp;D funding is that Europe runs a somewhat distant *third* behind the US and Asia despite its GDP and per capita GDP.
Europe is arguably the most glaring example of a region not pulling its weight, though Germany is doing a decent job of it.
A lot of European R&amp;D has migrated to the US and Asia, but they should be a wee bit embarrassed about that.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289789</id>
	<title>Re:Baby Boomers</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244659620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was born in the middle of Gen-X. My father is a boomer. More specifically, my father is a hippie, which means he has no money, and never will. Because of this, my siblings and I have realized that there is nobody to take care of us. Consequently, we all work hard, save money, and do decent at making a living and saving money. All my life I have watched my father&#226;(TM)s parents, who are immigrants, bail my father out of financial trouble after financial trouble. It is a real train wreck. The annoying thing is that the most likely scenario that I can see in the future is that when my grandparents die, my brother or I will wind up taking care of my father. Essentially, my father will have somebody take care of him his entire life. To me, most of the boomer generation is like my father. It is hard for me to respect them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was born in the middle of Gen-X .
My father is a boomer .
More specifically , my father is a hippie , which means he has no money , and never will .
Because of this , my siblings and I have realized that there is nobody to take care of us .
Consequently , we all work hard , save money , and do decent at making a living and saving money .
All my life I have watched my father   ( TM ) s parents , who are immigrants , bail my father out of financial trouble after financial trouble .
It is a real train wreck .
The annoying thing is that the most likely scenario that I can see in the future is that when my grandparents die , my brother or I will wind up taking care of my father .
Essentially , my father will have somebody take care of him his entire life .
To me , most of the boomer generation is like my father .
It is hard for me to respect them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was born in the middle of Gen-X.
My father is a boomer.
More specifically, my father is a hippie, which means he has no money, and never will.
Because of this, my siblings and I have realized that there is nobody to take care of us.
Consequently, we all work hard, save money, and do decent at making a living and saving money.
All my life I have watched my fatherâ(TM)s parents, who are immigrants, bail my father out of financial trouble after financial trouble.
It is a real train wreck.
The annoying thing is that the most likely scenario that I can see in the future is that when my grandparents die, my brother or I will wind up taking care of my father.
Essentially, my father will have somebody take care of him his entire life.
To me, most of the boomer generation is like my father.
It is hard for me to respect them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289415</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28290023</id>
	<title>Future Technology II?</title>
	<author>CodeBuster</author>
	<datestamp>1244662080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Nah, that would just be running up the score before we retire in 2050.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nah , that would just be running up the score before we retire in 2050 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nah, that would just be running up the score before we retire in 2050.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28298991</id>
	<title>Re:What research we should do</title>
	<author>IronChef</author>
	<datestamp>1244753400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Even if a pharma company was handed the cure for a rare disease on a silver platter, they might not choose to sell it because there is still a cost to put it on the market. You have to set up a production line, print packaging, etc etc.</p><p>If the government was handing out cures for diseases right and left, I think you'd have to mandate that the companies receiving the "gifts" would have to offer the no-profit or at-loss cures in order to sell the ones that they COULD make money on. But I'd be ok with forcing compliance that way.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Even if a pharma company was handed the cure for a rare disease on a silver platter , they might not choose to sell it because there is still a cost to put it on the market .
You have to set up a production line , print packaging , etc etc.If the government was handing out cures for diseases right and left , I think you 'd have to mandate that the companies receiving the " gifts " would have to offer the no-profit or at-loss cures in order to sell the ones that they COULD make money on .
But I 'd be ok with forcing compliance that way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even if a pharma company was handed the cure for a rare disease on a silver platter, they might not choose to sell it because there is still a cost to put it on the market.
You have to set up a production line, print packaging, etc etc.If the government was handing out cures for diseases right and left, I think you'd have to mandate that the companies receiving the "gifts" would have to offer the no-profit or at-loss cures in order to sell the ones that they COULD make money on.
But I'd be ok with forcing compliance that way.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28291313</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289705</id>
	<title>Re:Its simple....</title>
	<author>j. andrew rogers</author>
	<datestamp>1244658720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That has to be one of the oddest and most ill-informed rants ever.  The modern public library system in the US was built by Andrew Carnegie with his own money, a philanthropic enterprise. Government attempts prior to Carnegie's private effort were spotty and somewhat less than wildly successful.  It is maintained with public money today, but at least in the US the public library system was famously built by massive private investment. Carnegie built something like 2500 libraries, no small number.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That has to be one of the oddest and most ill-informed rants ever .
The modern public library system in the US was built by Andrew Carnegie with his own money , a philanthropic enterprise .
Government attempts prior to Carnegie 's private effort were spotty and somewhat less than wildly successful .
It is maintained with public money today , but at least in the US the public library system was famously built by massive private investment .
Carnegie built something like 2500 libraries , no small number .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That has to be one of the oddest and most ill-informed rants ever.
The modern public library system in the US was built by Andrew Carnegie with his own money, a philanthropic enterprise.
Government attempts prior to Carnegie's private effort were spotty and somewhat less than wildly successful.
It is maintained with public money today, but at least in the US the public library system was famously built by massive private investment.
Carnegie built something like 2500 libraries, no small number.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289417</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289671</id>
	<title>Re:Its simple....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244658420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why does the government exists to pave roads? Or pick up "trash" and maintain parks?</p><p>If you're happy to run road builders and private street cleaners out of business then why not battery research firms? Why is that tiny sector more deserving of protection than a large landowner who wants to build a dam, lay pipe and sell the water?</p><p>Bring a bit of consistency to your ideals for goodness sake, you say the government exists to do x,y,z someone else says that it exists to do a,b and z and someone else says they exist to do a-z. The truth is the government exists to do whatever the people consent to them doing.  If that means researching batteries then that is the choice of the people.  Whether it's a good or bad choice is another story.</p><p>- I await the people trying to figure out which political stripe they can flame me as.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why does the government exists to pave roads ?
Or pick up " trash " and maintain parks ? If you 're happy to run road builders and private street cleaners out of business then why not battery research firms ?
Why is that tiny sector more deserving of protection than a large landowner who wants to build a dam , lay pipe and sell the water ? Bring a bit of consistency to your ideals for goodness sake , you say the government exists to do x,y,z someone else says that it exists to do a,b and z and someone else says they exist to do a-z .
The truth is the government exists to do whatever the people consent to them doing .
If that means researching batteries then that is the choice of the people .
Whether it 's a good or bad choice is another story.- I await the people trying to figure out which political stripe they can flame me as .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why does the government exists to pave roads?
Or pick up "trash" and maintain parks?If you're happy to run road builders and private street cleaners out of business then why not battery research firms?
Why is that tiny sector more deserving of protection than a large landowner who wants to build a dam, lay pipe and sell the water?Bring a bit of consistency to your ideals for goodness sake, you say the government exists to do x,y,z someone else says that it exists to do a,b and z and someone else says they exist to do a-z.
The truth is the government exists to do whatever the people consent to them doing.
If that means researching batteries then that is the choice of the people.
Whether it's a good or bad choice is another story.- I await the people trying to figure out which political stripe they can flame me as.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289341</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28293565</id>
	<title>I remember when it changed...</title>
	<author>hey!</author>
	<datestamp>1244734260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or rather <em>one of the times</em> it changed.  It switches back and forth depending which party has the White House.</p><p>I was a student at the start of the 80s, when the Reagan administration came in. My student job was student technician on a new physics lab.  I was the first technician hired on a project that would eventually have a couple of dozen, and most of my work initially consisted of carpentry, tearing down surplus instruments we'd get from places like Livermore, and preparing tanks and pumps for experiments that needed high vacuum.</p><p>A few months into this, they hired an engineer.  He was actually a physicist whose research funding had dried up, but he had experience with designing and building vacuum systems.   He brought his life's work with him: a magnificent confection of gleaming stainless steel manifolds and flanges.   In the main it consisted of a segmented stainless steel pipe about a foot and a half in diameter and about eight feet long, but with all its fiddly little doo-dads I'd reckon that once it had all been machined it'd weeks of serious effort to assemble.  We were going to use it as small vacuum tank.</p><p>"What's that thing?" I asked him.</p><p>"It's a new kind of electron microscope," he said. "It gives a high resolution picture of the distribution of atomic nuclei types in the sample."  I didn't know much back then other than which end of a hammer was which (the skill for which I'd been hired), but I suppose it must have been some kind of NMR device.</p><p>"So you got cut when the research money got shifted to defense?" I asked.</p><p>"Oh, that wasn't it," he said. "I was on an ONR grant.  They had been interested in the principles of operation, but now they're more focused on immediately useful research."</p><p>"It looks like a death ray," I said suggestively.</p><p>"That would have worked in the old days," he said. "Not anymore.  I blame ROTC.  The guys you deal with aren't scientists, but they know a death ray when they see one and they think like engineers.  They want to talk deaths per dollar.  There's very little funding for this kind of technology research now."</p><p>Now it so happens as military research was turning toward the grim pragmatism of "deaths per dollar", the opposite swing was occurring in civilian research.   Research with identifiable applications was anathema, because that was interfering with the private sector.</p><p>I had a family member who had spent years researching aquaculture techniques.  Not only did he publish papers, his job required him to give free consulting to American businesses.   When the new administration came in, he was no longer allowed to work on anything that had applications.  Instead, he traveled around the world selling his expertise to foreign businesses, designing and building some of the largest aquaculture facilities ever built.   When the Clinton administration came in, he came back to his old job, and when the Bush administration came in, it brought back the old restrictions against doing immediately useful research and he went back to consulting in places like Thailand.   Under left wing administrations,  the US taxpayer underwrote his development of technology too far over the economic horizon to attract private investment. Under right wing administrations they set him loose to transfer that technology to countries with low labor costs and no public technology investment.</p><p>The theory which denigrates useful applied research is self-consistent, at least if you don't try to consider any real world complexities.   It states that if something is potentially useful, the private sector will do it, do it cheaper and do it better.   Within moderation I have no problem with this theory. If the private sector is racing to develop a technology then the government should step out of the way.   The problem I have with this ideology is that it declares that if the private sector is not working on something, that thing must be worthless.  In a market pricing theory of value, that view is technically correct, but that begs the que</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or rather one of the times it changed .
It switches back and forth depending which party has the White House.I was a student at the start of the 80s , when the Reagan administration came in .
My student job was student technician on a new physics lab .
I was the first technician hired on a project that would eventually have a couple of dozen , and most of my work initially consisted of carpentry , tearing down surplus instruments we 'd get from places like Livermore , and preparing tanks and pumps for experiments that needed high vacuum.A few months into this , they hired an engineer .
He was actually a physicist whose research funding had dried up , but he had experience with designing and building vacuum systems .
He brought his life 's work with him : a magnificent confection of gleaming stainless steel manifolds and flanges .
In the main it consisted of a segmented stainless steel pipe about a foot and a half in diameter and about eight feet long , but with all its fiddly little doo-dads I 'd reckon that once it had all been machined it 'd weeks of serious effort to assemble .
We were going to use it as small vacuum tank .
" What 's that thing ?
" I asked him .
" It 's a new kind of electron microscope , " he said .
" It gives a high resolution picture of the distribution of atomic nuclei types in the sample .
" I did n't know much back then other than which end of a hammer was which ( the skill for which I 'd been hired ) , but I suppose it must have been some kind of NMR device .
" So you got cut when the research money got shifted to defense ?
" I asked .
" Oh , that was n't it , " he said .
" I was on an ONR grant .
They had been interested in the principles of operation , but now they 're more focused on immediately useful research .
" " It looks like a death ray , " I said suggestively .
" That would have worked in the old days , " he said .
" Not anymore .
I blame ROTC .
The guys you deal with are n't scientists , but they know a death ray when they see one and they think like engineers .
They want to talk deaths per dollar .
There 's very little funding for this kind of technology research now .
" Now it so happens as military research was turning toward the grim pragmatism of " deaths per dollar " , the opposite swing was occurring in civilian research .
Research with identifiable applications was anathema , because that was interfering with the private sector.I had a family member who had spent years researching aquaculture techniques .
Not only did he publish papers , his job required him to give free consulting to American businesses .
When the new administration came in , he was no longer allowed to work on anything that had applications .
Instead , he traveled around the world selling his expertise to foreign businesses , designing and building some of the largest aquaculture facilities ever built .
When the Clinton administration came in , he came back to his old job , and when the Bush administration came in , it brought back the old restrictions against doing immediately useful research and he went back to consulting in places like Thailand .
Under left wing administrations , the US taxpayer underwrote his development of technology too far over the economic horizon to attract private investment .
Under right wing administrations they set him loose to transfer that technology to countries with low labor costs and no public technology investment.The theory which denigrates useful applied research is self-consistent , at least if you do n't try to consider any real world complexities .
It states that if something is potentially useful , the private sector will do it , do it cheaper and do it better .
Within moderation I have no problem with this theory .
If the private sector is racing to develop a technology then the government should step out of the way .
The problem I have with this ideology is that it declares that if the private sector is not working on something , that thing must be worthless .
In a market pricing theory of value , that view is technically correct , but that begs the que</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or rather one of the times it changed.
It switches back and forth depending which party has the White House.I was a student at the start of the 80s, when the Reagan administration came in.
My student job was student technician on a new physics lab.
I was the first technician hired on a project that would eventually have a couple of dozen, and most of my work initially consisted of carpentry, tearing down surplus instruments we'd get from places like Livermore, and preparing tanks and pumps for experiments that needed high vacuum.A few months into this, they hired an engineer.
He was actually a physicist whose research funding had dried up, but he had experience with designing and building vacuum systems.
He brought his life's work with him: a magnificent confection of gleaming stainless steel manifolds and flanges.
In the main it consisted of a segmented stainless steel pipe about a foot and a half in diameter and about eight feet long, but with all its fiddly little doo-dads I'd reckon that once it had all been machined it'd weeks of serious effort to assemble.
We were going to use it as small vacuum tank.
"What's that thing?
" I asked him.
"It's a new kind of electron microscope," he said.
"It gives a high resolution picture of the distribution of atomic nuclei types in the sample.
"  I didn't know much back then other than which end of a hammer was which (the skill for which I'd been hired), but I suppose it must have been some kind of NMR device.
"So you got cut when the research money got shifted to defense?
" I asked.
"Oh, that wasn't it," he said.
"I was on an ONR grant.
They had been interested in the principles of operation, but now they're more focused on immediately useful research.
""It looks like a death ray," I said suggestively.
"That would have worked in the old days," he said.
"Not anymore.
I blame ROTC.
The guys you deal with aren't scientists, but they know a death ray when they see one and they think like engineers.
They want to talk deaths per dollar.
There's very little funding for this kind of technology research now.
"Now it so happens as military research was turning toward the grim pragmatism of "deaths per dollar", the opposite swing was occurring in civilian research.
Research with identifiable applications was anathema, because that was interfering with the private sector.I had a family member who had spent years researching aquaculture techniques.
Not only did he publish papers, his job required him to give free consulting to American businesses.
When the new administration came in, he was no longer allowed to work on anything that had applications.
Instead, he traveled around the world selling his expertise to foreign businesses, designing and building some of the largest aquaculture facilities ever built.
When the Clinton administration came in, he came back to his old job, and when the Bush administration came in, it brought back the old restrictions against doing immediately useful research and he went back to consulting in places like Thailand.
Under left wing administrations,  the US taxpayer underwrote his development of technology too far over the economic horizon to attract private investment.
Under right wing administrations they set him loose to transfer that technology to countries with low labor costs and no public technology investment.The theory which denigrates useful applied research is self-consistent, at least if you don't try to consider any real world complexities.
It states that if something is potentially useful, the private sector will do it, do it cheaper and do it better.
Within moderation I have no problem with this theory.
If the private sector is racing to develop a technology then the government should step out of the way.
The problem I have with this ideology is that it declares that if the private sector is not working on something, that thing must be worthless.
In a market pricing theory of value, that view is technically correct, but that begs the que</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28291255</id>
	<title>Anti-Grav for FTW!!!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244723100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>MIT has a gravity lab..<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. so I don't want to hear anyone saying "that is impossible" just cause they don't understand that it's possible.  We need to spearhead anti-gravity research big-time.  Imagine getting an aftermarket upgrade to your car, that takes 75\% of the weight of the car off the chassis by simple pseudo-levitation.  Your car would gain HUGE mileage boosts if it only weighed in at 1000 pounds.......  just one example.  Now imagine that tech evolving, to actual planetary and even interplanetary and inter-solar system travel....   The only barrier,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...  energy.   In comes zero-point research...  anyone with me?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>MIT has a gravity lab.. .. so I do n't want to hear anyone saying " that is impossible " just cause they do n't understand that it 's possible .
We need to spearhead anti-gravity research big-time .
Imagine getting an aftermarket upgrade to your car , that takes 75 \ % of the weight of the car off the chassis by simple pseudo-levitation .
Your car would gain HUGE mileage boosts if it only weighed in at 1000 pounds....... just one example .
Now imagine that tech evolving , to actual planetary and even interplanetary and inter-solar system travel.... The only barrier , ... energy. In comes zero-point research... anyone with me ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>MIT has a gravity lab.. .. so I don't want to hear anyone saying "that is impossible" just cause they don't understand that it's possible.
We need to spearhead anti-gravity research big-time.
Imagine getting an aftermarket upgrade to your car, that takes 75\% of the weight of the car off the chassis by simple pseudo-levitation.
Your car would gain HUGE mileage boosts if it only weighed in at 1000 pounds.......  just one example.
Now imagine that tech evolving, to actual planetary and even interplanetary and inter-solar system travel....   The only barrier, ...  energy.   In comes zero-point research...  anyone with me?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28295203</id>
	<title>Re:What research we should do</title>
	<author>Will.Woodhull</author>
	<datestamp>1244740260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What drives pharmaceutical research is profit. On the face of it, this has led to marvelous advances in western medicine.

</p><p>The seamy underside is that research into common diseases that does not look profitable is not done. We know, for instance, that aspirin is effective in slowing the loss of function for victims of arthritis, And we've known that for decades. As prevalent as arthritis is, one might think that the use of aspirin in its treatment would be heavily researched by now-- but that isn't the case, since there is no likelihood of making money off of any findings, it makes business sense to put the research facilities to other work. Similarly, studies on how to manage the USA obesity crisis are not being funded, despite the severe impact of obesity-related diseases on individuals and on society.

</p><p>As if that is not bad enough, there is a flip side to this. Any breakthrough in managing obesity or arthritis will definitely decrease the revenues that the health care sector now enjoys from palliative products. With their for-profit orientation, they will resist any research that might lead in those directions.

</p><p>Okay, that sounds like conspiracy theory crap. Unfortunately I don't know how to write it any better. In a sense, it is a tacit conspiracy, in the same way that the overt and covert racism that subjugated blacks in the USA prior to the civil rights movement in the 1960s was a conspiracy by the dominant whites, both north and south.

</p><p>I don't think you can expect any meaningful breakthroughs in medical research in the USA until the complex of health care deliverers, academia, insurance companies, and health care institutions is reformed. And that will take something akin to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (and the resulting chaos in a multitude of institutions, all off them full of people who think they are Doing Good Works).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What drives pharmaceutical research is profit .
On the face of it , this has led to marvelous advances in western medicine .
The seamy underside is that research into common diseases that does not look profitable is not done .
We know , for instance , that aspirin is effective in slowing the loss of function for victims of arthritis , And we 've known that for decades .
As prevalent as arthritis is , one might think that the use of aspirin in its treatment would be heavily researched by now-- but that is n't the case , since there is no likelihood of making money off of any findings , it makes business sense to put the research facilities to other work .
Similarly , studies on how to manage the USA obesity crisis are not being funded , despite the severe impact of obesity-related diseases on individuals and on society .
As if that is not bad enough , there is a flip side to this .
Any breakthrough in managing obesity or arthritis will definitely decrease the revenues that the health care sector now enjoys from palliative products .
With their for-profit orientation , they will resist any research that might lead in those directions .
Okay , that sounds like conspiracy theory crap .
Unfortunately I do n't know how to write it any better .
In a sense , it is a tacit conspiracy , in the same way that the overt and covert racism that subjugated blacks in the USA prior to the civil rights movement in the 1960s was a conspiracy by the dominant whites , both north and south .
I do n't think you can expect any meaningful breakthroughs in medical research in the USA until the complex of health care deliverers , academia , insurance companies , and health care institutions is reformed .
And that will take something akin to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ( and the resulting chaos in a multitude of institutions , all off them full of people who think they are Doing Good Works ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What drives pharmaceutical research is profit.
On the face of it, this has led to marvelous advances in western medicine.
The seamy underside is that research into common diseases that does not look profitable is not done.
We know, for instance, that aspirin is effective in slowing the loss of function for victims of arthritis, And we've known that for decades.
As prevalent as arthritis is, one might think that the use of aspirin in its treatment would be heavily researched by now-- but that isn't the case, since there is no likelihood of making money off of any findings, it makes business sense to put the research facilities to other work.
Similarly, studies on how to manage the USA obesity crisis are not being funded, despite the severe impact of obesity-related diseases on individuals and on society.
As if that is not bad enough, there is a flip side to this.
Any breakthrough in managing obesity or arthritis will definitely decrease the revenues that the health care sector now enjoys from palliative products.
With their for-profit orientation, they will resist any research that might lead in those directions.
Okay, that sounds like conspiracy theory crap.
Unfortunately I don't know how to write it any better.
In a sense, it is a tacit conspiracy, in the same way that the overt and covert racism that subjugated blacks in the USA prior to the civil rights movement in the 1960s was a conspiracy by the dominant whites, both north and south.
I don't think you can expect any meaningful breakthroughs in medical research in the USA until the complex of health care deliverers, academia, insurance companies, and health care institutions is reformed.
And that will take something akin to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (and the resulting chaos in a multitude of institutions, all off them full of people who think they are Doing Good Works).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28291313</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289889</id>
	<title>Sorry for the elitism, but...</title>
	<author>WSOGMM</author>
	<datestamp>1244660700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You know, I'd rather Slashdot run our government.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You know , I 'd rather Slashdot run our government .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know, I'd rather Slashdot run our government.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289421</id>
	<title>Re:Its simple....</title>
	<author>Frosty Piss</author>
	<datestamp>1244656440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't think the idea is to fund new federal government agencies to do research, but maybe to fund it at the university level.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think the idea is to fund new federal government agencies to do research , but maybe to fund it at the university level .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think the idea is to fund new federal government agencies to do research, but maybe to fund it at the university level.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289341</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28299691</id>
	<title>Anonymous Coward</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244712720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here's a link to a "Visual Guide to Where Your federal tax Dollars Go".</p><p>Pretty disgusting actually.</p><p><a href="http://www.abbashalai.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/wallstatsdatlarge.jpg" title="abbashalai.com" rel="nofollow">Visual Guide to Where Your federal tax Dollars Go</a> [abbashalai.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's a link to a " Visual Guide to Where Your federal tax Dollars Go " .Pretty disgusting actually.Visual Guide to Where Your federal tax Dollars Go [ abbashalai.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's a link to a "Visual Guide to Where Your federal tax Dollars Go".Pretty disgusting actually.Visual Guide to Where Your federal tax Dollars Go [abbashalai.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28298945</id>
	<title>Re:Because they're funding Iraq</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244753280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The senate version of the stimulus was $838 billion, the house version $789. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are running a monthly tab of $12 billion a month, twelve billion times twelve months times six years (jesus really, six years already, we're not even profitably stealing their oil yet either) equals $864 billion. Plus over four thousand dead US soldiers, and possibly tens of thousands of dead Iraqi's. Yeah, it totally dwarfs the cost of running one imperialistic quagmire and one plain old fashioned quagmire.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The senate version of the stimulus was $ 838 billion , the house version $ 789 .
The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are running a monthly tab of $ 12 billion a month , twelve billion times twelve months times six years ( jesus really , six years already , we 're not even profitably stealing their oil yet either ) equals $ 864 billion .
Plus over four thousand dead US soldiers , and possibly tens of thousands of dead Iraqi 's .
Yeah , it totally dwarfs the cost of running one imperialistic quagmire and one plain old fashioned quagmire .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The senate version of the stimulus was $838 billion, the house version $789.
The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are running a monthly tab of $12 billion a month, twelve billion times twelve months times six years (jesus really, six years already, we're not even profitably stealing their oil yet either) equals $864 billion.
Plus over four thousand dead US soldiers, and possibly tens of thousands of dead Iraqi's.
Yeah, it totally dwarfs the cost of running one imperialistic quagmire and one plain old fashioned quagmire.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28290435</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28294729</id>
	<title>Re:Because they're funding Iraq</title>
	<author>electrosoccertux</author>
	<datestamp>1244738640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd like to throw in a huge sum of the money goes to rapid prototyping and deployment of new systems to save American lives. There's usually an engineer that tags along with any group of soldiers-- he reports back sometimes and says "hey if we had something that did xyz, it would reduce our risk factor going into a building 50\%". This is how we get things like bomb finding or remote scouting robots 2 months after someone comes up with the idea. That's not cheap.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd like to throw in a huge sum of the money goes to rapid prototyping and deployment of new systems to save American lives .
There 's usually an engineer that tags along with any group of soldiers-- he reports back sometimes and says " hey if we had something that did xyz , it would reduce our risk factor going into a building 50 \ % " .
This is how we get things like bomb finding or remote scouting robots 2 months after someone comes up with the idea .
That 's not cheap .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd like to throw in a huge sum of the money goes to rapid prototyping and deployment of new systems to save American lives.
There's usually an engineer that tags along with any group of soldiers-- he reports back sometimes and says "hey if we had something that did xyz, it would reduce our risk factor going into a building 50\%".
This is how we get things like bomb finding or remote scouting robots 2 months after someone comes up with the idea.
That's not cheap.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289383</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28290743</id>
	<title>Re:That's Obvious</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244714640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>America has a hard time being at peace in the present world because, as the top dog and de facto world policeman, we inevitably get drawn into everyone's little spats.</p></div><p>And there's a large part of the problem. No-one wants the US to be <em>world policeman</em>. What the world wants is for the US to be a team player. It just doesn't seem able to do that.</p><p>But being the bully of the playground isn't a basis for peace; it's the basis for confrontation.</p><p>I know that person by person US folk are wonderful, but as the USA, I wouldn't want you anywhere near me. It really doesn't help that the US elected a lying, corrupt, obsessively violent, cabal of thugs to represent it for eight years.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>We flirted with colonialism circa 1900, decided we didn't really like it too much, then got involved in WWI. Managed to hide from war for 22 years, got violently drawn into WWII. Since then I think it comes down to, we've decided it's better to intervene in those little spats before they turn into world wars. Because world wars suck.</p></div><p>The US involves itself where it is politically expedient to do so. And where there is no convenient 'spat', it creates one.</p><p>There are tens, if not hundreds, of spats that the US could willingly involve itself for the good of the indigenous peoples. It picks and chooses those that are political expedient. This isn't policing, it's politicing, and deeply cynical to boot.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>And I'll come down tentatively on the side of our involvement being good... If we don't want to play World Policeman I'm sure China would be happy to step in.</p></div><p>China seems to be the new "fear" tool in the US; used for the now routine confrontation arguments.</p><p>The US needs to mature, to grow up, politically and become a team player instead of presenting itself as an arrogant thug. This might take some time, especially bringing the majority of its electorate with it</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>America has a hard time being at peace in the present world because , as the top dog and de facto world policeman , we inevitably get drawn into everyone 's little spats.And there 's a large part of the problem .
No-one wants the US to be world policeman .
What the world wants is for the US to be a team player .
It just does n't seem able to do that.But being the bully of the playground is n't a basis for peace ; it 's the basis for confrontation.I know that person by person US folk are wonderful , but as the USA , I would n't want you anywhere near me .
It really does n't help that the US elected a lying , corrupt , obsessively violent , cabal of thugs to represent it for eight years.We flirted with colonialism circa 1900 , decided we did n't really like it too much , then got involved in WWI .
Managed to hide from war for 22 years , got violently drawn into WWII .
Since then I think it comes down to , we 've decided it 's better to intervene in those little spats before they turn into world wars .
Because world wars suck.The US involves itself where it is politically expedient to do so .
And where there is no convenient 'spat ' , it creates one.There are tens , if not hundreds , of spats that the US could willingly involve itself for the good of the indigenous peoples .
It picks and chooses those that are political expedient .
This is n't policing , it 's politicing , and deeply cynical to boot.And I 'll come down tentatively on the side of our involvement being good... If we do n't want to play World Policeman I 'm sure China would be happy to step in.China seems to be the new " fear " tool in the US ; used for the now routine confrontation arguments.The US needs to mature , to grow up , politically and become a team player instead of presenting itself as an arrogant thug .
This might take some time , especially bringing the majority of its electorate with it</tokentext>
<sentencetext>America has a hard time being at peace in the present world because, as the top dog and de facto world policeman, we inevitably get drawn into everyone's little spats.And there's a large part of the problem.
No-one wants the US to be world policeman.
What the world wants is for the US to be a team player.
It just doesn't seem able to do that.But being the bully of the playground isn't a basis for peace; it's the basis for confrontation.I know that person by person US folk are wonderful, but as the USA, I wouldn't want you anywhere near me.
It really doesn't help that the US elected a lying, corrupt, obsessively violent, cabal of thugs to represent it for eight years.We flirted with colonialism circa 1900, decided we didn't really like it too much, then got involved in WWI.
Managed to hide from war for 22 years, got violently drawn into WWII.
Since then I think it comes down to, we've decided it's better to intervene in those little spats before they turn into world wars.
Because world wars suck.The US involves itself where it is politically expedient to do so.
And where there is no convenient 'spat', it creates one.There are tens, if not hundreds, of spats that the US could willingly involve itself for the good of the indigenous peoples.
It picks and chooses those that are political expedient.
This isn't policing, it's politicing, and deeply cynical to boot.And I'll come down tentatively on the side of our involvement being good... If we don't want to play World Policeman I'm sure China would be happy to step in.China seems to be the new "fear" tool in the US; used for the now routine confrontation arguments.The US needs to mature, to grow up, politically and become a team player instead of presenting itself as an arrogant thug.
This might take some time, especially bringing the majority of its electorate with it
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289967</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28292571</id>
	<title>Re:What research we should do</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244730960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oestrogen is also a naturally occurring hormone.  It helps to stop new pregnancies in women.  If women take it, they can't get pregnant and as a result, can drop thong for anybody they like without fear of getting pregnant.  They have a nifty little pill for that.  Has been popular for decades.  Very competitive product.  But you're right.  It's all a conspiracy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oestrogen is also a naturally occurring hormone .
It helps to stop new pregnancies in women .
If women take it , they ca n't get pregnant and as a result , can drop thong for anybody they like without fear of getting pregnant .
They have a nifty little pill for that .
Has been popular for decades .
Very competitive product .
But you 're right .
It 's all a conspiracy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oestrogen is also a naturally occurring hormone.
It helps to stop new pregnancies in women.
If women take it, they can't get pregnant and as a result, can drop thong for anybody they like without fear of getting pregnant.
They have a nifty little pill for that.
Has been popular for decades.
Very competitive product.
But you're right.
It's all a conspiracy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28291313</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28291173</id>
	<title>Biodiesel from algae</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244722020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would like massive cash input into biodiesel from algae.....it seems to be the one area of fuel creation with a hope of making a difference before I die (age 43)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would like massive cash input into biodiesel from algae.....it seems to be the one area of fuel creation with a hope of making a difference before I die ( age 43 )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would like massive cash input into biodiesel from algae.....it seems to be the one area of fuel creation with a hope of making a difference before I die (age 43)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28294467</id>
	<title>Re:What research we should do</title>
	<author>Improved Silence</author>
	<datestamp>1244737740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>You also must take into account if companies will profit from said research.  In the early 90s, scientests made significant headway in finding a cure for type 1 diabetes.  But what pharmaceutical company trying to make money is going to pay for a cure to be found, thus enough funding was not put forth.  It doesn't make sense ($$) for them to sell a drug to a person once, when they could be selling them drugs for an entire lifetime.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You also must take into account if companies will profit from said research .
In the early 90s , scientests made significant headway in finding a cure for type 1 diabetes .
But what pharmaceutical company trying to make money is going to pay for a cure to be found , thus enough funding was not put forth .
It does n't make sense ( $ $ ) for them to sell a drug to a person once , when they could be selling them drugs for an entire lifetime .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You also must take into account if companies will profit from said research.
In the early 90s, scientests made significant headway in finding a cure for type 1 diabetes.
But what pharmaceutical company trying to make money is going to pay for a cure to be found, thus enough funding was not put forth.
It doesn't make sense ($$) for them to sell a drug to a person once, when they could be selling them drugs for an entire lifetime.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28291313</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28292981</id>
	<title>Premise is wrong</title>
	<author>T Murphy</author>
	<datestamp>1244732220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Please read up on what the DoE does and the research going on at the national labs. If the government isn't funding research, then what do you call Fermi, Los Alamos, Sandia? Who do you think is paying to build another ATLAS detector to be installed in the LHC?<br> <br>
I was an intern at Argonne. Argonne has people working on battery research. I saw some of the hydrogen, hybrid and electric cars scientists here are working on. I saw Blue Gene, the 3rd fastest open-science supercomputer - a new building is going up right now that will house the supercomputer and half the building will be accessible without entering Argonne itself, making research by outside scientists much easier. There are scientists working on nuclear plant technology too, and scientists I have talked to are all in favor of building more nuclear plants.<br>
<br>
The government assuredly is funding research. Maybe the budget could use expansion, but at the very least don't start thinking that we don't have scientists still leading groundbreaking research.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Please read up on what the DoE does and the research going on at the national labs .
If the government is n't funding research , then what do you call Fermi , Los Alamos , Sandia ?
Who do you think is paying to build another ATLAS detector to be installed in the LHC ?
I was an intern at Argonne .
Argonne has people working on battery research .
I saw some of the hydrogen , hybrid and electric cars scientists here are working on .
I saw Blue Gene , the 3rd fastest open-science supercomputer - a new building is going up right now that will house the supercomputer and half the building will be accessible without entering Argonne itself , making research by outside scientists much easier .
There are scientists working on nuclear plant technology too , and scientists I have talked to are all in favor of building more nuclear plants .
The government assuredly is funding research .
Maybe the budget could use expansion , but at the very least do n't start thinking that we do n't have scientists still leading groundbreaking research .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Please read up on what the DoE does and the research going on at the national labs.
If the government isn't funding research, then what do you call Fermi, Los Alamos, Sandia?
Who do you think is paying to build another ATLAS detector to be installed in the LHC?
I was an intern at Argonne.
Argonne has people working on battery research.
I saw some of the hydrogen, hybrid and electric cars scientists here are working on.
I saw Blue Gene, the 3rd fastest open-science supercomputer - a new building is going up right now that will house the supercomputer and half the building will be accessible without entering Argonne itself, making research by outside scientists much easier.
There are scientists working on nuclear plant technology too, and scientists I have talked to are all in favor of building more nuclear plants.
The government assuredly is funding research.
Maybe the budget could use expansion, but at the very least don't start thinking that we don't have scientists still leading groundbreaking research.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28295843</id>
	<title>Re:That's Obvious</title>
	<author>icebrain</author>
	<datestamp>1244742480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ok, I have a solution.</p><p>Tired of the US intervening overseas?  Well, we'll stop.  The US will withdraw within its own borders, remove every soldier, ship, and aircraft stationed overseas.  We will continue to patrol the oceans in protection of US vessels and those carrying goods made in or bound for the US.  Other than that, we will not interfere in any way with the actions inside or between other countries.</p><p>However, we will prosecute, swiftly and with decisive force, any hostile action taken against US citizens abroad.  Kidnap one, and the SEALs will be paying you a visit.  Attack the US itself, its citizens at home, do so much as drop a single bomb on US soil or blow up your speedboat next to a US warship, and your country will cease to exist in the span of a few hours.</p><p>Like that better?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ok , I have a solution.Tired of the US intervening overseas ?
Well , we 'll stop .
The US will withdraw within its own borders , remove every soldier , ship , and aircraft stationed overseas .
We will continue to patrol the oceans in protection of US vessels and those carrying goods made in or bound for the US .
Other than that , we will not interfere in any way with the actions inside or between other countries.However , we will prosecute , swiftly and with decisive force , any hostile action taken against US citizens abroad .
Kidnap one , and the SEALs will be paying you a visit .
Attack the US itself , its citizens at home , do so much as drop a single bomb on US soil or blow up your speedboat next to a US warship , and your country will cease to exist in the span of a few hours.Like that better ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ok, I have a solution.Tired of the US intervening overseas?
Well, we'll stop.
The US will withdraw within its own borders, remove every soldier, ship, and aircraft stationed overseas.
We will continue to patrol the oceans in protection of US vessels and those carrying goods made in or bound for the US.
Other than that, we will not interfere in any way with the actions inside or between other countries.However, we will prosecute, swiftly and with decisive force, any hostile action taken against US citizens abroad.
Kidnap one, and the SEALs will be paying you a visit.
Attack the US itself, its citizens at home, do so much as drop a single bomb on US soil or blow up your speedboat next to a US warship, and your country will cease to exist in the span of a few hours.Like that better?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28290743</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28293063</id>
	<title>Re:Check the Constitution...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244732520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>They're supposed to protect our borders and manage to screw that up.</p></div><p>More of an issue with politics than the Border Patrol, so blame your elected representatives.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Run a post office, they do a lousy job of that.</p></div><p>Really?  Last time I tried, I could send a letter from NJ to my sister in MT for less than 50 cents, and it'd arrive on the 2nd day at the latest (sometimes next day).  UPS/FedEx charge far more for such service.  Yes, postage has gone up, but the USPS operates on volume (like every courier) and email has destroyed large amounts of that income.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Supposed to regulate interstate commerce which they interpret to mean "involve themselves in anything they want to" rather than just making sure trade amongst the several states is fair.</p></div><p>Huh?  There's no additional interstate tax, and the only shipping regulations are for safety/illegal items.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>They are supposed to collect tariffs on imports rather than tax the citizenry.</p></div><p>The constitution gives the government the power of taxation, but does not specify who can be taxed.  The tariff was the standard, but there's nothing that precludes an income tax.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>They 're supposed to protect our borders and manage to screw that up.More of an issue with politics than the Border Patrol , so blame your elected representatives.Run a post office , they do a lousy job of that.Really ?
Last time I tried , I could send a letter from NJ to my sister in MT for less than 50 cents , and it 'd arrive on the 2nd day at the latest ( sometimes next day ) .
UPS/FedEx charge far more for such service .
Yes , postage has gone up , but the USPS operates on volume ( like every courier ) and email has destroyed large amounts of that income.Supposed to regulate interstate commerce which they interpret to mean " involve themselves in anything they want to " rather than just making sure trade amongst the several states is fair.Huh ?
There 's no additional interstate tax , and the only shipping regulations are for safety/illegal items.They are supposed to collect tariffs on imports rather than tax the citizenry.The constitution gives the government the power of taxation , but does not specify who can be taxed .
The tariff was the standard , but there 's nothing that precludes an income tax .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They're supposed to protect our borders and manage to screw that up.More of an issue with politics than the Border Patrol, so blame your elected representatives.Run a post office, they do a lousy job of that.Really?
Last time I tried, I could send a letter from NJ to my sister in MT for less than 50 cents, and it'd arrive on the 2nd day at the latest (sometimes next day).
UPS/FedEx charge far more for such service.
Yes, postage has gone up, but the USPS operates on volume (like every courier) and email has destroyed large amounts of that income.Supposed to regulate interstate commerce which they interpret to mean "involve themselves in anything they want to" rather than just making sure trade amongst the several states is fair.Huh?
There's no additional interstate tax, and the only shipping regulations are for safety/illegal items.They are supposed to collect tariffs on imports rather than tax the citizenry.The constitution gives the government the power of taxation, but does not specify who can be taxed.
The tariff was the standard, but there's nothing that precludes an income tax.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289783</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28293419</id>
	<title>Anonymous Coward</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244733660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Fusion research.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Fusion research .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fusion research.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289977</id>
	<title>they should research sexbots...</title>
	<author>Nyder</author>
	<datestamp>1244661600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seriously, it would probably end all strife and war.   Well, maybe not, but would still be cool...</p><p>lol</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously , it would probably end all strife and war .
Well , maybe not , but would still be cool...lol</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously, it would probably end all strife and war.
Well, maybe not, but would still be cool...lol</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28294545</id>
	<title>Army research command</title>
	<author>1369IC</author>
	<datestamp>1244737980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Disclaimer: I am a public affairs specialist with the U.S. Army Research, Development &amp; Engineering Command as well as a long-time Slashdot reader &amp; member.  </p><p>The Army does accomplish a lot of the work through universities and businesses, but we also employ somewhere around 9,000 civilian scientists and engineers in RDECOM, many of whom are working on what we call wearable power.  I invite all of you to check out our web site at <a href="http://www.army.mil/info/organization/unitsandcommands/commandstructure/rdecom/index.html" title="army.mil">http://www.army.mil/info/organization/unitsandcommands/commandstructure/rdecom/index.html</a> [army.mil].  You'll see a couple of partnership stories about what we're doing with Microsoft and a NASCAR team, but we have thousands of partnerships and more than 300 international agreements.  We also do a lot of STEM (science, technology, engineering and math) educational outreach.  Check out eCybermission <a href="https://ecybermission.apgea.army.mil/" title="army.mil">https://ecybermission.apgea.army.mil/</a> [army.mil], though that's not our only effort.</p><p>We are the headquarters and have subordinate commands that do the actual research and development.  So check out our subordinate elements page, <a href="http://www.rdecom.army.mil/pages/rdecom\_elements.html" title="army.mil">http://www.rdecom.army.mil/pages/rdecom\_elements.html</a> [army.mil], to see more about what they do.  Basically, we do everything from basic research through places like the Army Research Laboratory and the Edgewood Chemical and Biological Center, right through to prototyping and even some production at our Product Integration Facilities.  Probably the most well-known of our subordinates is the Natick Soldier Research, Development and Engineering Center, which does things like MREs, uniforms, helmets, tentage, etc.</p><p>I'll apologize up front about our web page.  The front page has been transitioned to the new Army.mil look and feel, but we're just beginning to convert our other pages.  We're also making baby steps into social media, so we're on YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and Flickr.  The YouTube channel includes a handful of videos from our scientists and engineers talking about what they do.  Links are on our home page.</p><p>And I guess I should mention that the other services have similar commands.  I'm sure Google will be glad to help you find them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Disclaimer : I am a public affairs specialist with the U.S. Army Research , Development &amp; Engineering Command as well as a long-time Slashdot reader &amp; member .
The Army does accomplish a lot of the work through universities and businesses , but we also employ somewhere around 9,000 civilian scientists and engineers in RDECOM , many of whom are working on what we call wearable power .
I invite all of you to check out our web site at http : //www.army.mil/info/organization/unitsandcommands/commandstructure/rdecom/index.html [ army.mil ] .
You 'll see a couple of partnership stories about what we 're doing with Microsoft and a NASCAR team , but we have thousands of partnerships and more than 300 international agreements .
We also do a lot of STEM ( science , technology , engineering and math ) educational outreach .
Check out eCybermission https : //ecybermission.apgea.army.mil/ [ army.mil ] , though that 's not our only effort.We are the headquarters and have subordinate commands that do the actual research and development .
So check out our subordinate elements page , http : //www.rdecom.army.mil/pages/rdecom \ _elements.html [ army.mil ] , to see more about what they do .
Basically , we do everything from basic research through places like the Army Research Laboratory and the Edgewood Chemical and Biological Center , right through to prototyping and even some production at our Product Integration Facilities .
Probably the most well-known of our subordinates is the Natick Soldier Research , Development and Engineering Center , which does things like MREs , uniforms , helmets , tentage , etc.I 'll apologize up front about our web page .
The front page has been transitioned to the new Army.mil look and feel , but we 're just beginning to convert our other pages .
We 're also making baby steps into social media , so we 're on YouTube , Facebook , Twitter and Flickr .
The YouTube channel includes a handful of videos from our scientists and engineers talking about what they do .
Links are on our home page.And I guess I should mention that the other services have similar commands .
I 'm sure Google will be glad to help you find them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Disclaimer: I am a public affairs specialist with the U.S. Army Research, Development &amp; Engineering Command as well as a long-time Slashdot reader &amp; member.
The Army does accomplish a lot of the work through universities and businesses, but we also employ somewhere around 9,000 civilian scientists and engineers in RDECOM, many of whom are working on what we call wearable power.
I invite all of you to check out our web site at http://www.army.mil/info/organization/unitsandcommands/commandstructure/rdecom/index.html [army.mil].
You'll see a couple of partnership stories about what we're doing with Microsoft and a NASCAR team, but we have thousands of partnerships and more than 300 international agreements.
We also do a lot of STEM (science, technology, engineering and math) educational outreach.
Check out eCybermission https://ecybermission.apgea.army.mil/ [army.mil], though that's not our only effort.We are the headquarters and have subordinate commands that do the actual research and development.
So check out our subordinate elements page, http://www.rdecom.army.mil/pages/rdecom\_elements.html [army.mil], to see more about what they do.
Basically, we do everything from basic research through places like the Army Research Laboratory and the Edgewood Chemical and Biological Center, right through to prototyping and even some production at our Product Integration Facilities.
Probably the most well-known of our subordinates is the Natick Soldier Research, Development and Engineering Center, which does things like MREs, uniforms, helmets, tentage, etc.I'll apologize up front about our web page.
The front page has been transitioned to the new Army.mil look and feel, but we're just beginning to convert our other pages.
We're also making baby steps into social media, so we're on YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and Flickr.
The YouTube channel includes a handful of videos from our scientists and engineers talking about what they do.
Links are on our home page.And I guess I should mention that the other services have similar commands.
I'm sure Google will be glad to help you find them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28291197</id>
	<title>Re:That's Obvious</title>
	<author>Lonewolf666</author>
	<datestamp>1244722320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Managed to hide from war for 22 years, got violently drawn into WWII.</p></div><p>Only half true. The USA already provided significant material help to the allies. That started before Pearl Harbour. See <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease</a> [wikipedia.org] as the most obvious example. So they were not exactly neutral anymore.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>If we don't want to play World Policeman I'm sure China would be happy to step in.</p></div><p>There are a few cases where the USA might do itself a favor if it lets someone else shovel the shit. Like Iraq, which was not really a threat. Unless the whole operation was really (as I strongly suspect) to gain better access to Iraqi oil<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Managed to hide from war for 22 years , got violently drawn into WWII.Only half true .
The USA already provided significant material help to the allies .
That started before Pearl Harbour .
See http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease [ wikipedia.org ] as the most obvious example .
So they were not exactly neutral anymore.If we do n't want to play World Policeman I 'm sure China would be happy to step in.There are a few cases where the USA might do itself a favor if it lets someone else shovel the shit .
Like Iraq , which was not really a threat .
Unless the whole operation was really ( as I strongly suspect ) to gain better access to Iraqi oil ; - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Managed to hide from war for 22 years, got violently drawn into WWII.Only half true.
The USA already provided significant material help to the allies.
That started before Pearl Harbour.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease [wikipedia.org] as the most obvious example.
So they were not exactly neutral anymore.If we don't want to play World Policeman I'm sure China would be happy to step in.There are a few cases where the USA might do itself a favor if it lets someone else shovel the shit.
Like Iraq, which was not really a threat.
Unless the whole operation was really (as I strongly suspect) to gain better access to Iraqi oil ;-)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289967</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28291731</id>
	<title>Re:Medical research</title>
	<author>limaxray</author>
	<datestamp>1244727420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sigh, I hate this common misconception and complete lack of understanding of how drug and medical research work in the US.<br> <br>First, the commercials for drugs you see are for only the top selling, highly competitive drugs that depend on patient awareness of the products in the market.  These are things like allergy medicine, sleeping aids, anti-depression drugs, herpes remedies, cures for erectile dysfunction, etc.  These drugs are all the top earners for their respective companies as they are the most used drug categories out there.  In order for these companies to remain profitable and continue to produce less popular drugs (for things like rare cancers and the such), they have to actively compete with the other products on the market.<br> <br>Next, in the US, medical research is the cheap part.  In fact, compared to the entire price of bringing the entire product to market, it's dirt, dirt cheap.  The cost of sales and advertisement is also dirt cheap in the big picture.  Yes, there is a lot of public funding into research of compounds and medical procedures and the like that go to universities and other such research groups.  So these groups will produce hundreds of compounds that show promise in the lab, but now what?  This is where the biotech and pharma companies come in.  Usually, they'll sign some kind of agreement, offering to pay X amount of cash and provide Y amount of royalties to the research group and will pick up where they left off to bring it to market.  Now there is no guarantee the compound will make it to market - it may not work, it may kill people, who knows.<br> <br>So now that the companies have licensed rights to these compounds, they continue the work on bringing it to market per the FDA requirements.  This usually includes 2 additional phases of testing, each phase containing multiple trials.  These trials often contain 1,000's and even 10,000's of patients, each costing the company money.  There is also the need for whole departments of data managers to keep all of the data pouring in in order.  In the end, it winds up costing 100's of millions of dollars to bring a single compound to market - regardless if it is the next top selling allergy medicine or the cure for some rare cancer that only a handful of people in the world will need.  Now this doesn't even include the compounds that fail somewhere in the pipeline - basically equating to 10's or 100's of millions of dollars being pissed away for nothing.  After all of these expenses, they usually only have a few years left on the patent to make a return before the drug goes generic<br> <br>My point is, you're not paying for the research, you're paying for the FDA certification that it is safe.  The requirements in most other countries are much more lenient, and this is why you'll see most US drug trials being conducted in Europe, Australia, and New Zealand.<br> <br>Oh, and the government has much, much less money than all the private investors willing to put money into these things.  Once you make research public, and part of the public domain, you lose this private funding, and thus you lose the majority of your funding.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sigh , I hate this common misconception and complete lack of understanding of how drug and medical research work in the US .
First , the commercials for drugs you see are for only the top selling , highly competitive drugs that depend on patient awareness of the products in the market .
These are things like allergy medicine , sleeping aids , anti-depression drugs , herpes remedies , cures for erectile dysfunction , etc .
These drugs are all the top earners for their respective companies as they are the most used drug categories out there .
In order for these companies to remain profitable and continue to produce less popular drugs ( for things like rare cancers and the such ) , they have to actively compete with the other products on the market .
Next , in the US , medical research is the cheap part .
In fact , compared to the entire price of bringing the entire product to market , it 's dirt , dirt cheap .
The cost of sales and advertisement is also dirt cheap in the big picture .
Yes , there is a lot of public funding into research of compounds and medical procedures and the like that go to universities and other such research groups .
So these groups will produce hundreds of compounds that show promise in the lab , but now what ?
This is where the biotech and pharma companies come in .
Usually , they 'll sign some kind of agreement , offering to pay X amount of cash and provide Y amount of royalties to the research group and will pick up where they left off to bring it to market .
Now there is no guarantee the compound will make it to market - it may not work , it may kill people , who knows .
So now that the companies have licensed rights to these compounds , they continue the work on bringing it to market per the FDA requirements .
This usually includes 2 additional phases of testing , each phase containing multiple trials .
These trials often contain 1,000 's and even 10,000 's of patients , each costing the company money .
There is also the need for whole departments of data managers to keep all of the data pouring in in order .
In the end , it winds up costing 100 's of millions of dollars to bring a single compound to market - regardless if it is the next top selling allergy medicine or the cure for some rare cancer that only a handful of people in the world will need .
Now this does n't even include the compounds that fail somewhere in the pipeline - basically equating to 10 's or 100 's of millions of dollars being pissed away for nothing .
After all of these expenses , they usually only have a few years left on the patent to make a return before the drug goes generic My point is , you 're not paying for the research , you 're paying for the FDA certification that it is safe .
The requirements in most other countries are much more lenient , and this is why you 'll see most US drug trials being conducted in Europe , Australia , and New Zealand .
Oh , and the government has much , much less money than all the private investors willing to put money into these things .
Once you make research public , and part of the public domain , you lose this private funding , and thus you lose the majority of your funding .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sigh, I hate this common misconception and complete lack of understanding of how drug and medical research work in the US.
First, the commercials for drugs you see are for only the top selling, highly competitive drugs that depend on patient awareness of the products in the market.
These are things like allergy medicine, sleeping aids, anti-depression drugs, herpes remedies, cures for erectile dysfunction, etc.
These drugs are all the top earners for their respective companies as they are the most used drug categories out there.
In order for these companies to remain profitable and continue to produce less popular drugs (for things like rare cancers and the such), they have to actively compete with the other products on the market.
Next, in the US, medical research is the cheap part.
In fact, compared to the entire price of bringing the entire product to market, it's dirt, dirt cheap.
The cost of sales and advertisement is also dirt cheap in the big picture.
Yes, there is a lot of public funding into research of compounds and medical procedures and the like that go to universities and other such research groups.
So these groups will produce hundreds of compounds that show promise in the lab, but now what?
This is where the biotech and pharma companies come in.
Usually, they'll sign some kind of agreement, offering to pay X amount of cash and provide Y amount of royalties to the research group and will pick up where they left off to bring it to market.
Now there is no guarantee the compound will make it to market - it may not work, it may kill people, who knows.
So now that the companies have licensed rights to these compounds, they continue the work on bringing it to market per the FDA requirements.
This usually includes 2 additional phases of testing, each phase containing multiple trials.
These trials often contain 1,000's and even 10,000's of patients, each costing the company money.
There is also the need for whole departments of data managers to keep all of the data pouring in in order.
In the end, it winds up costing 100's of millions of dollars to bring a single compound to market - regardless if it is the next top selling allergy medicine or the cure for some rare cancer that only a handful of people in the world will need.
Now this doesn't even include the compounds that fail somewhere in the pipeline - basically equating to 10's or 100's of millions of dollars being pissed away for nothing.
After all of these expenses, they usually only have a few years left on the patent to make a return before the drug goes generic My point is, you're not paying for the research, you're paying for the FDA certification that it is safe.
The requirements in most other countries are much more lenient, and this is why you'll see most US drug trials being conducted in Europe, Australia, and New Zealand.
Oh, and the government has much, much less money than all the private investors willing to put money into these things.
Once you make research public, and part of the public domain, you lose this private funding, and thus you lose the majority of your funding.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289357</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289963</id>
	<title>bail outs are the favor for "soft" money</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244661420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Politicians have been getting soft money from various industries for decades. It finally came time for the politicians to give the tax payer dollars to the corporations as a big Thank You. Even more convenient is the PR around the bailouts, selling it to voters as a way to help stimulate the economy. How many times have they called it "stimulus", so often that I suppose we believe it now.</p><p>I suspect the reality of the situation is that many American businesses are ill equipt to deal with the challenges of globalization, and cannot compete in such a climate. Many are operated with the greedy short-term goals of a CEO or Board. To many wish to see immediate gains and get out quick, rather than building and maintaining a profitable enterprise over the long term.</p><p>Giving money to banking and auto industry sets a dangerous precedent. And, is in my opinion, equivalent to throwing the money away. An economic strategy is something the any government must maintain, and must execute on a multi-decade schedule. Carefully encouraging growth in key areas of science, technology, and even society over a long period of time is far more efficient than a shock-and-awe strategy of massive corporate handouts. Incrementally nudging the successful research towards an end, and ceasing research on things that do not appear to lead to a successful end is a careful and prudent way for a government to operate.</p><p>Putting it all on a Pass Line Bet and rolling the dice is <b>not</b> a strategy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Politicians have been getting soft money from various industries for decades .
It finally came time for the politicians to give the tax payer dollars to the corporations as a big Thank You .
Even more convenient is the PR around the bailouts , selling it to voters as a way to help stimulate the economy .
How many times have they called it " stimulus " , so often that I suppose we believe it now.I suspect the reality of the situation is that many American businesses are ill equipt to deal with the challenges of globalization , and can not compete in such a climate .
Many are operated with the greedy short-term goals of a CEO or Board .
To many wish to see immediate gains and get out quick , rather than building and maintaining a profitable enterprise over the long term.Giving money to banking and auto industry sets a dangerous precedent .
And , is in my opinion , equivalent to throwing the money away .
An economic strategy is something the any government must maintain , and must execute on a multi-decade schedule .
Carefully encouraging growth in key areas of science , technology , and even society over a long period of time is far more efficient than a shock-and-awe strategy of massive corporate handouts .
Incrementally nudging the successful research towards an end , and ceasing research on things that do not appear to lead to a successful end is a careful and prudent way for a government to operate.Putting it all on a Pass Line Bet and rolling the dice is not a strategy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Politicians have been getting soft money from various industries for decades.
It finally came time for the politicians to give the tax payer dollars to the corporations as a big Thank You.
Even more convenient is the PR around the bailouts, selling it to voters as a way to help stimulate the economy.
How many times have they called it "stimulus", so often that I suppose we believe it now.I suspect the reality of the situation is that many American businesses are ill equipt to deal with the challenges of globalization, and cannot compete in such a climate.
Many are operated with the greedy short-term goals of a CEO or Board.
To many wish to see immediate gains and get out quick, rather than building and maintaining a profitable enterprise over the long term.Giving money to banking and auto industry sets a dangerous precedent.
And, is in my opinion, equivalent to throwing the money away.
An economic strategy is something the any government must maintain, and must execute on a multi-decade schedule.
Carefully encouraging growth in key areas of science, technology, and even society over a long period of time is far more efficient than a shock-and-awe strategy of massive corporate handouts.
Incrementally nudging the successful research towards an end, and ceasing research on things that do not appear to lead to a successful end is a careful and prudent way for a government to operate.Putting it all on a Pass Line Bet and rolling the dice is not a strategy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28290767</id>
	<title>Re:It is</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244715180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The National Institutes of Health annual budget: $29 billion.</p></div><p>And the NIH, NSF, DOE, etc. etc. etc. have even higher than usual budgets this year, because the stimulus package gave them funds to award more than the usual amount of research grants.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The National Institutes of Health annual budget : $ 29 billion.And the NIH , NSF , DOE , etc .
etc. etc .
have even higher than usual budgets this year , because the stimulus package gave them funds to award more than the usual amount of research grants .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The National Institutes of Health annual budget: $29 billion.And the NIH, NSF, DOE, etc.
etc. etc.
have even higher than usual budgets this year, because the stimulus package gave them funds to award more than the usual amount of research grants.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289373</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28294147</id>
	<title>Who benefits</title>
	<author>Cajun Hell</author>
	<datestamp>1244736420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>You can give $10 billion to a company to squander or you can invest $10 billion into a battery research and just give the findings to the whole of the US industry for free.</p></div></blockquote><p>
Let's say I'm a congressman.  If I vaguely fund research, who benefits?  The public, and not even the current public; this is a public several years in the future.  Are they grateful?  Will I get something out of this?  Fuck no.  If I give money to a company, one of the implicit conditions of that, is that the stockholders are going to help with my re-election.  Who benefits?  I do (indirectly) because a very small targeted group benefits directly, and they know I'm a team player and they owe me one.
</p><p>
As soon as you give congress the power to throw around amounts like $10 billion, it's pretty much guaranteed that it isn't going to be used to advance our interests.  If you ask me whether they ought to fund research or divert it to private parties, my answer is that they should never do either; they shouldn't spend the money at all.  Pay off the debt, or if it's already paid, then don't collect that $10 billion in taxes in the first place.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You can give $ 10 billion to a company to squander or you can invest $ 10 billion into a battery research and just give the findings to the whole of the US industry for free .
Let 's say I 'm a congressman .
If I vaguely fund research , who benefits ?
The public , and not even the current public ; this is a public several years in the future .
Are they grateful ?
Will I get something out of this ?
Fuck no .
If I give money to a company , one of the implicit conditions of that , is that the stockholders are going to help with my re-election .
Who benefits ?
I do ( indirectly ) because a very small targeted group benefits directly , and they know I 'm a team player and they owe me one .
As soon as you give congress the power to throw around amounts like $ 10 billion , it 's pretty much guaranteed that it is n't going to be used to advance our interests .
If you ask me whether they ought to fund research or divert it to private parties , my answer is that they should never do either ; they should n't spend the money at all .
Pay off the debt , or if it 's already paid , then do n't collect that $ 10 billion in taxes in the first place .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can give $10 billion to a company to squander or you can invest $10 billion into a battery research and just give the findings to the whole of the US industry for free.
Let's say I'm a congressman.
If I vaguely fund research, who benefits?
The public, and not even the current public; this is a public several years in the future.
Are they grateful?
Will I get something out of this?
Fuck no.
If I give money to a company, one of the implicit conditions of that, is that the stockholders are going to help with my re-election.
Who benefits?
I do (indirectly) because a very small targeted group benefits directly, and they know I'm a team player and they owe me one.
As soon as you give congress the power to throw around amounts like $10 billion, it's pretty much guaranteed that it isn't going to be used to advance our interests.
If you ask me whether they ought to fund research or divert it to private parties, my answer is that they should never do either; they shouldn't spend the money at all.
Pay off the debt, or if it's already paid, then don't collect that $10 billion in taxes in the first place.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289455</id>
	<title>No war means no motive</title>
	<author>sympathy3k21</author>
	<datestamp>1244656740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In order to get all the Taxpayer Joes out there to not shit their pants because you want to "cure cancer" or, god forbid, "develop alternative energy sources," you have to have a reason. A fake reason or a very important reason. The Apollo mission and Manhattan project weren't started in the spirit of scientific exploration, they were started first to destroy the Nazis, then to fight the Commies. US science has always relied on our conflicts. Do you think the King of Spain would have bankrolled exploration to America if he didn't think he could gain by it strategically? Same with Britain and France. Why do you think US combat robotics has advanced so rapidly in the last decade? It's not because DARPA thought that it would be cute to have a bunch of dog robots for us to pet. Nor did they think the internet was going to be the massive consumer and cultural revolution it was - merely meant to be a DoD network for further weapons research and emergencies.<br> <br>
There are exceptions of course but the bottom line is that if you want to get something done, you have to give people some kind of dire reason for doing so. The International Joint Commission was formed in 1909 and warned of heavy pollution and potentially catastrophic wildlife destruction in the Great Lakes region as early as 1920. It wasn't until 1970, when Lake Erie literally died due to eutrophication, that anything was done about it. Nothing like a good catastrophe or threat to national security to get the science gears moving - one of the reasons I'm hopeful the media takes off with this whole "China cyberthreat" thing.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In order to get all the Taxpayer Joes out there to not shit their pants because you want to " cure cancer " or , god forbid , " develop alternative energy sources , " you have to have a reason .
A fake reason or a very important reason .
The Apollo mission and Manhattan project were n't started in the spirit of scientific exploration , they were started first to destroy the Nazis , then to fight the Commies .
US science has always relied on our conflicts .
Do you think the King of Spain would have bankrolled exploration to America if he did n't think he could gain by it strategically ?
Same with Britain and France .
Why do you think US combat robotics has advanced so rapidly in the last decade ?
It 's not because DARPA thought that it would be cute to have a bunch of dog robots for us to pet .
Nor did they think the internet was going to be the massive consumer and cultural revolution it was - merely meant to be a DoD network for further weapons research and emergencies .
There are exceptions of course but the bottom line is that if you want to get something done , you have to give people some kind of dire reason for doing so .
The International Joint Commission was formed in 1909 and warned of heavy pollution and potentially catastrophic wildlife destruction in the Great Lakes region as early as 1920 .
It was n't until 1970 , when Lake Erie literally died due to eutrophication , that anything was done about it .
Nothing like a good catastrophe or threat to national security to get the science gears moving - one of the reasons I 'm hopeful the media takes off with this whole " China cyberthreat " thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In order to get all the Taxpayer Joes out there to not shit their pants because you want to "cure cancer" or, god forbid, "develop alternative energy sources," you have to have a reason.
A fake reason or a very important reason.
The Apollo mission and Manhattan project weren't started in the spirit of scientific exploration, they were started first to destroy the Nazis, then to fight the Commies.
US science has always relied on our conflicts.
Do you think the King of Spain would have bankrolled exploration to America if he didn't think he could gain by it strategically?
Same with Britain and France.
Why do you think US combat robotics has advanced so rapidly in the last decade?
It's not because DARPA thought that it would be cute to have a bunch of dog robots for us to pet.
Nor did they think the internet was going to be the massive consumer and cultural revolution it was - merely meant to be a DoD network for further weapons research and emergencies.
There are exceptions of course but the bottom line is that if you want to get something done, you have to give people some kind of dire reason for doing so.
The International Joint Commission was formed in 1909 and warned of heavy pollution and potentially catastrophic wildlife destruction in the Great Lakes region as early as 1920.
It wasn't until 1970, when Lake Erie literally died due to eutrophication, that anything was done about it.
Nothing like a good catastrophe or threat to national security to get the science gears moving - one of the reasons I'm hopeful the media takes off with this whole "China cyberthreat" thing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28297863</id>
	<title>Decisions aren't based on science, but money</title>
	<author>UnexplodedNT</author>
	<datestamp>1244749500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Why Isn't the US Government Funding Research?"
I suspect it has something to do with the fact that the people making the decisions are bought and paid for by the same large corporations receiving said bailouts?
On the plus side, it does appear to be getting a little better with regards to scientific funding.
Bill Hicks: I have this feeling man, cause you know there's a handful of people who actually run everything. That's true, it's provable, it's not... I'm not a fuckin' conspiracy nut, it's provable. A handful. A very small elite run and own these corporations, which include the mainstream media. I have this feeling that whoever's elected president, like Clinton was; no matter what your promises you promise on the campaign trail blah,blah,blah&#226;&#166; when you win, you go into this smoky room with the twelve industrialist capitalist scum-fucks who got you in there...and you&#226;(TM)re in this smoky room and this little film screen comes down. And a big guy with a cigar goes... &#226;Roll the film.&#226;(TM) And, it's a shot, of the Kennedy assassination, from an angle you've never seen before.....that looks suspiciously off the grassy knoll. And then the film screen goes up and the lights come up and they go, to the new president&#226;&#166; &#226;Any questions?&#226;(TM) &#226;Err, just what my agenda is?</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Why Is n't the US Government Funding Research ?
" I suspect it has something to do with the fact that the people making the decisions are bought and paid for by the same large corporations receiving said bailouts ?
On the plus side , it does appear to be getting a little better with regards to scientific funding .
Bill Hicks : I have this feeling man , cause you know there 's a handful of people who actually run everything .
That 's true , it 's provable , it 's not... I 'm not a fuckin ' conspiracy nut , it 's provable .
A handful .
A very small elite run and own these corporations , which include the mainstream media .
I have this feeling that whoever 's elected president , like Clinton was ; no matter what your promises you promise on the campaign trail blah,blah,blah     when you win , you go into this smoky room with the twelve industrialist capitalist scum-fucks who got you in there...and you   ( TM ) re in this smoky room and this little film screen comes down .
And a big guy with a cigar goes...   Roll the film.   ( TM ) And , it 's a shot , of the Kennedy assassination , from an angle you 've never seen before.....that looks suspiciously off the grassy knoll .
And then the film screen goes up and the lights come up and they go , to the new president       Any questions ?   ( TM )   Err , just what my agenda is ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Why Isn't the US Government Funding Research?
"
I suspect it has something to do with the fact that the people making the decisions are bought and paid for by the same large corporations receiving said bailouts?
On the plus side, it does appear to be getting a little better with regards to scientific funding.
Bill Hicks: I have this feeling man, cause you know there's a handful of people who actually run everything.
That's true, it's provable, it's not... I'm not a fuckin' conspiracy nut, it's provable.
A handful.
A very small elite run and own these corporations, which include the mainstream media.
I have this feeling that whoever's elected president, like Clinton was; no matter what your promises you promise on the campaign trail blah,blah,blahâ¦ when you win, you go into this smoky room with the twelve industrialist capitalist scum-fucks who got you in there...and youâ(TM)re in this smoky room and this little film screen comes down.
And a big guy with a cigar goes... âRoll the film.â(TM) And, it's a shot, of the Kennedy assassination, from an angle you've never seen before.....that looks suspiciously off the grassy knoll.
And then the film screen goes up and the lights come up and they go, to the new presidentâ¦ âAny questions?â(TM) âErr, just what my agenda is?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28292933</id>
	<title>most basic research is government funded</title>
	<author>oudzeeman</author>
	<datestamp>1244732040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>America has more research universities than any other country, most of that research is government funded (along with some privately funded research).   We have national labs.  Even private non-profit research labs that compete with universities for research grants.  I work at a 1400 employee private non-profit biomedical research laboratory.  Much of our funding comes from National Institute of Health grants (we also sell genetically defined laboratory mice as well as research services to help subsidize our research programs).
<br> <br>The original poster is obviously an idiot.  Just because a private company is investing in research TO GET A COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE does not mean the government is not investing in research.  I'm sure most of the basic research that lead up to GM's own applied battery research was done at University and government labs.</htmltext>
<tokenext>America has more research universities than any other country , most of that research is government funded ( along with some privately funded research ) .
We have national labs .
Even private non-profit research labs that compete with universities for research grants .
I work at a 1400 employee private non-profit biomedical research laboratory .
Much of our funding comes from National Institute of Health grants ( we also sell genetically defined laboratory mice as well as research services to help subsidize our research programs ) .
The original poster is obviously an idiot .
Just because a private company is investing in research TO GET A COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE does not mean the government is not investing in research .
I 'm sure most of the basic research that lead up to GM 's own applied battery research was done at University and government labs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>America has more research universities than any other country, most of that research is government funded (along with some privately funded research).
We have national labs.
Even private non-profit research labs that compete with universities for research grants.
I work at a 1400 employee private non-profit biomedical research laboratory.
Much of our funding comes from National Institute of Health grants (we also sell genetically defined laboratory mice as well as research services to help subsidize our research programs).
The original poster is obviously an idiot.
Just because a private company is investing in research TO GET A COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE does not mean the government is not investing in research.
I'm sure most of the basic research that lead up to GM's own applied battery research was done at University and government labs.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28298285</id>
	<title>Re:That's Obvious</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244750820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Can you please do it on your own grounds this time?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Can you please do it on your own grounds this time ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can you please do it on your own grounds this time?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289419</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28290167</id>
	<title>similar idea</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244663700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've seen a newspaper columnist make a similar argument.  He advocated for investing the bailout money to the top 25 venture capital firms and letting them keep a commission of 10\% (or whatever market rate) of the profits thereby fueling entrepreneurs and start ups</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've seen a newspaper columnist make a similar argument .
He advocated for investing the bailout money to the top 25 venture capital firms and letting them keep a commission of 10 \ % ( or whatever market rate ) of the profits thereby fueling entrepreneurs and start ups</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've seen a newspaper columnist make a similar argument.
He advocated for investing the bailout money to the top 25 venture capital firms and letting them keep a commission of 10\% (or whatever market rate) of the profits thereby fueling entrepreneurs and start ups</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289531</id>
	<title>Why Isn't the US Government blah blah blah</title>
	<author>TopSpin</author>
	<datestamp>1244657400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>17 days ago STS-125, the forth in-orbit service of Hubble, ended successfully<br>12 days ago Gov. Schwarzenegger dedicated the largest laser on Earth to fusion research<br>Last week the DOE <a href="http://www.nanowerk.com/news/newsid=10999.php" title="nanowerk.com">produced video</a> [nanowerk.com] of a potential carbon nanotube memory device in operation.<br>3 days from now 7 people will blast into orbit, rendezvous with the ISS and further the construction of a giant orbital laboratory.</p><p>No government in history has ever, is now, or will ever again (post dollar collapse) facilitate as much raw research as the US federal government.</p><p>Just STFU please.  Thanks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>17 days ago STS-125 , the forth in-orbit service of Hubble , ended successfully12 days ago Gov .
Schwarzenegger dedicated the largest laser on Earth to fusion researchLast week the DOE produced video [ nanowerk.com ] of a potential carbon nanotube memory device in operation.3 days from now 7 people will blast into orbit , rendezvous with the ISS and further the construction of a giant orbital laboratory.No government in history has ever , is now , or will ever again ( post dollar collapse ) facilitate as much raw research as the US federal government.Just STFU please .
Thanks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>17 days ago STS-125, the forth in-orbit service of Hubble, ended successfully12 days ago Gov.
Schwarzenegger dedicated the largest laser on Earth to fusion researchLast week the DOE produced video [nanowerk.com] of a potential carbon nanotube memory device in operation.3 days from now 7 people will blast into orbit, rendezvous with the ISS and further the construction of a giant orbital laboratory.No government in history has ever, is now, or will ever again (post dollar collapse) facilitate as much raw research as the US federal government.Just STFU please.
Thanks.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28290935</id>
	<title>Government funding of research</title>
	<author>jusmah2cents</author>
	<datestamp>1244718180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The government already gives tons of money for research through college/universities.  The problem is that the fruits of those research projects end up with patents for private corporations (think patent medicine) and the taxpayers end up funding these companies which in turn, end up charging us outrageous amounts to purchase these products. So, this system is socialized research for the benefit of the few at the expense of the many.

This is just one example, but in essence, I have a problem with any government funding based on the fact that the government must first steal the resources from the taxpayers before it can give the funds over for research.  Added to this fact the lack of evidence that government funded research is any better than private research.  The only benefit, if it exists, is it can force a particular program that may not be economical for private enterprise.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The government already gives tons of money for research through college/universities .
The problem is that the fruits of those research projects end up with patents for private corporations ( think patent medicine ) and the taxpayers end up funding these companies which in turn , end up charging us outrageous amounts to purchase these products .
So , this system is socialized research for the benefit of the few at the expense of the many .
This is just one example , but in essence , I have a problem with any government funding based on the fact that the government must first steal the resources from the taxpayers before it can give the funds over for research .
Added to this fact the lack of evidence that government funded research is any better than private research .
The only benefit , if it exists , is it can force a particular program that may not be economical for private enterprise .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The government already gives tons of money for research through college/universities.
The problem is that the fruits of those research projects end up with patents for private corporations (think patent medicine) and the taxpayers end up funding these companies which in turn, end up charging us outrageous amounts to purchase these products.
So, this system is socialized research for the benefit of the few at the expense of the many.
This is just one example, but in essence, I have a problem with any government funding based on the fact that the government must first steal the resources from the taxpayers before it can give the funds over for research.
Added to this fact the lack of evidence that government funded research is any better than private research.
The only benefit, if it exists, is it can force a particular program that may not be economical for private enterprise.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28290547</id>
	<title>some good ideas.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244711640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A better way to detect Weapons of Mass destruction from a distance may turn out useful, perhaps prevent an invasion or two, perhaps save some money.</p><p>How about funding research on an antimatter bomb.  It would leave no radioactive waste, and 100\% of the reactants would be used, that's good energy efficiency.</p><p>Funding teraforming Mars would be good.</p><p>And faster space travel methods would be useful too.  I think JPL does do this, but where's the warp drive nacelle's already?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A better way to detect Weapons of Mass destruction from a distance may turn out useful , perhaps prevent an invasion or two , perhaps save some money.How about funding research on an antimatter bomb .
It would leave no radioactive waste , and 100 \ % of the reactants would be used , that 's good energy efficiency.Funding teraforming Mars would be good.And faster space travel methods would be useful too .
I think JPL does do this , but where 's the warp drive nacelle 's already ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A better way to detect Weapons of Mass destruction from a distance may turn out useful, perhaps prevent an invasion or two, perhaps save some money.How about funding research on an antimatter bomb.
It would leave no radioactive waste, and 100\% of the reactants would be used, that's good energy efficiency.Funding teraforming Mars would be good.And faster space travel methods would be useful too.
I think JPL does do this, but where's the warp drive nacelle's already?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289417</id>
	<title>Re:Its simple....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244656380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I hate all the bitching about socialism this socialism that....hell, I bet if there were no such things as libraries and someone proposed the idea today you'd call that socialism. No? Really?  Well, think about what libraries are:  a system whereby the government buys a bunch of books and made them available for temporary loan to peple so that the poor can have equal access to the written word as do the rich...Rush would be all over condemning that shit!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I hate all the bitching about socialism this socialism that....hell , I bet if there were no such things as libraries and someone proposed the idea today you 'd call that socialism .
No ? Really ?
Well , think about what libraries are : a system whereby the government buys a bunch of books and made them available for temporary loan to peple so that the poor can have equal access to the written word as do the rich...Rush would be all over condemning that shit !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hate all the bitching about socialism this socialism that....hell, I bet if there were no such things as libraries and someone proposed the idea today you'd call that socialism.
No? Really?
Well, think about what libraries are:  a system whereby the government buys a bunch of books and made them available for temporary loan to peple so that the poor can have equal access to the written word as do the rich...Rush would be all over condemning that shit!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289341</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289995</id>
	<title>Re:Its simple....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244661780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Public water, parks and picking up the trash? If there is a need for those the market will provide it. It's communists like you who are destroying the country.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Public water , parks and picking up the trash ?
If there is a need for those the market will provide it .
It 's communists like you who are destroying the country .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Public water, parks and picking up the trash?
If there is a need for those the market will provide it.
It's communists like you who are destroying the country.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289341</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28291565</id>
	<title>Why Not Indeed?</title>
	<author>DynaSoar</author>
	<datestamp>1244726280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why isn't thesandbender posting a loaded question to<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. that's contradicted by data?</p><p>Why isn't samzenpus passing along ridiculous material without bothering to look at whether it's a troll?</p><p>Why isn't dynasoar posting a reply with a link to NFS's summaries of federal research budgets 1955 to present?</p><p><a href="http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf08315/content.cfm?pub\_id=3880&amp;id=2" title="nsf.gov">http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf08315/content.cfm?pub\_id=3880&amp;id=2</a> [nsf.gov]</p><p>"The US government has little experience with commercial enterprise."</p><p>WTF? The US government controls the very basis of commercial enterprise, the economy. It exists in large part to support commercial enterprise. Very few high level legislative officials haven't been directly involved in operating a commercial enterprise.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why is n't thesandbender posting a loaded question to / .
that 's contradicted by data ? Why is n't samzenpus passing along ridiculous material without bothering to look at whether it 's a troll ? Why is n't dynasoar posting a reply with a link to NFS 's summaries of federal research budgets 1955 to present ? http : //www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf08315/content.cfm ? pub \ _id = 3880&amp;id = 2 [ nsf.gov ] " The US government has little experience with commercial enterprise. " WTF ?
The US government controls the very basis of commercial enterprise , the economy .
It exists in large part to support commercial enterprise .
Very few high level legislative officials have n't been directly involved in operating a commercial enterprise .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why isn't thesandbender posting a loaded question to /.
that's contradicted by data?Why isn't samzenpus passing along ridiculous material without bothering to look at whether it's a troll?Why isn't dynasoar posting a reply with a link to NFS's summaries of federal research budgets 1955 to present?http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf08315/content.cfm?pub\_id=3880&amp;id=2 [nsf.gov]"The US government has little experience with commercial enterprise."WTF?
The US government controls the very basis of commercial enterprise, the economy.
It exists in large part to support commercial enterprise.
Very few high level legislative officials haven't been directly involved in operating a commercial enterprise.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28290029</id>
	<title>Re:Food Production</title>
	<author>moosesocks</author>
	<datestamp>1244662200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Monsanto are one of a very small number of entities who scare the living crap out of me.</p><p>I have no idea about if/how the government are involved with their affairs.  However, I do know that they control 70-100\% of the United States' supply of certain crops.  I also know that they own and control a technology that can produce 'sterile' crops that don't yield any seeds at the end of the harvest.</p><p>They've literally got the ingredients for a mad-scientist-plotting-to-take-over-the-world scenario.  I'm no libertarian, but that's an unreasonable amount of power for any one entity to hold over humanity.  They might as well have a small stockpile of nuclear weapons.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Monsanto are one of a very small number of entities who scare the living crap out of me.I have no idea about if/how the government are involved with their affairs .
However , I do know that they control 70-100 \ % of the United States ' supply of certain crops .
I also know that they own and control a technology that can produce 'sterile ' crops that do n't yield any seeds at the end of the harvest.They 've literally got the ingredients for a mad-scientist-plotting-to-take-over-the-world scenario .
I 'm no libertarian , but that 's an unreasonable amount of power for any one entity to hold over humanity .
They might as well have a small stockpile of nuclear weapons .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Monsanto are one of a very small number of entities who scare the living crap out of me.I have no idea about if/how the government are involved with their affairs.
However, I do know that they control 70-100\% of the United States' supply of certain crops.
I also know that they own and control a technology that can produce 'sterile' crops that don't yield any seeds at the end of the harvest.They've literally got the ingredients for a mad-scientist-plotting-to-take-over-the-world scenario.
I'm no libertarian, but that's an unreasonable amount of power for any one entity to hold over humanity.
They might as well have a small stockpile of nuclear weapons.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289453</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28291603</id>
	<title>SInce the 80s..... (aka Blame it on Reagan)</title>
	<author>guisar</author>
	<datestamp>1244726640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Along with the notion that Government was bad came the notion that Government was unfit for all intellectual activities and except for small (and growing smaller) enclaves at the national labs, NIST and the CDC, they got rid of really anyone with an advanced degree and engineering or scientific experience. Even the labs (like Sandia) are outsourced to companies with really few people within the Government or more precisely without a commercial interest in the activity, who understand what's going on. Understand me, people with an advanced technical background were forced out and are not welcome in the Government. The notion instead is that somewhere, out there in the big wide world, someone is somehow doing on their own and already has the answers- it only takes some tax dollars for this whatever it is to magically appear ready for use without even having to understand how it works.</p><p>There are still SBIRs and other small research activities but it's not big bucks and most of what's left is either driven by emergency (think CDC) or special operations (think UAVs, etc).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Along with the notion that Government was bad came the notion that Government was unfit for all intellectual activities and except for small ( and growing smaller ) enclaves at the national labs , NIST and the CDC , they got rid of really anyone with an advanced degree and engineering or scientific experience .
Even the labs ( like Sandia ) are outsourced to companies with really few people within the Government or more precisely without a commercial interest in the activity , who understand what 's going on .
Understand me , people with an advanced technical background were forced out and are not welcome in the Government .
The notion instead is that somewhere , out there in the big wide world , someone is somehow doing on their own and already has the answers- it only takes some tax dollars for this whatever it is to magically appear ready for use without even having to understand how it works.There are still SBIRs and other small research activities but it 's not big bucks and most of what 's left is either driven by emergency ( think CDC ) or special operations ( think UAVs , etc ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Along with the notion that Government was bad came the notion that Government was unfit for all intellectual activities and except for small (and growing smaller) enclaves at the national labs, NIST and the CDC, they got rid of really anyone with an advanced degree and engineering or scientific experience.
Even the labs (like Sandia) are outsourced to companies with really few people within the Government or more precisely without a commercial interest in the activity, who understand what's going on.
Understand me, people with an advanced technical background were forced out and are not welcome in the Government.
The notion instead is that somewhere, out there in the big wide world, someone is somehow doing on their own and already has the answers- it only takes some tax dollars for this whatever it is to magically appear ready for use without even having to understand how it works.There are still SBIRs and other small research activities but it's not big bucks and most of what's left is either driven by emergency (think CDC) or special operations (think UAVs, etc).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28295265</id>
	<title>Because that's not what governments are for</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244740440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Every tax dollar is stolen by threat of violence.  As such they should only be used to prevent even worse things.  I fund research because I think it's a good idea, but I'm not about to use the threat of violence to steal from you to fund research.</p><p>As for the practical outcome of research.  I think history has too much noise to make any broad statements about what is the primary cause of innovation.  Perhaps wars, research and innovation are all spuriously correlated to each other by simple demographic shifts.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Every tax dollar is stolen by threat of violence .
As such they should only be used to prevent even worse things .
I fund research because I think it 's a good idea , but I 'm not about to use the threat of violence to steal from you to fund research.As for the practical outcome of research .
I think history has too much noise to make any broad statements about what is the primary cause of innovation .
Perhaps wars , research and innovation are all spuriously correlated to each other by simple demographic shifts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Every tax dollar is stolen by threat of violence.
As such they should only be used to prevent even worse things.
I fund research because I think it's a good idea, but I'm not about to use the threat of violence to steal from you to fund research.As for the practical outcome of research.
I think history has too much noise to make any broad statements about what is the primary cause of innovation.
Perhaps wars, research and innovation are all spuriously correlated to each other by simple demographic shifts.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28291293</id>
	<title>Why?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244723760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The same reason that Canada has? We aren't a service provider?  We aren't in it to make money on commercial projects?  It is why private company is for?  All of which are stupid reasons, but what can you do.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The same reason that Canada has ?
We are n't a service provider ?
We are n't in it to make money on commercial projects ?
It is why private company is for ?
All of which are stupid reasons , but what can you do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The same reason that Canada has?
We aren't a service provider?
We aren't in it to make money on commercial projects?
It is why private company is for?
All of which are stupid reasons, but what can you do.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289939</id>
	<title>Re:Its simple....</title>
	<author>FrankN</author>
	<datestamp>1244661240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>... our congress critters can't see past the next election.  No immediate political benefit, no funding.<br>

<br>
Frank</htmltext>
<tokenext>... our congress critters ca n't see past the next election .
No immediate political benefit , no funding .
Frank</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... our congress critters can't see past the next election.
No immediate political benefit, no funding.
Frank</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289341</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28290863</id>
	<title>Why should government decide how to spend money?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244716920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's a huge unasked question here: why should government decide where to invest money at all?  If government is spending money, that means it has taken that money from someone else (google bastiat seen unseen).  So all that's changed is that government decides where to spend the money instead of the someone else.</p><p>No thanks.  If I think research into batteries is the way to go I will invest in companies that do battery research.  I don't need someone to take my money and make that decision for me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's a huge unasked question here : why should government decide where to invest money at all ?
If government is spending money , that means it has taken that money from someone else ( google bastiat seen unseen ) .
So all that 's changed is that government decides where to spend the money instead of the someone else.No thanks .
If I think research into batteries is the way to go I will invest in companies that do battery research .
I do n't need someone to take my money and make that decision for me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's a huge unasked question here: why should government decide where to invest money at all?
If government is spending money, that means it has taken that money from someone else (google bastiat seen unseen).
So all that's changed is that government decides where to spend the money instead of the someone else.No thanks.
If I think research into batteries is the way to go I will invest in companies that do battery research.
I don't need someone to take my money and make that decision for me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28290191</id>
	<title>stop spending money we don't have</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244750640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>considering how in debt the government is at this point, why would anyone encourage the government to increase unconstitutional spending?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>considering how in debt the government is at this point , why would anyone encourage the government to increase unconstitutional spending ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>considering how in debt the government is at this point, why would anyone encourage the government to increase unconstitutional spending?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28290465</id>
	<title>It's not consitutional?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244710980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Are you an idiot naturally, or did someone spike your drink with Stupid-O (the breakfast of morons!)?</p><p>"It's not constitutional."  Good lord, you're stupid.</p><p>No, I'm not going to bother to explain why you're wrong.  Your point is JUST THAT DUMB.  I also wouldn't explain why I was calling a flat-earther an idiot.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are you an idiot naturally , or did someone spike your drink with Stupid-O ( the breakfast of morons ! ) ?
" It 's not constitutional .
" Good lord , you 're stupid.No , I 'm not going to bother to explain why you 're wrong .
Your point is JUST THAT DUMB .
I also would n't explain why I was calling a flat-earther an idiot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are you an idiot naturally, or did someone spike your drink with Stupid-O (the breakfast of morons!)?
"It's not constitutional.
"  Good lord, you're stupid.No, I'm not going to bother to explain why you're wrong.
Your point is JUST THAT DUMB.
I also wouldn't explain why I was calling a flat-earther an idiot.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289551</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289427</id>
	<title>Re:That's Obvious</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244656560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Good old USA...Hot and cold running wars. And drinkable from the tap too! Just add sugar, and maybe a little caffeine for that extra punch. You have yet to see a minute's peace and quiet through your entire history. You've been on the attack since day one.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Good old USA...Hot and cold running wars .
And drinkable from the tap too !
Just add sugar , and maybe a little caffeine for that extra punch .
You have yet to see a minute 's peace and quiet through your entire history .
You 've been on the attack since day one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Good old USA...Hot and cold running wars.
And drinkable from the tap too!
Just add sugar, and maybe a little caffeine for that extra punch.
You have yet to see a minute's peace and quiet through your entire history.
You've been on the attack since day one.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289299</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289393</id>
	<title>Re:Its simple....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244656260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>A public domain battery concept would ultimately undermine any company's investment in battery research and development. Doesn't the government own GM anyways now?</p></div><p>Yes... you appear to contradict yourself. The government 'owning' GM has exactly the undermining effect that you're talking about but without the benefits of making the research available to everyone. Public research programs would beat public bailouts hands down.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>A public domain battery concept would ultimately undermine any company 's investment in battery research and development .
Does n't the government own GM anyways now ? Yes... you appear to contradict yourself .
The government 'owning ' GM has exactly the undermining effect that you 're talking about but without the benefits of making the research available to everyone .
Public research programs would beat public bailouts hands down .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A public domain battery concept would ultimately undermine any company's investment in battery research and development.
Doesn't the government own GM anyways now?Yes... you appear to contradict yourself.
The government 'owning' GM has exactly the undermining effect that you're talking about but without the benefits of making the research available to everyone.
Public research programs would beat public bailouts hands down.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289341</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28293045</id>
	<title>Re:Research is not the function of the Fed Gov't</title>
	<author>nedlohs</author>
	<datestamp>1244732460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The free market is completely useless at researching anything with a small chance of a long term payoff and no short term benefit.</p><p>The government can manage those because it doesn't give a shit if it burns through billions of dollars with no result in site.</p><p>Of course in the US the constitution doesn't allow* the Federal Government to do that work anyway, so this should be irrelevant. Of course since the constitution is ignored completely no one cares.</p><p>With the rather large exception of military research which can easily be argued is part of defending the country.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The free market is completely useless at researching anything with a small chance of a long term payoff and no short term benefit.The government can manage those because it does n't give a shit if it burns through billions of dollars with no result in site.Of course in the US the constitution does n't allow * the Federal Government to do that work anyway , so this should be irrelevant .
Of course since the constitution is ignored completely no one cares.With the rather large exception of military research which can easily be argued is part of defending the country .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The free market is completely useless at researching anything with a small chance of a long term payoff and no short term benefit.The government can manage those because it doesn't give a shit if it burns through billions of dollars with no result in site.Of course in the US the constitution doesn't allow* the Federal Government to do that work anyway, so this should be irrelevant.
Of course since the constitution is ignored completely no one cares.With the rather large exception of military research which can easily be argued is part of defending the country.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289551</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28290101</id>
	<title>US Advanced Battery Consortium, part of DOE USCAR</title>
	<author>spage</author>
	<datestamp>1244662920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The government has and does fund battery research.<br><a href="http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/technologies/energy\_storage/" title="energy.gov">http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/technologies/energy\_storage/</a> [energy.gov]</p><p>During the Clinton administration the government and Detroit 3 set up Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partnership\_for\_a\_New\_Generation\_of\_Vehicles" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partnership\_for\_a\_New\_Generation\_of\_Vehicles</a> [wikipedia.org] , and all three produced 70MPG prototypes.  George W Bush scrapped it at the behest of the auto makers and replaced it with the pie in the sky FreedomCar research program.  One of the most boneheaded moves in US automotive history.  New head Steven Chu is trying to reorient transportation research away from the hydrogen highway fantasy back to more immediate payoff.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The government has and does fund battery research.http : //www1.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/technologies/energy \ _storage/ [ energy.gov ] During the Clinton administration the government and Detroit 3 set up Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles , http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partnership \ _for \ _a \ _New \ _Generation \ _of \ _Vehicles [ wikipedia.org ] , and all three produced 70MPG prototypes .
George W Bush scrapped it at the behest of the auto makers and replaced it with the pie in the sky FreedomCar research program .
One of the most boneheaded moves in US automotive history .
New head Steven Chu is trying to reorient transportation research away from the hydrogen highway fantasy back to more immediate payoff .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The government has and does fund battery research.http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/technologies/energy\_storage/ [energy.gov]During the Clinton administration the government and Detroit 3 set up Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partnership\_for\_a\_New\_Generation\_of\_Vehicles [wikipedia.org] , and all three produced 70MPG prototypes.
George W Bush scrapped it at the behest of the auto makers and replaced it with the pie in the sky FreedomCar research program.
One of the most boneheaded moves in US automotive history.
New head Steven Chu is trying to reorient transportation research away from the hydrogen highway fantasy back to more immediate payoff.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289699</id>
	<title>Re:Its simple....</title>
	<author>Capsaicin</author>
	<datestamp>1244658660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>There is surely a market for long lasting batteries, and as in the case of GM, companies have been investing heavily in new technologies. How is getting some public governmental research entity started going to be remotely cost effective and efficient, because we all know that government departments are the model of efficiency?</i> </p><p>You've answered your own question.  For profit corporations are not good research vehicles, because they are too efficient at raising profits.  This means they will efficiently allocate resources to researching technology with obvious (near) immediate commercial returns.  So yes, you'll get research on longer lasting batteries (if only so that they can be patented and kept off the market as long as possible), and GM, etc.  However the areas of science which might be today's equivalent to the physics of electricity or of genetics will not be discovered by this kind of effcient R&amp;D.</p><p>Corporate research is excellent at delivering technological improvements, less so at fostering scientific innovation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is surely a market for long lasting batteries , and as in the case of GM , companies have been investing heavily in new technologies .
How is getting some public governmental research entity started going to be remotely cost effective and efficient , because we all know that government departments are the model of efficiency ?
You 've answered your own question .
For profit corporations are not good research vehicles , because they are too efficient at raising profits .
This means they will efficiently allocate resources to researching technology with obvious ( near ) immediate commercial returns .
So yes , you 'll get research on longer lasting batteries ( if only so that they can be patented and kept off the market as long as possible ) , and GM , etc .
However the areas of science which might be today 's equivalent to the physics of electricity or of genetics will not be discovered by this kind of effcient R&amp;D.Corporate research is excellent at delivering technological improvements , less so at fostering scientific innovation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> There is surely a market for long lasting batteries, and as in the case of GM, companies have been investing heavily in new technologies.
How is getting some public governmental research entity started going to be remotely cost effective and efficient, because we all know that government departments are the model of efficiency?
You've answered your own question.
For profit corporations are not good research vehicles, because they are too efficient at raising profits.
This means they will efficiently allocate resources to researching technology with obvious (near) immediate commercial returns.
So yes, you'll get research on longer lasting batteries (if only so that they can be patented and kept off the market as long as possible), and GM, etc.
However the areas of science which might be today's equivalent to the physics of electricity or of genetics will not be discovered by this kind of effcient R&amp;D.Corporate research is excellent at delivering technological improvements, less so at fostering scientific innovation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289341</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289751</id>
	<title>Next question, please</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244659200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>led me to wonder why the US government is pouring billions into buying companies instead of heavily funding useful research. You can give $10 billion to a company to squander or you can invest $10 billion into a battery research and just give the findings to the whole of the US industry for free.</i> </p><p>Because the immediate problem is the recession.</p><p>GM can't build an electric car if the company goes into liquidation. GM can't sell an electric car if its dealers go into liquidation.</p><p>Mechanics can't service an electric car if they go bankrupt with their suppliers.</p><p>Infrastructure once damaged is very difficult and expensive to rebuild.</p><p> You have to stop the bleeding first.</p><p>Research isn't a panacea.</p><p> It would be easy to aquander $10 billion on projects that have no realistic prospect of success within a reasonable time frame.</p><p>The geek isn't an unbiased observer here.</p><p> It should be obvious that a very generous cut of that $10 billion he wants the government to spend will be headed his way - and not to the auto worker on the line in Detroit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>led me to wonder why the US government is pouring billions into buying companies instead of heavily funding useful research .
You can give $ 10 billion to a company to squander or you can invest $ 10 billion into a battery research and just give the findings to the whole of the US industry for free .
Because the immediate problem is the recession.GM ca n't build an electric car if the company goes into liquidation .
GM ca n't sell an electric car if its dealers go into liquidation.Mechanics ca n't service an electric car if they go bankrupt with their suppliers.Infrastructure once damaged is very difficult and expensive to rebuild .
You have to stop the bleeding first.Research is n't a panacea .
It would be easy to aquander $ 10 billion on projects that have no realistic prospect of success within a reasonable time frame.The geek is n't an unbiased observer here .
It should be obvious that a very generous cut of that $ 10 billion he wants the government to spend will be headed his way - and not to the auto worker on the line in Detroit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>led me to wonder why the US government is pouring billions into buying companies instead of heavily funding useful research.
You can give $10 billion to a company to squander or you can invest $10 billion into a battery research and just give the findings to the whole of the US industry for free.
Because the immediate problem is the recession.GM can't build an electric car if the company goes into liquidation.
GM can't sell an electric car if its dealers go into liquidation.Mechanics can't service an electric car if they go bankrupt with their suppliers.Infrastructure once damaged is very difficult and expensive to rebuild.
You have to stop the bleeding first.Research isn't a panacea.
It would be easy to aquander $10 billion on projects that have no realistic prospect of success within a reasonable time frame.The geek isn't an unbiased observer here.
It should be obvious that a very generous cut of that $10 billion he wants the government to spend will be headed his way - and not to the auto worker on the line in Detroit.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28290475</id>
	<title>Re:That's Obvious</title>
	<author>bigdavex</author>
	<datestamp>1244711040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>America has a hard time being at peace in the present world because, as the top dog and de facto world policeman, we inevitably get drawn into everyone's little spats.</p></div></blockquote><p>I don't think it's inevitable.  The US is making its own choices, not the just following its destiny.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>America has a hard time being at peace in the present world because , as the top dog and de facto world policeman , we inevitably get drawn into everyone 's little spats.I do n't think it 's inevitable .
The US is making its own choices , not the just following its destiny .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>America has a hard time being at peace in the present world because, as the top dog and de facto world policeman, we inevitably get drawn into everyone's little spats.I don't think it's inevitable.
The US is making its own choices, not the just following its destiny.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289967</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28290139</id>
	<title>Re:Check the Constitution...</title>
	<author>phantomfive</author>
	<datestamp>1244663280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>They are supposed to collect tariffs on imports rather than tax the citizenry</p></div><p>The internet would be a better place if everyone who suggests that the government get all its money based on tariffs should be forced to show that they have a basic understanding of economics before they post.  Do you have any idea how high imports would have to be in order to pay the national governments budget?  Do you realize that you would be the one paying those tariffs anyway?  There are reasons we don't do this anymore.  At least acknowledge that you understand why it's the way it is before saying it's wrong.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>they have no f**king business buying businesses, funding research, baling businesses out, or a large host of other "responsibilities"</p> </div><p>The internet would be such a better place if everyone who dictated what the government should/should not be doing understood how democracy works, and that if enough people want the government to do something, it will.  Buy large tracts of land (Louisiana purchase)?  Not strictly allowed by the constitution, but everyone was happy with it, even the strict constructionist Jefferson, so it went through.  It's a democracy: if you want to change what the government does, the easiest way is to change what the people want.</p><p><div class="quote"><p> Even worse the population is made up of liberal sissy wymynists who would rather cower than do anything about it.</p></div><p>The internet would be a better place if you had to take a test before using it, showing that you realize that everyone who disagrees with you is not necessarily a sissy, liberal, or an idiot.  It may in fact be YOU who are the idiot.  Sad but true.  Be careful before pointing fingers.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>They are supposed to collect tariffs on imports rather than tax the citizenryThe internet would be a better place if everyone who suggests that the government get all its money based on tariffs should be forced to show that they have a basic understanding of economics before they post .
Do you have any idea how high imports would have to be in order to pay the national governments budget ?
Do you realize that you would be the one paying those tariffs anyway ?
There are reasons we do n't do this anymore .
At least acknowledge that you understand why it 's the way it is before saying it 's wrong.they have no f * * king business buying businesses , funding research , baling businesses out , or a large host of other " responsibilities " The internet would be such a better place if everyone who dictated what the government should/should not be doing understood how democracy works , and that if enough people want the government to do something , it will .
Buy large tracts of land ( Louisiana purchase ) ?
Not strictly allowed by the constitution , but everyone was happy with it , even the strict constructionist Jefferson , so it went through .
It 's a democracy : if you want to change what the government does , the easiest way is to change what the people want .
Even worse the population is made up of liberal sissy wymynists who would rather cower than do anything about it.The internet would be a better place if you had to take a test before using it , showing that you realize that everyone who disagrees with you is not necessarily a sissy , liberal , or an idiot .
It may in fact be YOU who are the idiot .
Sad but true .
Be careful before pointing fingers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They are supposed to collect tariffs on imports rather than tax the citizenryThe internet would be a better place if everyone who suggests that the government get all its money based on tariffs should be forced to show that they have a basic understanding of economics before they post.
Do you have any idea how high imports would have to be in order to pay the national governments budget?
Do you realize that you would be the one paying those tariffs anyway?
There are reasons we don't do this anymore.
At least acknowledge that you understand why it's the way it is before saying it's wrong.they have no f**king business buying businesses, funding research, baling businesses out, or a large host of other "responsibilities" The internet would be such a better place if everyone who dictated what the government should/should not be doing understood how democracy works, and that if enough people want the government to do something, it will.
Buy large tracts of land (Louisiana purchase)?
Not strictly allowed by the constitution, but everyone was happy with it, even the strict constructionist Jefferson, so it went through.
It's a democracy: if you want to change what the government does, the easiest way is to change what the people want.
Even worse the population is made up of liberal sissy wymynists who would rather cower than do anything about it.The internet would be a better place if you had to take a test before using it, showing that you realize that everyone who disagrees with you is not necessarily a sissy, liberal, or an idiot.
It may in fact be YOU who are the idiot.
Sad but true.
Be careful before pointing fingers.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289783</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28290249</id>
	<title>Re:Its simple....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244751240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"If you're happy to run road builders and private street cleaners out of business..."</p><p>Goes to show there are many things that we the people can do cheaper and better than they the corporations - otherwise govt. run anything would not drive its corporate run equivalent out of business, would it?</p><p>"I await the people trying to figure out which political stripe they can flame me as."</p><p>Sorry to disappoint you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" If you 're happy to run road builders and private street cleaners out of business... " Goes to show there are many things that we the people can do cheaper and better than they the corporations - otherwise govt .
run anything would not drive its corporate run equivalent out of business , would it ?
" I await the people trying to figure out which political stripe they can flame me as .
" Sorry to disappoint you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"If you're happy to run road builders and private street cleaners out of business..."Goes to show there are many things that we the people can do cheaper and better than they the corporations - otherwise govt.
run anything would not drive its corporate run equivalent out of business, would it?
"I await the people trying to figure out which political stripe they can flame me as.
"Sorry to disappoint you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289671</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28290235</id>
	<title>Re:Its simple....</title>
	<author>maglor\_83</author>
	<datestamp>1244751060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The truth is the government exists to do whatever the people consent to them doing.</p></div><p>I have a totalitarian government you insensitive clod!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The truth is the government exists to do whatever the people consent to them doing.I have a totalitarian government you insensitive clod !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The truth is the government exists to do whatever the people consent to them doing.I have a totalitarian government you insensitive clod!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289671</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28304111</id>
	<title>duh</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244738460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This question is worthless. Not only does the gov. already pour money into research, but they're broke, and they THINK they only way they can help is by pouring money into the economy. Research is, to say the absolute very least, fucking SLOW. Nobody's winning short term when you pump more money into research, except of course a few research techs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This question is worthless .
Not only does the gov .
already pour money into research , but they 're broke , and they THINK they only way they can help is by pouring money into the economy .
Research is , to say the absolute very least , fucking SLOW .
Nobody 's winning short term when you pump more money into research , except of course a few research techs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This question is worthless.
Not only does the gov.
already pour money into research, but they're broke, and they THINK they only way they can help is by pouring money into the economy.
Research is, to say the absolute very least, fucking SLOW.
Nobody's winning short term when you pump more money into research, except of course a few research techs.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289481</id>
	<title>The US Government IS Funding Research!</title>
	<author>G3ckoG33k</author>
	<datestamp>1244656980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The US Government IS Funding Research!</p><p>The US has fantastic research. And, it is huge. Very few countries are in that ball-park, and can only compete on a per capita level, e.g. Switzerland, Sweden etc.</p><p>The scientific production in the US is great, and is the norm everyone else is measuring against. OK, again, a few per capita level runners up. But, in general, US research is well funded.</p><p>The Far East and Europe are catching up, but with the US economy as large as it still is it may take more than a decade.</p><p>Finally, the US Government IS funding research also through the system with tax reduction for private funds. Very few other governemnts would allow that, where research is funded via the tax bill only.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The US Government IS Funding Research ! The US has fantastic research .
And , it is huge .
Very few countries are in that ball-park , and can only compete on a per capita level , e.g .
Switzerland , Sweden etc.The scientific production in the US is great , and is the norm everyone else is measuring against .
OK , again , a few per capita level runners up .
But , in general , US research is well funded.The Far East and Europe are catching up , but with the US economy as large as it still is it may take more than a decade.Finally , the US Government IS funding research also through the system with tax reduction for private funds .
Very few other governemnts would allow that , where research is funded via the tax bill only .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The US Government IS Funding Research!The US has fantastic research.
And, it is huge.
Very few countries are in that ball-park, and can only compete on a per capita level, e.g.
Switzerland, Sweden etc.The scientific production in the US is great, and is the norm everyone else is measuring against.
OK, again, a few per capita level runners up.
But, in general, US research is well funded.The Far East and Europe are catching up, but with the US economy as large as it still is it may take more than a decade.Finally, the US Government IS funding research also through the system with tax reduction for private funds.
Very few other governemnts would allow that, where research is funded via the tax bill only.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289969</id>
	<title>Small vs large project funding</title>
	<author>insecuritiez</author>
	<datestamp>1244661420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>On projects the scale of Apollo I tend to agree that the Government isn't providing enough in terms of research funding.  On the small scale though NSF grants fund almost all of the current cutting-edge research in education.  Would I like to see NSF funding go up at least 3x? Yes.  Would I like to see the government fund huge research projects (even at the cost of over programs and services)? Yes.  But to say they aren't funding research is simply wrong.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>On projects the scale of Apollo I tend to agree that the Government is n't providing enough in terms of research funding .
On the small scale though NSF grants fund almost all of the current cutting-edge research in education .
Would I like to see NSF funding go up at least 3x ?
Yes. Would I like to see the government fund huge research projects ( even at the cost of over programs and services ) ?
Yes. But to say they are n't funding research is simply wrong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On projects the scale of Apollo I tend to agree that the Government isn't providing enough in terms of research funding.
On the small scale though NSF grants fund almost all of the current cutting-edge research in education.
Would I like to see NSF funding go up at least 3x?
Yes.  Would I like to see the government fund huge research projects (even at the cost of over programs and services)?
Yes.  But to say they aren't funding research is simply wrong.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28295399</id>
	<title>No Funding?</title>
	<author>diefuchsjagden</author>
	<datestamp>1244740860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well Part of the reason there is "no" or very little research funding is due to the fact that the US is the last remaining super power so there is no competition!  Then to top it off the US is to busy War mongering to be able to afford much else.  They're too busy bailing out GM because with out GM who the hell is gonna build our Tanks and armored vehicles?  With out war toys the US has nothing! I say let GM fall, instead of giving money to a company whose sole product is based of the internal combustion engine which will in a few short years be obsolete, that is if we don't figure out how to burn some thing apart from hydro-carbons in which case were all eFFed any how so let the floundering company die and get some new industry in instead.  Spend some money on research and development for Hydrogen cells or solar energy or better yet develop a car which charges it own battery with a wind turbine turned by the moving air which it creates while moving. now that would be something worth spending my money on!  let the people choose what our billions in taxes are spent on!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well Part of the reason there is " no " or very little research funding is due to the fact that the US is the last remaining super power so there is no competition !
Then to top it off the US is to busy War mongering to be able to afford much else .
They 're too busy bailing out GM because with out GM who the hell is gon na build our Tanks and armored vehicles ?
With out war toys the US has nothing !
I say let GM fall , instead of giving money to a company whose sole product is based of the internal combustion engine which will in a few short years be obsolete , that is if we do n't figure out how to burn some thing apart from hydro-carbons in which case were all eFFed any how so let the floundering company die and get some new industry in instead .
Spend some money on research and development for Hydrogen cells or solar energy or better yet develop a car which charges it own battery with a wind turbine turned by the moving air which it creates while moving .
now that would be something worth spending my money on !
let the people choose what our billions in taxes are spent on !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well Part of the reason there is "no" or very little research funding is due to the fact that the US is the last remaining super power so there is no competition!
Then to top it off the US is to busy War mongering to be able to afford much else.
They're too busy bailing out GM because with out GM who the hell is gonna build our Tanks and armored vehicles?
With out war toys the US has nothing!
I say let GM fall, instead of giving money to a company whose sole product is based of the internal combustion engine which will in a few short years be obsolete, that is if we don't figure out how to burn some thing apart from hydro-carbons in which case were all eFFed any how so let the floundering company die and get some new industry in instead.
Spend some money on research and development for Hydrogen cells or solar energy or better yet develop a car which charges it own battery with a wind turbine turned by the moving air which it creates while moving.
now that would be something worth spending my money on!
let the people choose what our billions in taxes are spent on!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28291011</id>
	<title>Why does that comment always rate insightful?</title>
	<author>Shivetya</author>
	<datestamp>1244719440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It has NOTHING to do with Iraq.  Funding is totally driven by votes.  The only reason people in Washington bellyache about Iraq is that is means less money to buy votes with.  After all, what Congressman doesn't want a library, pool, road, or bridge, named after them to enforce upon the people " I DID THIS "</p><p>I can guarantee you will see more money pissed away on climate sciences.  You will see all the wonderful funds that could go into research instead piped into ethanol subsidies, bailing out the UAW and a few more unions who spent themselves broke during the election <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124458836591599769.html" title="wsj.com">http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124458836591599769.html</a> [wsj.com],  you have another soon to be mismanaged payout through the <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124467696781404127.html" title="wsj.com">http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124467696781404127.html</a> [wsj.com], and what about the fact there is no money and Congress constantly doesn't even follow their own rules <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124467627264104053.html" title="wsj.com">http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124467627264104053.html</a> [wsj.com]</p><p>Sorry, Iraq is a bullshit answer and we all her know it.  It is the latte sipping head nodding know-nothing response.  It was funny/stupid when Bush was around but it was just as relevant as to why little money goes into science now as it was then - which is it has no effect - but it does make a good excuse for the uninformed.</p><p>Look at our budget expenditures, WHERE THE FUCK IS THERE ANY MONEY LEFT?  Hell, where does the real money end and the funny money begin?</p><p>Battery research gets no votes.  NASA gets hardly any votes.  If you noticed outside of pandering to specific groups through health research almost all science related grants are for building named sites (named as in after the sponsors)</p><p>OK, lets say we come up with some money.  Well how long after we start funding research into better automobiles before the EU screams we are breaking rules by funding research the auto companies should do themselves?  We see examples all the time with Boeing.</p><p>No its not Iraq, it never was.  Congress is buried under the din of thousands of screaming special interest groups and they know who keeps them in office.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It has NOTHING to do with Iraq .
Funding is totally driven by votes .
The only reason people in Washington bellyache about Iraq is that is means less money to buy votes with .
After all , what Congressman does n't want a library , pool , road , or bridge , named after them to enforce upon the people " I DID THIS " I can guarantee you will see more money pissed away on climate sciences .
You will see all the wonderful funds that could go into research instead piped into ethanol subsidies , bailing out the UAW and a few more unions who spent themselves broke during the election http : //online.wsj.com/article/SB124458836591599769.html [ wsj.com ] , you have another soon to be mismanaged payout through the http : //online.wsj.com/article/SB124467696781404127.html [ wsj.com ] , and what about the fact there is no money and Congress constantly does n't even follow their own rules http : //online.wsj.com/article/SB124467627264104053.html [ wsj.com ] Sorry , Iraq is a bullshit answer and we all her know it .
It is the latte sipping head nodding know-nothing response .
It was funny/stupid when Bush was around but it was just as relevant as to why little money goes into science now as it was then - which is it has no effect - but it does make a good excuse for the uninformed.Look at our budget expenditures , WHERE THE FUCK IS THERE ANY MONEY LEFT ?
Hell , where does the real money end and the funny money begin ? Battery research gets no votes .
NASA gets hardly any votes .
If you noticed outside of pandering to specific groups through health research almost all science related grants are for building named sites ( named as in after the sponsors ) OK , lets say we come up with some money .
Well how long after we start funding research into better automobiles before the EU screams we are breaking rules by funding research the auto companies should do themselves ?
We see examples all the time with Boeing.No its not Iraq , it never was .
Congress is buried under the din of thousands of screaming special interest groups and they know who keeps them in office .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It has NOTHING to do with Iraq.
Funding is totally driven by votes.
The only reason people in Washington bellyache about Iraq is that is means less money to buy votes with.
After all, what Congressman doesn't want a library, pool, road, or bridge, named after them to enforce upon the people " I DID THIS "I can guarantee you will see more money pissed away on climate sciences.
You will see all the wonderful funds that could go into research instead piped into ethanol subsidies, bailing out the UAW and a few more unions who spent themselves broke during the election http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124458836591599769.html [wsj.com],  you have another soon to be mismanaged payout through the http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124467696781404127.html [wsj.com], and what about the fact there is no money and Congress constantly doesn't even follow their own rules http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124467627264104053.html [wsj.com]Sorry, Iraq is a bullshit answer and we all her know it.
It is the latte sipping head nodding know-nothing response.
It was funny/stupid when Bush was around but it was just as relevant as to why little money goes into science now as it was then - which is it has no effect - but it does make a good excuse for the uninformed.Look at our budget expenditures, WHERE THE FUCK IS THERE ANY MONEY LEFT?
Hell, where does the real money end and the funny money begin?Battery research gets no votes.
NASA gets hardly any votes.
If you noticed outside of pandering to specific groups through health research almost all science related grants are for building named sites (named as in after the sponsors)OK, lets say we come up with some money.
Well how long after we start funding research into better automobiles before the EU screams we are breaking rules by funding research the auto companies should do themselves?
We see examples all the time with Boeing.No its not Iraq, it never was.
Congress is buried under the din of thousands of screaming special interest groups and they know who keeps them in office.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289383</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289785</id>
	<title>Re:Baby Boomers</title>
	<author>j. andrew rogers</author>
	<datestamp>1244659560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Removed bank regulations that were intended to prevent the current financial crisis</p></div></blockquote><p>
As something of a tangent, this is a canard parroted by people who do not know much about banking regulations.  It is worth pointing out, for example, that a number of industrialized countries that had no banking problems (like Canada) have never had a regulatory equivalent of the Glass-Steagall whipping boy.  Ironically, that body of regulation was modified over the last few decades in order to *reduce* the number of bank failures, which it did, by allowing them to diversify their business.  If diversifying investments was so bad it would 1) not be one of the fundamental rules of investment generally and 2) I would expect the industrialized countries without any such restrictions to have fared far worse than they did.</p><p>
The problem wasn't lack of regulation, but a lot of stupid regulation and arguably pervasive corruption that is still in place today.  Add on top of this a regulatory monoculture in global banking that allowed exploits to propagate, and the problem starts to become obvious.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Removed bank regulations that were intended to prevent the current financial crisis As something of a tangent , this is a canard parroted by people who do not know much about banking regulations .
It is worth pointing out , for example , that a number of industrialized countries that had no banking problems ( like Canada ) have never had a regulatory equivalent of the Glass-Steagall whipping boy .
Ironically , that body of regulation was modified over the last few decades in order to * reduce * the number of bank failures , which it did , by allowing them to diversify their business .
If diversifying investments was so bad it would 1 ) not be one of the fundamental rules of investment generally and 2 ) I would expect the industrialized countries without any such restrictions to have fared far worse than they did .
The problem was n't lack of regulation , but a lot of stupid regulation and arguably pervasive corruption that is still in place today .
Add on top of this a regulatory monoculture in global banking that allowed exploits to propagate , and the problem starts to become obvious .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Removed bank regulations that were intended to prevent the current financial crisis
As something of a tangent, this is a canard parroted by people who do not know much about banking regulations.
It is worth pointing out, for example, that a number of industrialized countries that had no banking problems (like Canada) have never had a regulatory equivalent of the Glass-Steagall whipping boy.
Ironically, that body of regulation was modified over the last few decades in order to *reduce* the number of bank failures, which it did, by allowing them to diversify their business.
If diversifying investments was so bad it would 1) not be one of the fundamental rules of investment generally and 2) I would expect the industrialized countries without any such restrictions to have fared far worse than they did.
The problem wasn't lack of regulation, but a lot of stupid regulation and arguably pervasive corruption that is still in place today.
Add on top of this a regulatory monoculture in global banking that allowed exploits to propagate, and the problem starts to become obvious.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289415</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28292345</id>
	<title>Um, they are?</title>
	<author>Andy Dodd</author>
	<datestamp>1244730120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Orion, anyone?</p><p>I know someone who just transferred over to the Orion project because the defense-related project she was on (along with a number of defense projects at the same site) was cut leading to layoffs at that facility, while the facility out west that is doing Orion work is apparently desperate to hire people.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Orion , anyone ? I know someone who just transferred over to the Orion project because the defense-related project she was on ( along with a number of defense projects at the same site ) was cut leading to layoffs at that facility , while the facility out west that is doing Orion work is apparently desperate to hire people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Orion, anyone?I know someone who just transferred over to the Orion project because the defense-related project she was on (along with a number of defense projects at the same site) was cut leading to layoffs at that facility, while the facility out west that is doing Orion work is apparently desperate to hire people.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28301411</id>
	<title>Re:That's Obvious</title>
	<author>msuarezalvarez</author>
	<datestamp>1244719020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So you can only contemplate two options: making a constant mess out of every single situation in the world, or retreating into the status of a hermit who throws stones at passers-by?</htmltext>
<tokenext>So you can only contemplate two options : making a constant mess out of every single situation in the world , or retreating into the status of a hermit who throws stones at passers-by ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So you can only contemplate two options: making a constant mess out of every single situation in the world, or retreating into the status of a hermit who throws stones at passers-by?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28295843</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28295213</id>
	<title>money is not real</title>
	<author>grep\_rocks</author>
	<datestamp>1244740260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>One thing to understand is that the US can only absorb so much research money - you can spend a 100 billion paving roads or building shitty McMansions in the suburbs but you can't really expect spending 100 billion on your favorite research topic is going to produce much more than spending 1 billion - this is because there is only so much skilled labor for research, once your researchers hit full employment the extra money just inflates salaries and encourages more people to become researchers (which has a very long lead time) so you can't expect any real immediate improvment in results once you hit full employment - the same is true for almost anything you can spend money on - the goverment spends 100 billion on roads, bailing out auto companies etc... because it can - the money is primarily going to low skill workers. Of course this fact does not apply to wall street, there lots of people have relatively low skilled jobs (buying and selling shit they don't understand) and yet somehow seem to be able to absorb infinite amounts of money....</htmltext>
<tokenext>One thing to understand is that the US can only absorb so much research money - you can spend a 100 billion paving roads or building shitty McMansions in the suburbs but you ca n't really expect spending 100 billion on your favorite research topic is going to produce much more than spending 1 billion - this is because there is only so much skilled labor for research , once your researchers hit full employment the extra money just inflates salaries and encourages more people to become researchers ( which has a very long lead time ) so you ca n't expect any real immediate improvment in results once you hit full employment - the same is true for almost anything you can spend money on - the goverment spends 100 billion on roads , bailing out auto companies etc... because it can - the money is primarily going to low skill workers .
Of course this fact does not apply to wall street , there lots of people have relatively low skilled jobs ( buying and selling shit they do n't understand ) and yet somehow seem to be able to absorb infinite amounts of money... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One thing to understand is that the US can only absorb so much research money - you can spend a 100 billion paving roads or building shitty McMansions in the suburbs but you can't really expect spending 100 billion on your favorite research topic is going to produce much more than spending 1 billion - this is because there is only so much skilled labor for research, once your researchers hit full employment the extra money just inflates salaries and encourages more people to become researchers (which has a very long lead time) so you can't expect any real immediate improvment in results once you hit full employment - the same is true for almost anything you can spend money on - the goverment spends 100 billion on roads, bailing out auto companies etc... because it can - the money is primarily going to low skill workers.
Of course this fact does not apply to wall street, there lots of people have relatively low skilled jobs (buying and selling shit they don't understand) and yet somehow seem to be able to absorb infinite amounts of money....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289829</id>
	<title>The US does spend money on research LOTS OF IT</title>
	<author>DrBuzzo</author>
	<datestamp>1244659980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wow.  What a poorly informed question.   The US government spends billions on research grants, scientific pursuits and technology development.  Some of it is military-related and much of it is not.   Actually the US government is the single largest provider of funding for general purpose scientific research.   This includes some unique scientific faculties like the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collier, the Hubble Space Telescope and the Spallation Neutron Source.   These are huge investments.
<br> <br>
Yes, the US does spend research on battery technology.  The Department of Energy spends a great deal on it.  Major research branches of the government also include: The US Geological Survey, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, The National Science Foundation, NASA.

<br> <br>
How poorly informed could this posted possibly be?   Has he never heard of any of the National Laboratories?  The South Pole Station?  The Very Large Array?   How about the US contributions to international projects?  You hear so much about how great the LHC at CERN is.  Does this ignoramious know that the US built some of the major components at Fermilab and Brookhaven?
<br> <br> <br> <br>
I might add, that I disagree quite often with how the US spends money on research.  There are too many dead-end projects funded and not enough fruitful projects are funded to completion.  Too many facilities that cost a lot to build are not kept operational at low expense, as they should be.   But you can't deny that the US spends tremendous amounts of money on science.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow .
What a poorly informed question .
The US government spends billions on research grants , scientific pursuits and technology development .
Some of it is military-related and much of it is not .
Actually the US government is the single largest provider of funding for general purpose scientific research .
This includes some unique scientific faculties like the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collier , the Hubble Space Telescope and the Spallation Neutron Source .
These are huge investments .
Yes , the US does spend research on battery technology .
The Department of Energy spends a great deal on it .
Major research branches of the government also include : The US Geological Survey , the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration , The National Science Foundation , NASA .
How poorly informed could this posted possibly be ?
Has he never heard of any of the National Laboratories ?
The South Pole Station ?
The Very Large Array ?
How about the US contributions to international projects ?
You hear so much about how great the LHC at CERN is .
Does this ignoramious know that the US built some of the major components at Fermilab and Brookhaven ?
I might add , that I disagree quite often with how the US spends money on research .
There are too many dead-end projects funded and not enough fruitful projects are funded to completion .
Too many facilities that cost a lot to build are not kept operational at low expense , as they should be .
But you ca n't deny that the US spends tremendous amounts of money on science .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow.
What a poorly informed question.
The US government spends billions on research grants, scientific pursuits and technology development.
Some of it is military-related and much of it is not.
Actually the US government is the single largest provider of funding for general purpose scientific research.
This includes some unique scientific faculties like the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collier, the Hubble Space Telescope and the Spallation Neutron Source.
These are huge investments.
Yes, the US does spend research on battery technology.
The Department of Energy spends a great deal on it.
Major research branches of the government also include: The US Geological Survey, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, The National Science Foundation, NASA.
How poorly informed could this posted possibly be?
Has he never heard of any of the National Laboratories?
The South Pole Station?
The Very Large Array?
How about the US contributions to international projects?
You hear so much about how great the LHC at CERN is.
Does this ignoramious know that the US built some of the major components at Fermilab and Brookhaven?
I might add, that I disagree quite often with how the US spends money on research.
There are too many dead-end projects funded and not enough fruitful projects are funded to completion.
Too many facilities that cost a lot to build are not kept operational at low expense, as they should be.
But you can't deny that the US spends tremendous amounts of money on science.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28293519</id>
	<title>On the other hand ...</title>
	<author>thethibs</author>
	<datestamp>1244734140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're a lefty President with a lefty Congress at your beck-and-call. You can stimulate the market economy with research funds or you can nationalize the auto industry. Gee. What a dilemma!
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're a lefty President with a lefty Congress at your beck-and-call .
You can stimulate the market economy with research funds or you can nationalize the auto industry .
Gee. What a dilemma !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're a lefty President with a lefty Congress at your beck-and-call.
You can stimulate the market economy with research funds or you can nationalize the auto industry.
Gee. What a dilemma!
</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28292535</id>
	<title>Simply because they don't need or want to...</title>
	<author>cagrin</author>
	<datestamp>1244730780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...and it would be a waste of time/money. The technology in the black ops projects is beyond what most people can imagine. Any innovation in the general public that is deemed too "advanced" (such as "free" energy) is actively suppressed (sometimes violently)...if you're not aware of this, you've been living under a rock, or in denial. The matter at hand is how to get the black projects to release their technology to the public (they are not under the control of the president, ie. not high enough security level)...for the ill informed, it is about the control of the people, as technology that is too advanced would give more freedom to the people, and that is not something those in power will allow (hopefully this will change sometime in the future, but i doubt it, the way things have been going).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...and it would be a waste of time/money .
The technology in the black ops projects is beyond what most people can imagine .
Any innovation in the general public that is deemed too " advanced " ( such as " free " energy ) is actively suppressed ( sometimes violently ) ...if you 're not aware of this , you 've been living under a rock , or in denial .
The matter at hand is how to get the black projects to release their technology to the public ( they are not under the control of the president , ie .
not high enough security level ) ...for the ill informed , it is about the control of the people , as technology that is too advanced would give more freedom to the people , and that is not something those in power will allow ( hopefully this will change sometime in the future , but i doubt it , the way things have been going ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...and it would be a waste of time/money.
The technology in the black ops projects is beyond what most people can imagine.
Any innovation in the general public that is deemed too "advanced" (such as "free" energy) is actively suppressed (sometimes violently)...if you're not aware of this, you've been living under a rock, or in denial.
The matter at hand is how to get the black projects to release their technology to the public (they are not under the control of the president, ie.
not high enough security level)...for the ill informed, it is about the control of the people, as technology that is too advanced would give more freedom to the people, and that is not something those in power will allow (hopefully this will change sometime in the future, but i doubt it, the way things have been going).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28291137</id>
	<title>Re:Its simple....</title>
	<author>Lorien\_the\_first\_one</author>
	<datestamp>1244721300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't know....<a href="http://www.nist.gov/index.html" title="nist.gov">NIST</a> [nist.gov], anyone?  Oh, wait.  How about the incredible <a href="http://www.patentlysilly.com/" title="patentlysilly.com">lust for patents</a> [patentlysilly.com] as a reason we don't invest more in government research?
<br> <br>
There.  One reason why we should invest.  And one reason why it doesn't happen as often as it should.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know....NIST [ nist.gov ] , anyone ?
Oh , wait .
How about the incredible lust for patents [ patentlysilly.com ] as a reason we do n't invest more in government research ?
There. One reason why we should invest .
And one reason why it does n't happen as often as it should .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know....NIST [nist.gov], anyone?
Oh, wait.
How about the incredible lust for patents [patentlysilly.com] as a reason we don't invest more in government research?
There.  One reason why we should invest.
And one reason why it doesn't happen as often as it should.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289341</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28292029</id>
	<title>Re:Its simple....</title>
	<author>nullhero</author>
	<datestamp>1244728920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>The government exists to pave roads, protect the borders, pick up the trash (at least in my city), and maintain parks. Public water is a good idea too.</i> <br> <br>

I agree but I also think that the government as to spur innovation and competition, and that is something I think the question is posing. The United States used to invest in the basic research and that was made public for anyone to use. Any company could take the current research and embrace and extend using their own money. They could then market their new product to the consumers but any other company could do the exact same thing. Somewhere in the past the United States stopped all this investing because it was viewed as being wasteful and now we no longer are at the forefront of innovation. We have become too fat and complacent and the world around us is still competing and moving a head. On top of that all the private research is being sequestered behind copyrights and trademarks so that only one company owns the idea and process. That is not spurring competition so the company charges a ton of money to make back all that research it invested making your product available all to a small consumer set. If the basic research was already done and put out into the public domain then multiple companies can design competing products at cheaper prices. This would attract more consumers to buy and spur innovation so that one company's product is viewed more valued then the others. And this formula could keep America ahead of the game. So government spending into research is very necessary for us to stay innovative and competing, unlike now.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The government exists to pave roads , protect the borders , pick up the trash ( at least in my city ) , and maintain parks .
Public water is a good idea too .
I agree but I also think that the government as to spur innovation and competition , and that is something I think the question is posing .
The United States used to invest in the basic research and that was made public for anyone to use .
Any company could take the current research and embrace and extend using their own money .
They could then market their new product to the consumers but any other company could do the exact same thing .
Somewhere in the past the United States stopped all this investing because it was viewed as being wasteful and now we no longer are at the forefront of innovation .
We have become too fat and complacent and the world around us is still competing and moving a head .
On top of that all the private research is being sequestered behind copyrights and trademarks so that only one company owns the idea and process .
That is not spurring competition so the company charges a ton of money to make back all that research it invested making your product available all to a small consumer set .
If the basic research was already done and put out into the public domain then multiple companies can design competing products at cheaper prices .
This would attract more consumers to buy and spur innovation so that one company 's product is viewed more valued then the others .
And this formula could keep America ahead of the game .
So government spending into research is very necessary for us to stay innovative and competing , unlike now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The government exists to pave roads, protect the borders, pick up the trash (at least in my city), and maintain parks.
Public water is a good idea too.
I agree but I also think that the government as to spur innovation and competition, and that is something I think the question is posing.
The United States used to invest in the basic research and that was made public for anyone to use.
Any company could take the current research and embrace and extend using their own money.
They could then market their new product to the consumers but any other company could do the exact same thing.
Somewhere in the past the United States stopped all this investing because it was viewed as being wasteful and now we no longer are at the forefront of innovation.
We have become too fat and complacent and the world around us is still competing and moving a head.
On top of that all the private research is being sequestered behind copyrights and trademarks so that only one company owns the idea and process.
That is not spurring competition so the company charges a ton of money to make back all that research it invested making your product available all to a small consumer set.
If the basic research was already done and put out into the public domain then multiple companies can design competing products at cheaper prices.
This would attract more consumers to buy and spur innovation so that one company's product is viewed more valued then the others.
And this formula could keep America ahead of the game.
So government spending into research is very necessary for us to stay innovative and competing, unlike now.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289341</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289791</id>
	<title>The devil is in your question</title>
	<author>localoptimum</author>
	<datestamp>1244659620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>"what practical research do you think the US government should embark upon to get the most return for it's citizens and the world"</i> </p><p>
That's the problem right there.  The government should be funding fundamental scientific research without worrying about technological spin-off and profitability.  The reason the US is in this mess, just as in the UK, is that science has become the playground from which wealthy business steals its sweets, except for the last few decades they are also the same people who lobby politicians distributing the sweets.  In effect, the taxpayer ends up funding R&amp;D for business with patents and IP slapped all over it, and business is creaming off the brightest talent whilst calling it a "partnership".
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" what practical research do you think the US government should embark upon to get the most return for it 's citizens and the world " That 's the problem right there .
The government should be funding fundamental scientific research without worrying about technological spin-off and profitability .
The reason the US is in this mess , just as in the UK , is that science has become the playground from which wealthy business steals its sweets , except for the last few decades they are also the same people who lobby politicians distributing the sweets .
In effect , the taxpayer ends up funding R&amp;D for business with patents and IP slapped all over it , and business is creaming off the brightest talent whilst calling it a " partnership " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> "what practical research do you think the US government should embark upon to get the most return for it's citizens and the world" 
That's the problem right there.
The government should be funding fundamental scientific research without worrying about technological spin-off and profitability.
The reason the US is in this mess, just as in the UK, is that science has become the playground from which wealthy business steals its sweets, except for the last few decades they are also the same people who lobby politicians distributing the sweets.
In effect, the taxpayer ends up funding R&amp;D for business with patents and IP slapped all over it, and business is creaming off the brightest talent whilst calling it a "partnership".
</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28294249</id>
	<title>Basic Research is not the job of the Goverment</title>
	<author>sadler121</author>
	<datestamp>1244736840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When I read this, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United\_States\_Constitution" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United\_States\_Constitution</a> [wikipedia.org] I see no mention of basic scientific research being named as a responsibility of the Federal Government. Actually, according to Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8 of the US Constitution, the Federal Government is suppose:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;</p></div><p>Yep, IP is included in the US Constitution as a means to advance the Science and useful arts, not confiscatory taxes going toward basic research.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>When I read this , http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United \ _States \ _Constitution [ wikipedia.org ] I see no mention of basic scientific research being named as a responsibility of the Federal Government .
Actually , according to Article 1 , Section 8 , Clause 8 of the US Constitution , the Federal Government is suppose : To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts , by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries ; Yep , IP is included in the US Constitution as a means to advance the Science and useful arts , not confiscatory taxes going toward basic research .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When I read this, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United\_States\_Constitution [wikipedia.org] I see no mention of basic scientific research being named as a responsibility of the Federal Government.
Actually, according to Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8 of the US Constitution, the Federal Government is suppose:To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;Yep, IP is included in the US Constitution as a means to advance the Science and useful arts, not confiscatory taxes going toward basic research.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289557</id>
	<title>Re:Its simple....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244657580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>During the depression, the government did nothing less than bring electricity to all of Appalachia, build Hoover dam to enable San Francisco, Los Angeles, Phoenix and Salt Lake City, \_invent\_ the nation park system and its signature architecture, produced guide books for every state in the union, and build parks, theaters and commercial infrastructure all over the country.</p><p>This administration filled potholes to the tune of $1T USD in each of February, March and April.</p><p>My vote is to replace down-town civil government offices with virtual-presence facilities in every neighborhood, and then to extend that capability to every significant business office.  The goal would be to provide neighborhood telecommute offices, reduce commute distances, time and costs, reduce fuel consumption, and begin to eliminate the 35000 traffic deaths each year that happen on our roads and freeways.</p><p>Consider: about $3k USD will buy a big flat-panel display, a computer with software, and more than a year's worth of internet connectivity.  For $1B, that would be 300,000 telecommutors, and $1T would buy one for every man, woman and child in the country.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>During the depression , the government did nothing less than bring electricity to all of Appalachia , build Hoover dam to enable San Francisco , Los Angeles , Phoenix and Salt Lake City , \ _invent \ _ the nation park system and its signature architecture , produced guide books for every state in the union , and build parks , theaters and commercial infrastructure all over the country.This administration filled potholes to the tune of $ 1T USD in each of February , March and April.My vote is to replace down-town civil government offices with virtual-presence facilities in every neighborhood , and then to extend that capability to every significant business office .
The goal would be to provide neighborhood telecommute offices , reduce commute distances , time and costs , reduce fuel consumption , and begin to eliminate the 35000 traffic deaths each year that happen on our roads and freeways.Consider : about $ 3k USD will buy a big flat-panel display , a computer with software , and more than a year 's worth of internet connectivity .
For $ 1B , that would be 300,000 telecommutors , and $ 1T would buy one for every man , woman and child in the country .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>During the depression, the government did nothing less than bring electricity to all of Appalachia, build Hoover dam to enable San Francisco, Los Angeles, Phoenix and Salt Lake City, \_invent\_ the nation park system and its signature architecture, produced guide books for every state in the union, and build parks, theaters and commercial infrastructure all over the country.This administration filled potholes to the tune of $1T USD in each of February, March and April.My vote is to replace down-town civil government offices with virtual-presence facilities in every neighborhood, and then to extend that capability to every significant business office.
The goal would be to provide neighborhood telecommute offices, reduce commute distances, time and costs, reduce fuel consumption, and begin to eliminate the 35000 traffic deaths each year that happen on our roads and freeways.Consider: about $3k USD will buy a big flat-panel display, a computer with software, and more than a year's worth of internet connectivity.
For $1B, that would be 300,000 telecommutors, and $1T would buy one for every man, woman and child in the country.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289341</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28291285</id>
	<title>Re:That's Obvious</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244723700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not to disagree, but the US is just a little over 230 years; The full UK lasted more than that and was aroud 800 years in the making; The Roman Empire, well that "just" goes from about 730 BC to about 400/600 AC (900 to 1000 years?). The US hasn't beaten anything yet, barely a youngster in "imperial" terms if you start counting Asirians, Persians, Egypt, The Ottomans and other fallen empires. Empires MAKE their own fall.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not to disagree , but the US is just a little over 230 years ; The full UK lasted more than that and was aroud 800 years in the making ; The Roman Empire , well that " just " goes from about 730 BC to about 400/600 AC ( 900 to 1000 years ? ) .
The US has n't beaten anything yet , barely a youngster in " imperial " terms if you start counting Asirians , Persians , Egypt , The Ottomans and other fallen empires .
Empires MAKE their own fall .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not to disagree, but the US is just a little over 230 years; The full UK lasted more than that and was aroud 800 years in the making; The Roman Empire, well that "just" goes from about 730 BC to about 400/600 AC (900 to 1000 years?).
The US hasn't beaten anything yet, barely a youngster in "imperial" terms if you start counting Asirians, Persians, Egypt, The Ottomans and other fallen empires.
Empires MAKE their own fall.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289449</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289839</id>
	<title>List of major US research programs and agencies</title>
	<author>DrBuzzo</author>
	<datestamp>1244660100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://depletedcranium.com/?p=714" title="depletedcranium.com">So I guess all of these don't count, eh?</a> [depletedcranium.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>So I guess all of these do n't count , eh ?
[ depletedcranium.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So I guess all of these don't count, eh?
[depletedcranium.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28292139</id>
	<title>Re:That's Obvious</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244729340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>So I'm guessing that you are not from the US, or at least have not been following the news lately.<blockquote><div><p>No-one wants the US to be world policeman. What the world wants is for the US to be a team player. It just doesn't seem able to do that.</p></div></blockquote><p>

As the Taliban advance through Pakistan the President of the United States of America Barack Obama requested for increased presence from NATO allies.  He did not <a href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us\_and\_americas/article6032342.ece" title="timesonline.co.uk" rel="nofollow">get it</a> [timesonline.co.uk] <br> <br>

One only has to look at the funding the US spends on their military to see who is doing the bulk of the heavy lifting in ensuring the safety of the West.  The West being Europe, North America, Australia/New Zealand, Japan, Israel, South Korea and what is becoming of India.  And let us not forget that it was the US playing world police who saved Europe in WWII, changed Japan from a militaristic empire to the Western democracy that they are now, brought South Korea from poverty to wealth and has been a staunch ally of the only truly western country in the middle east.<br> <br>

I get tired of (in particular European) psuedo-intellectuals who proclaim a general distain for US foreign policy while they sit in the luxury provided by the protection of the US defense forces.  I get tired of the people who believe that the US should never intervene themselves in foreign conflict, or alternatively believe that the US should involve itself in every foreign conflict.  The US won the cold war not by physically conquering the Russian state but by ensuring that enough countries around the world remained free so as to be able to destroy communism through economy instead of bombs.<br> <br>

Iraq is a touchstone issue that divides right and left around the world.  It symbolises US interventionist tactics in a way that Afghanistan, Vietnam, Korea and WWII could not.  The US is no longer engaged in the cold war.  It no longer has a great evil to overcome.  But the US realises as a nation that if they allow small evils to grow that they become great evils.  The US realises that the funding that Iraq was providing to terrorists probably would not reach US shores, but would be focussed on Lebanon and Israel and eventually would cross into European and asian countries.<br> <br>

The real lessons that the US learned, but that Europe seems to have missed out of WWI and WWII is that ideology is the most dangerous weapon and the most likely to bring destruction down on us all.  Muslim extremism (-1 troll mod points right there) has already turned the prosperous jewel of the middle east - Lebanon - into a wartorn and unstable country who have no real, credible hope of being stable in the near future.  It was being financially supported largely from oil money from Iraq and Iran, and though the two countries hated each other more than they hated the West, we were still caught in its clutches.<br> <br>

The US can do no right in the eyes of those who are wilfully blind.  If she turns away from intervention then the world calls her crass, rude and evil for not addressing the injustice.  If she goes to war against the evil and does everything in her power to minimise the loss of life on both sides she is accused of being warmongerers and extremists.  The US cannot win such an argument and making it is only endangering the whole of western civilisation - the civilisation that has largely managed to feed, clothe and house its citizens and provided medical care and prosperity to the people as a whole.<br> <br>

Communism is largely dead now and we have the US to blame.  When the US conquers the power behind religious extremism the US will again be the cause.  Isn't that a country worth giving the benefit of the doubt?  Isn't that a country worth cutting a little slack?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So I 'm guessing that you are not from the US , or at least have not been following the news lately.No-one wants the US to be world policeman .
What the world wants is for the US to be a team player .
It just does n't seem able to do that .
As the Taliban advance through Pakistan the President of the United States of America Barack Obama requested for increased presence from NATO allies .
He did not get it [ timesonline.co.uk ] One only has to look at the funding the US spends on their military to see who is doing the bulk of the heavy lifting in ensuring the safety of the West .
The West being Europe , North America , Australia/New Zealand , Japan , Israel , South Korea and what is becoming of India .
And let us not forget that it was the US playing world police who saved Europe in WWII , changed Japan from a militaristic empire to the Western democracy that they are now , brought South Korea from poverty to wealth and has been a staunch ally of the only truly western country in the middle east .
I get tired of ( in particular European ) psuedo-intellectuals who proclaim a general distain for US foreign policy while they sit in the luxury provided by the protection of the US defense forces .
I get tired of the people who believe that the US should never intervene themselves in foreign conflict , or alternatively believe that the US should involve itself in every foreign conflict .
The US won the cold war not by physically conquering the Russian state but by ensuring that enough countries around the world remained free so as to be able to destroy communism through economy instead of bombs .
Iraq is a touchstone issue that divides right and left around the world .
It symbolises US interventionist tactics in a way that Afghanistan , Vietnam , Korea and WWII could not .
The US is no longer engaged in the cold war .
It no longer has a great evil to overcome .
But the US realises as a nation that if they allow small evils to grow that they become great evils .
The US realises that the funding that Iraq was providing to terrorists probably would not reach US shores , but would be focussed on Lebanon and Israel and eventually would cross into European and asian countries .
The real lessons that the US learned , but that Europe seems to have missed out of WWI and WWII is that ideology is the most dangerous weapon and the most likely to bring destruction down on us all .
Muslim extremism ( -1 troll mod points right there ) has already turned the prosperous jewel of the middle east - Lebanon - into a wartorn and unstable country who have no real , credible hope of being stable in the near future .
It was being financially supported largely from oil money from Iraq and Iran , and though the two countries hated each other more than they hated the West , we were still caught in its clutches .
The US can do no right in the eyes of those who are wilfully blind .
If she turns away from intervention then the world calls her crass , rude and evil for not addressing the injustice .
If she goes to war against the evil and does everything in her power to minimise the loss of life on both sides she is accused of being warmongerers and extremists .
The US can not win such an argument and making it is only endangering the whole of western civilisation - the civilisation that has largely managed to feed , clothe and house its citizens and provided medical care and prosperity to the people as a whole .
Communism is largely dead now and we have the US to blame .
When the US conquers the power behind religious extremism the US will again be the cause .
Is n't that a country worth giving the benefit of the doubt ?
Is n't that a country worth cutting a little slack ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So I'm guessing that you are not from the US, or at least have not been following the news lately.No-one wants the US to be world policeman.
What the world wants is for the US to be a team player.
It just doesn't seem able to do that.
As the Taliban advance through Pakistan the President of the United States of America Barack Obama requested for increased presence from NATO allies.
He did not get it [timesonline.co.uk]  

One only has to look at the funding the US spends on their military to see who is doing the bulk of the heavy lifting in ensuring the safety of the West.
The West being Europe, North America, Australia/New Zealand, Japan, Israel, South Korea and what is becoming of India.
And let us not forget that it was the US playing world police who saved Europe in WWII, changed Japan from a militaristic empire to the Western democracy that they are now, brought South Korea from poverty to wealth and has been a staunch ally of the only truly western country in the middle east.
I get tired of (in particular European) psuedo-intellectuals who proclaim a general distain for US foreign policy while they sit in the luxury provided by the protection of the US defense forces.
I get tired of the people who believe that the US should never intervene themselves in foreign conflict, or alternatively believe that the US should involve itself in every foreign conflict.
The US won the cold war not by physically conquering the Russian state but by ensuring that enough countries around the world remained free so as to be able to destroy communism through economy instead of bombs.
Iraq is a touchstone issue that divides right and left around the world.
It symbolises US interventionist tactics in a way that Afghanistan, Vietnam, Korea and WWII could not.
The US is no longer engaged in the cold war.
It no longer has a great evil to overcome.
But the US realises as a nation that if they allow small evils to grow that they become great evils.
The US realises that the funding that Iraq was providing to terrorists probably would not reach US shores, but would be focussed on Lebanon and Israel and eventually would cross into European and asian countries.
The real lessons that the US learned, but that Europe seems to have missed out of WWI and WWII is that ideology is the most dangerous weapon and the most likely to bring destruction down on us all.
Muslim extremism (-1 troll mod points right there) has already turned the prosperous jewel of the middle east - Lebanon - into a wartorn and unstable country who have no real, credible hope of being stable in the near future.
It was being financially supported largely from oil money from Iraq and Iran, and though the two countries hated each other more than they hated the West, we were still caught in its clutches.
The US can do no right in the eyes of those who are wilfully blind.
If she turns away from intervention then the world calls her crass, rude and evil for not addressing the injustice.
If she goes to war against the evil and does everything in her power to minimise the loss of life on both sides she is accused of being warmongerers and extremists.
The US cannot win such an argument and making it is only endangering the whole of western civilisation - the civilisation that has largely managed to feed, clothe and house its citizens and provided medical care and prosperity to the people as a whole.
Communism is largely dead now and we have the US to blame.
When the US conquers the power behind religious extremism the US will again be the cause.
Isn't that a country worth giving the benefit of the doubt?
Isn't that a country worth cutting a little slack?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28290743</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289849</id>
	<title>Government exists to subsidize private businesses</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244660280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If we have true capitalism we would have had successive depressions. Most of the money is funneled through the military. Everything from vehicles, planes to cell phones...all brought to you by government funding.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If we have true capitalism we would have had successive depressions .
Most of the money is funneled through the military .
Everything from vehicles , planes to cell phones...all brought to you by government funding .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If we have true capitalism we would have had successive depressions.
Most of the money is funneled through the military.
Everything from vehicles, planes to cell phones...all brought to you by government funding.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28292039</id>
	<title>Re:That's Obvious</title>
	<author>Attila Dimedici</author>
	<datestamp>1244728980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>And there's a large part of the problem. No-one wants the US to be <em>world policeman</em>. What the world wants is for the US to be a team player.</p> </div><p>No, they don't want the "US to be a team player". They want the US to intervene when it is in their interest (see former Yugoslavia) and not intervene when they perceive it as not being in their interest (see Iraq and Saddam Husein's payments to the French to eliminate the embargo).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And there 's a large part of the problem .
No-one wants the US to be world policeman .
What the world wants is for the US to be a team player .
No , they do n't want the " US to be a team player " .
They want the US to intervene when it is in their interest ( see former Yugoslavia ) and not intervene when they perceive it as not being in their interest ( see Iraq and Saddam Husein 's payments to the French to eliminate the embargo ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And there's a large part of the problem.
No-one wants the US to be world policeman.
What the world wants is for the US to be a team player.
No, they don't want the "US to be a team player".
They want the US to intervene when it is in their interest (see former Yugoslavia) and not intervene when they perceive it as not being in their interest (see Iraq and Saddam Husein's payments to the French to eliminate the embargo).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28290743</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28294565</id>
	<title>Commercially-useful research needs a plan for use</title>
	<author>aethelferth</author>
	<datestamp>1244738040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>We've learned the hard way (Gordon Bell at DEC once gave GaAs semiconductors as an example) that if the US Government funds research and doesn't have a plan for American companies to commercialize it, foreign companies will take the free research and commercialize it to their advantage and American companies' disadvantage.  If it is commercially useful, either have a plan to use it, or don't fund it.  (Of course there is other research which is nowhere near commercially useful, and that's another story.)  As a counter example, the shift from Ge semiconductors to Si semiconductors was caused by the US Government wanting to actually buy a very large number of Si transistors for use in missile guidance systems due to Si's better performance at high temperatures.</htmltext>
<tokenext>We 've learned the hard way ( Gordon Bell at DEC once gave GaAs semiconductors as an example ) that if the US Government funds research and does n't have a plan for American companies to commercialize it , foreign companies will take the free research and commercialize it to their advantage and American companies ' disadvantage .
If it is commercially useful , either have a plan to use it , or do n't fund it .
( Of course there is other research which is nowhere near commercially useful , and that 's another story .
) As a counter example , the shift from Ge semiconductors to Si semiconductors was caused by the US Government wanting to actually buy a very large number of Si transistors for use in missile guidance systems due to Si 's better performance at high temperatures .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We've learned the hard way (Gordon Bell at DEC once gave GaAs semiconductors as an example) that if the US Government funds research and doesn't have a plan for American companies to commercialize it, foreign companies will take the free research and commercialize it to their advantage and American companies' disadvantage.
If it is commercially useful, either have a plan to use it, or don't fund it.
(Of course there is other research which is nowhere near commercially useful, and that's another story.
)  As a counter example, the shift from Ge semiconductors to Si semiconductors was caused by the US Government wanting to actually buy a very large number of Si transistors for use in missile guidance systems due to Si's better performance at high temperatures.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28298191</id>
	<title>You've restored my</title>
	<author>pottymouth</author>
	<datestamp>1244750580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>faith in Slashdot. Yes, why is the US goverment giving money to corporations rather than to basic research on which corporations are often founded?</p><p>Could it be that we've had a string of business friendly adminstrations that think money is the basis of all good (so money making business is always a good thing) followed by a socialist adminstration that wants not only the peoples wealth but the peoples power. Doing basic research and creating new technologies that empower individuals is no way for a govenment to gain power. It will be the last thing you see coming out of Barry's administration.</p><p>Why indeed...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>faith in Slashdot .
Yes , why is the US goverment giving money to corporations rather than to basic research on which corporations are often founded ? Could it be that we 've had a string of business friendly adminstrations that think money is the basis of all good ( so money making business is always a good thing ) followed by a socialist adminstration that wants not only the peoples wealth but the peoples power .
Doing basic research and creating new technologies that empower individuals is no way for a govenment to gain power .
It will be the last thing you see coming out of Barry 's administration.Why indeed.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>faith in Slashdot.
Yes, why is the US goverment giving money to corporations rather than to basic research on which corporations are often founded?Could it be that we've had a string of business friendly adminstrations that think money is the basis of all good (so money making business is always a good thing) followed by a socialist adminstration that wants not only the peoples wealth but the peoples power.
Doing basic research and creating new technologies that empower individuals is no way for a govenment to gain power.
It will be the last thing you see coming out of Barry's administration.Why indeed...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289743</id>
	<title>Re:Its simple....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244659080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The CSIRO thinks you're uninformed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The CSIRO thinks you 're uninformed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The CSIRO thinks you're uninformed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289341</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28297989</id>
	<title>The answer is in Simon Ramo's book</title>
	<author>petepdx</author>
	<datestamp>1244749920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>read the book by Simon Ramo (the R in TRW)</p><p>"The Business of Science: Winning and Losing in the High-Tech Age"</p><p>it answers the question<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p><p>-pete</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>read the book by Simon Ramo ( the R in TRW ) " The Business of Science : Winning and Losing in the High-Tech Age " it answers the question ...-pete</tokentext>
<sentencetext>read the book by Simon Ramo (the R in TRW)"The Business of Science: Winning and Losing in the High-Tech Age"it answers the question ...-pete</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28291313</id>
	<title>What research we should do</title>
	<author>IdahoEv</author>
	<datestamp>1244723880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>What practical research do you think the US government should embark upon to get the most return for its citizens and the world?"</p></div></blockquote><p>This one's really obvious to me:  biomedical research, particularly where there is not a profit motive.   There are two main classes of potential medicines that never make it to the shelf for stupid reasons.</p><p>1) Discoveries made in a lab that are never moved forward into a practical technology, often because there are only so many drug companies who only have so much time, and they have out competed smaller companies that might otherwise do additional research.  This effect is why you see so many exciting scientific reports, like "Scientists cure 10 kinds of cancer in mice with white blood cell treatment!" or whatever, that never even go into human studies or trials, much less make it to the drugstore.</p><p>2) Potential medicines or treatments that may be extremely useful but cannot be patented and so never get funding for research, because the company who spent 15 million to do the research would immediately get outcompeted by other companies who wouldn't have to recoup the research investment.  <em>Hundreds of these exist.  For example, scientists discovered decades ago that the hormone progesterone dramatically increases the speed of wound healing (first noticed when it was observed that pregnant mice heal faster than other mice).  It has never been studied as a potential treatment for wounds, however, because progesterone can't be patented.</em></p><p><em>Many examples fit both categories 1 and 2.   The easy solution, especially in case #2, is for the government to fund the research for the public good, and let <em>all</em> companies manufacture any successful resulting products it as low-cost generics.</em></p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What practical research do you think the US government should embark upon to get the most return for its citizens and the world ?
" This one 's really obvious to me : biomedical research , particularly where there is not a profit motive .
There are two main classes of potential medicines that never make it to the shelf for stupid reasons.1 ) Discoveries made in a lab that are never moved forward into a practical technology , often because there are only so many drug companies who only have so much time , and they have out competed smaller companies that might otherwise do additional research .
This effect is why you see so many exciting scientific reports , like " Scientists cure 10 kinds of cancer in mice with white blood cell treatment !
" or whatever , that never even go into human studies or trials , much less make it to the drugstore.2 ) Potential medicines or treatments that may be extremely useful but can not be patented and so never get funding for research , because the company who spent 15 million to do the research would immediately get outcompeted by other companies who would n't have to recoup the research investment .
Hundreds of these exist .
For example , scientists discovered decades ago that the hormone progesterone dramatically increases the speed of wound healing ( first noticed when it was observed that pregnant mice heal faster than other mice ) .
It has never been studied as a potential treatment for wounds , however , because progesterone ca n't be patented.Many examples fit both categories 1 and 2 .
The easy solution , especially in case # 2 , is for the government to fund the research for the public good , and let all companies manufacture any successful resulting products it as low-cost generics .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What practical research do you think the US government should embark upon to get the most return for its citizens and the world?
"This one's really obvious to me:  biomedical research, particularly where there is not a profit motive.
There are two main classes of potential medicines that never make it to the shelf for stupid reasons.1) Discoveries made in a lab that are never moved forward into a practical technology, often because there are only so many drug companies who only have so much time, and they have out competed smaller companies that might otherwise do additional research.
This effect is why you see so many exciting scientific reports, like "Scientists cure 10 kinds of cancer in mice with white blood cell treatment!
" or whatever, that never even go into human studies or trials, much less make it to the drugstore.2) Potential medicines or treatments that may be extremely useful but cannot be patented and so never get funding for research, because the company who spent 15 million to do the research would immediately get outcompeted by other companies who wouldn't have to recoup the research investment.
Hundreds of these exist.
For example, scientists discovered decades ago that the hormone progesterone dramatically increases the speed of wound healing (first noticed when it was observed that pregnant mice heal faster than other mice).
It has never been studied as a potential treatment for wounds, however, because progesterone can't be patented.Many examples fit both categories 1 and 2.
The easy solution, especially in case #2, is for the government to fund the research for the public good, and let all companies manufacture any successful resulting products it as low-cost generics.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289293</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28291461</id>
	<title>Re:It is</title>
	<author>jank1887</author>
	<datestamp>1244725440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>and we can keep going, but I don't have dollar values:<br>Dept of Defense -  ARO, ONR, AFOSR, AFRL, ARL, NRL, DARPA, RDECOM<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>and we can keep going , but I do n't have dollar values : Dept of Defense - ARO , ONR , AFOSR , AFRL , ARL , NRL , DARPA , RDECOM .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and we can keep going, but I don't have dollar values:Dept of Defense -  ARO, ONR, AFOSR, AFRL, ARL, NRL, DARPA, RDECOM ...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289373</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28296653</id>
	<title>Only in the free world.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244745360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"You can give $10 billion to a company to squander or you can invest $10 billion into a battery research and just give the findings to the whole of the US industry for free"</p><p>Well, see there you go.. you're thinking like an open, democratic society would.  That's your point of failure.  We are no longer such a thing.  There is no greed is just giving away $10 billion in research product; therefore it is not possible to happen in our current society.</p><p>It's not giving a company $10 billion to squander.  It's giving your high-placed civilian friends $10 billion to embezzle.  It's giving back to the people who slipped you tons and tons of under the table illegal campaign donations.  It's passing the cheese around with your good old boys.</p><p>It's a flipping scam, all of it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" You can give $ 10 billion to a company to squander or you can invest $ 10 billion into a battery research and just give the findings to the whole of the US industry for free " Well , see there you go.. you 're thinking like an open , democratic society would .
That 's your point of failure .
We are no longer such a thing .
There is no greed is just giving away $ 10 billion in research product ; therefore it is not possible to happen in our current society.It 's not giving a company $ 10 billion to squander .
It 's giving your high-placed civilian friends $ 10 billion to embezzle .
It 's giving back to the people who slipped you tons and tons of under the table illegal campaign donations .
It 's passing the cheese around with your good old boys.It 's a flipping scam , all of it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"You can give $10 billion to a company to squander or you can invest $10 billion into a battery research and just give the findings to the whole of the US industry for free"Well, see there you go.. you're thinking like an open, democratic society would.
That's your point of failure.
We are no longer such a thing.
There is no greed is just giving away $10 billion in research product; therefore it is not possible to happen in our current society.It's not giving a company $10 billion to squander.
It's giving your high-placed civilian friends $10 billion to embezzle.
It's giving back to the people who slipped you tons and tons of under the table illegal campaign donations.
It's passing the cheese around with your good old boys.It's a flipping scam, all of it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289505</id>
	<title>Wrong premise</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244657160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"The Manhattan Project and the Apollo Moon missions are two of the pinnacles of the 20th century scientific achievement"</p><p>Nonsense. These are two great achievements in technology. Neither was an attempt to generate new science though the application of money and talent at such scales can have beneficial effects for science. The basic science for both existed before either project was initiated. Since both pertained to crucial strategic objectives, it made sense for the government to pay.</p><p>In most cases, for example battery research, the benefit of achieving the goal is rather clear and private capital is available based on the perception of likelihood of success and resulting payoff. Unfortunately this sort of calculation would almost never work in favor of what is called basic science. These are problems that are pursued because of intrinsic interest rather than expectation of any return on investment. For instance the search for the Higgs boson or the creation of Bose-Einstein Condensate. In such cases the research might lead someday to subsequent research that leads to more immediate economic return, e.g. Quantum computers.</p><p>The system that arguably has worked well is to fund basic science by the government and applied research by private companies (e.g. Intel doing research for next generation silicon fabrication). Of course the world does not always split cleanly into basic versus applied but it is fairly clear that battery research is closer to the applied end of the spectrum.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" The Manhattan Project and the Apollo Moon missions are two of the pinnacles of the 20th century scientific achievement " Nonsense .
These are two great achievements in technology .
Neither was an attempt to generate new science though the application of money and talent at such scales can have beneficial effects for science .
The basic science for both existed before either project was initiated .
Since both pertained to crucial strategic objectives , it made sense for the government to pay.In most cases , for example battery research , the benefit of achieving the goal is rather clear and private capital is available based on the perception of likelihood of success and resulting payoff .
Unfortunately this sort of calculation would almost never work in favor of what is called basic science .
These are problems that are pursued because of intrinsic interest rather than expectation of any return on investment .
For instance the search for the Higgs boson or the creation of Bose-Einstein Condensate .
In such cases the research might lead someday to subsequent research that leads to more immediate economic return , e.g .
Quantum computers.The system that arguably has worked well is to fund basic science by the government and applied research by private companies ( e.g .
Intel doing research for next generation silicon fabrication ) .
Of course the world does not always split cleanly into basic versus applied but it is fairly clear that battery research is closer to the applied end of the spectrum .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The Manhattan Project and the Apollo Moon missions are two of the pinnacles of the 20th century scientific achievement"Nonsense.
These are two great achievements in technology.
Neither was an attempt to generate new science though the application of money and talent at such scales can have beneficial effects for science.
The basic science for both existed before either project was initiated.
Since both pertained to crucial strategic objectives, it made sense for the government to pay.In most cases, for example battery research, the benefit of achieving the goal is rather clear and private capital is available based on the perception of likelihood of success and resulting payoff.
Unfortunately this sort of calculation would almost never work in favor of what is called basic science.
These are problems that are pursued because of intrinsic interest rather than expectation of any return on investment.
For instance the search for the Higgs boson or the creation of Bose-Einstein Condensate.
In such cases the research might lead someday to subsequent research that leads to more immediate economic return, e.g.
Quantum computers.The system that arguably has worked well is to fund basic science by the government and applied research by private companies (e.g.
Intel doing research for next generation silicon fabrication).
Of course the world does not always split cleanly into basic versus applied but it is fairly clear that battery research is closer to the applied end of the spectrum.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289413</id>
	<title>Re:Medical research</title>
	<author>Daniel Dvorkin</author>
	<datestamp>1244656380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Worse, a lot of drug research is publicly funded, but then the results wind up privatized.</i></p><p>Fortunately the <a href="http://publicaccess.nih.gov/" title="nih.gov">NIH public access policy</a> [nih.gov] is doing a lot to reverse this trend, but unsuprisingly, <a href="http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/06/04/open" title="insidehighered.com">it's meeting with a lot of resistance</a> [insidehighered.com].  Mostly from the publishers, not the drug companies, but that's a matter of whose ox is being gored.  If the FDA ever gets serious about its threats to open up clinical trial data, you'll see a <b>real</b> brawl.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Worse , a lot of drug research is publicly funded , but then the results wind up privatized.Fortunately the NIH public access policy [ nih.gov ] is doing a lot to reverse this trend , but unsuprisingly , it 's meeting with a lot of resistance [ insidehighered.com ] .
Mostly from the publishers , not the drug companies , but that 's a matter of whose ox is being gored .
If the FDA ever gets serious about its threats to open up clinical trial data , you 'll see a real brawl .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Worse, a lot of drug research is publicly funded, but then the results wind up privatized.Fortunately the NIH public access policy [nih.gov] is doing a lot to reverse this trend, but unsuprisingly, it's meeting with a lot of resistance [insidehighered.com].
Mostly from the publishers, not the drug companies, but that's a matter of whose ox is being gored.
If the FDA ever gets serious about its threats to open up clinical trial data, you'll see a real brawl.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289357</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28293205</id>
	<title>Re:The US does spend money on research LOTS OF IT</title>
	<author>camg188</author>
	<datestamp>1244733000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is a very common attitude:  <i>We can send a man to the moon, but we don't have efficient [solar power|wind power|automobile mileage|cancer cure|flying cars|etc.] so we are not spending enough money on research.</i> <br>The thought never seems to cross their minds that we (both private industry and governments across the world) are already spending millions upon billions on research. <br>The problem is not necessarily the money, it's the physics.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is a very common attitude : We can send a man to the moon , but we do n't have efficient [ solar power | wind power | automobile mileage | cancer cure | flying cars | etc .
] so we are not spending enough money on research .
The thought never seems to cross their minds that we ( both private industry and governments across the world ) are already spending millions upon billions on research .
The problem is not necessarily the money , it 's the physics .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is a very common attitude:  We can send a man to the moon, but we don't have efficient [solar power|wind power|automobile mileage|cancer cure|flying cars|etc.
] so we are not spending enough money on research.
The thought never seems to cross their minds that we (both private industry and governments across the world) are already spending millions upon billions on research.
The problem is not necessarily the money, it's the physics.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289829</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28290739</id>
	<title>Re:That's Obvious</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244714580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So the war on drugs is a flop because Mexico isn't a super power?</p><p>** ducks **</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So the war on drugs is a flop because Mexico is n't a super power ?
* * ducks * *</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So the war on drugs is a flop because Mexico isn't a super power?
** ducks **</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289419</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289685</id>
	<title>Re:Its simple....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244658540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just the opposite, roads should be paid for by their users (trucks, automobilists). The government does not get anything out of roads. By investing in research on the other hand, the gov't creates plenty of high-tech jobs, high-salaried jobs and larger tax revenue. It seeds the service and manufacturing sectors.</p><p>Many African countries invest in basic infrastructure, but not in education and research, whereas most industrial countries do. Education and research provide higher living standards.</p><p>Battery research is nowadays done in Japan and China. Companies will not invest in research for long-term goals. GM has been a long-standing obstacle to battery research in the US, it is well-documented that GM tried everything to stop battery advancements and keep the 100-year old Otto engine going. China is heavily investing in research to become the world's new research leader with good reason.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just the opposite , roads should be paid for by their users ( trucks , automobilists ) .
The government does not get anything out of roads .
By investing in research on the other hand , the gov't creates plenty of high-tech jobs , high-salaried jobs and larger tax revenue .
It seeds the service and manufacturing sectors.Many African countries invest in basic infrastructure , but not in education and research , whereas most industrial countries do .
Education and research provide higher living standards.Battery research is nowadays done in Japan and China .
Companies will not invest in research for long-term goals .
GM has been a long-standing obstacle to battery research in the US , it is well-documented that GM tried everything to stop battery advancements and keep the 100-year old Otto engine going .
China is heavily investing in research to become the world 's new research leader with good reason .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just the opposite, roads should be paid for by their users (trucks, automobilists).
The government does not get anything out of roads.
By investing in research on the other hand, the gov't creates plenty of high-tech jobs, high-salaried jobs and larger tax revenue.
It seeds the service and manufacturing sectors.Many African countries invest in basic infrastructure, but not in education and research, whereas most industrial countries do.
Education and research provide higher living standards.Battery research is nowadays done in Japan and China.
Companies will not invest in research for long-term goals.
GM has been a long-standing obstacle to battery research in the US, it is well-documented that GM tried everything to stop battery advancements and keep the 100-year old Otto engine going.
China is heavily investing in research to become the world's new research leader with good reason.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289341</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28290509</id>
	<title>Re:That's Obvious</title>
	<author>dangitman</author>
	<datestamp>1244711340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So, what you're saying is we need to invade Superman's Fortress of Solitude?</htmltext>
<tokenext>So , what you 're saying is we need to invade Superman 's Fortress of Solitude ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, what you're saying is we need to invade Superman's Fortress of Solitude?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289419</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28291977</id>
	<title>Government has been funding research</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244728680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Government is and has been funding research into batteries and many other scientific areas either in its national laboratories or in partnership with industry, e.g., the Advanced Battery Consortium with the GM, Ford and Chrysler (started 15 yrs ago)...and there have been many similar projects.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Government is and has been funding research into batteries and many other scientific areas either in its national laboratories or in partnership with industry , e.g. , the Advanced Battery Consortium with the GM , Ford and Chrysler ( started 15 yrs ago ) ...and there have been many similar projects .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Government is and has been funding research into batteries and many other scientific areas either in its national laboratories or in partnership with industry, e.g., the Advanced Battery Consortium with the GM, Ford and Chrysler (started 15 yrs ago)...and there have been many similar projects.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28290035</id>
	<title>Re:Its simple....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244662200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I read an interesting opinion piece the other day, it said that American government is inefficient because Americans expect it to be inefficient.  It lives up to our expectations.  What competent person wants to be a civil servant when they expect that it will be a waste of their time and effort?  Why would they do that when people are just going to complain about them, no matter WHAT they do?  If you're going to go through all that pain, you might as well work for yourself.  On the other hand, government social nets in some places work out pretty well.  Check out flexicurity in Denmark, it's pretty cool.<br> <br>
The purpose of government is to execute the collective will of society.  We as a people decided to get together and made a contract to create this organization to take care of certain things for us.  If the collective will is only to pave roads and protect the borders, then that's what it will result in.  If the collective will includes things like, making sure people don't starve to death in the streets or die of easily curable diseases, then that's what will happen.  As it is, most people in the US are interested in some sort of health care system, which is why all the major candidates had a health plan.  If the will of the people includes funding science or landing on the moon, or enslaving blacks, then it tends to happen, for better or for worse.<br> <br>
Agreed on the Camaro.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I read an interesting opinion piece the other day , it said that American government is inefficient because Americans expect it to be inefficient .
It lives up to our expectations .
What competent person wants to be a civil servant when they expect that it will be a waste of their time and effort ?
Why would they do that when people are just going to complain about them , no matter WHAT they do ?
If you 're going to go through all that pain , you might as well work for yourself .
On the other hand , government social nets in some places work out pretty well .
Check out flexicurity in Denmark , it 's pretty cool .
The purpose of government is to execute the collective will of society .
We as a people decided to get together and made a contract to create this organization to take care of certain things for us .
If the collective will is only to pave roads and protect the borders , then that 's what it will result in .
If the collective will includes things like , making sure people do n't starve to death in the streets or die of easily curable diseases , then that 's what will happen .
As it is , most people in the US are interested in some sort of health care system , which is why all the major candidates had a health plan .
If the will of the people includes funding science or landing on the moon , or enslaving blacks , then it tends to happen , for better or for worse .
Agreed on the Camaro .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I read an interesting opinion piece the other day, it said that American government is inefficient because Americans expect it to be inefficient.
It lives up to our expectations.
What competent person wants to be a civil servant when they expect that it will be a waste of their time and effort?
Why would they do that when people are just going to complain about them, no matter WHAT they do?
If you're going to go through all that pain, you might as well work for yourself.
On the other hand, government social nets in some places work out pretty well.
Check out flexicurity in Denmark, it's pretty cool.
The purpose of government is to execute the collective will of society.
We as a people decided to get together and made a contract to create this organization to take care of certain things for us.
If the collective will is only to pave roads and protect the borders, then that's what it will result in.
If the collective will includes things like, making sure people don't starve to death in the streets or die of easily curable diseases, then that's what will happen.
As it is, most people in the US are interested in some sort of health care system, which is why all the major candidates had a health plan.
If the will of the people includes funding science or landing on the moon, or enslaving blacks, then it tends to happen, for better or for worse.
Agreed on the Camaro.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289341</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28291795</id>
	<title>Standards too</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244727900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>NIST does standards: makes sure the meter long steel pipe made in California stays a meter long in New York.  They also determine how to calibrate things correctly, and how to mix stuff to give the optimal reliability, etc.</htmltext>
<tokenext>NIST does standards : makes sure the meter long steel pipe made in California stays a meter long in New York .
They also determine how to calibrate things correctly , and how to mix stuff to give the optimal reliability , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>NIST does standards: makes sure the meter long steel pipe made in California stays a meter long in New York.
They also determine how to calibrate things correctly, and how to mix stuff to give the optimal reliability, etc.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28291313</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28290111</id>
	<title>Re:Baby Boomers</title>
	<author>aztracker1</author>
	<datestamp>1244663040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Paying the lowest tax rates in the last 70 years</p></div><p>How do you figure?  70 years ago, there wasn't nearly the levels of income, property, utility, and sales taxes we have today.  I'd be very happy to see a return to 1939 tax rates myself.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Paying the lowest tax rates in the last 70 yearsHow do you figure ?
70 years ago , there was n't nearly the levels of income , property , utility , and sales taxes we have today .
I 'd be very happy to see a return to 1939 tax rates myself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Paying the lowest tax rates in the last 70 yearsHow do you figure?
70 years ago, there wasn't nearly the levels of income, property, utility, and sales taxes we have today.
I'd be very happy to see a return to 1939 tax rates myself.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289415</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28290415</id>
	<title>Re:That's Obvious</title>
	<author>wellingj</author>
	<datestamp>1244753580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> If we don't want to play World Policeman I'm sure China would be happy to step in.</p></div><p>Fine by me, at least they would be funding a war directly instead of indirectly through the US Federal Reserve...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If we do n't want to play World Policeman I 'm sure China would be happy to step in.Fine by me , at least they would be funding a war directly instead of indirectly through the US Federal Reserve.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> If we don't want to play World Policeman I'm sure China would be happy to step in.Fine by me, at least they would be funding a war directly instead of indirectly through the US Federal Reserve...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289967</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28291189</id>
	<title>Re:Baby Boomers</title>
	<author>Lorien\_the\_first\_one</author>
	<datestamp>1244722200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You must be referring to the <a href="http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=104979546&amp;ft=1&amp;f=94427042" title="npr.org">Office of Thrift Supervision</a> [npr.org].<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</htmltext>
<tokenext>You must be referring to the Office of Thrift Supervision [ npr.org ] .
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You must be referring to the Office of Thrift Supervision [npr.org].
:)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289785</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289683</id>
	<title>Re:Its simple....</title>
	<author>sumdumass</author>
	<datestamp>1244658540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Most libraries except for the library of congress is funded by bond, grant, and private donation, rather then the government. This is where the people collectively decide to fund it by vote and not the government.</p><p>In early days, libraries were all funded privately, then when that started drying up, bond issues and grants backed by bonds were placed on the ballots in order to fund them. It is still true to this day with the exception of a few places and is certainly true in my county. This differs from socialism in that the people themselves provided the funding rather then the government owning the libraries and finding them. Very few libraries are actually owned by the governments. They are usually a trust in their own and the government has a share in it in order to allow certain laws to apply.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Most libraries except for the library of congress is funded by bond , grant , and private donation , rather then the government .
This is where the people collectively decide to fund it by vote and not the government.In early days , libraries were all funded privately , then when that started drying up , bond issues and grants backed by bonds were placed on the ballots in order to fund them .
It is still true to this day with the exception of a few places and is certainly true in my county .
This differs from socialism in that the people themselves provided the funding rather then the government owning the libraries and finding them .
Very few libraries are actually owned by the governments .
They are usually a trust in their own and the government has a share in it in order to allow certain laws to apply .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most libraries except for the library of congress is funded by bond, grant, and private donation, rather then the government.
This is where the people collectively decide to fund it by vote and not the government.In early days, libraries were all funded privately, then when that started drying up, bond issues and grants backed by bonds were placed on the ballots in order to fund them.
It is still true to this day with the exception of a few places and is certainly true in my county.
This differs from socialism in that the people themselves provided the funding rather then the government owning the libraries and finding them.
Very few libraries are actually owned by the governments.
They are usually a trust in their own and the government has a share in it in order to allow certain laws to apply.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289417</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28291267</id>
	<title>Poorly researched article</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244723280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They are through DOE and SBIRs. They've already spent billions in this area. This is an unresearched article on research......</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They are through DOE and SBIRs .
They 've already spent billions in this area .
This is an unresearched article on research..... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They are through DOE and SBIRs.
They've already spent billions in this area.
This is an unresearched article on research......</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28293079</id>
	<title>Re:That's Obvious</title>
	<author>dogeatery</author>
	<datestamp>1244732580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"We inevitably get drawn into everyone's little spats."  Yes, American military involvement is always so reluctant and altruistic.  Just ask the displaced natives of Diego Garcia (they were even British citizens), forcibly moved to build a military base.  Or you could ask those Afghans about all their dead countrymen who WEREN'T flying a plane on 9/11, but they'd probably tell you about the oil pipeline agreement that came within weeks of the US invasion.  Or, closer to home, I'm sure American Indians have lots of stories of US altruism -- the government even gave them land where nothing can be cultivated.  And, of course, colonialism "ended" in 1900, but American generosity and good will (and covert ops, of course) helped to ensure that those simple folks wouldn't have to suffer with the people they actually elected.</p><p>America is not world policeman, it's the world mafioso.  Why else does it have 700+ military bases around the world but scoff at the suggestion that another country be allowed to install one here?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" We inevitably get drawn into everyone 's little spats .
" Yes , American military involvement is always so reluctant and altruistic .
Just ask the displaced natives of Diego Garcia ( they were even British citizens ) , forcibly moved to build a military base .
Or you could ask those Afghans about all their dead countrymen who WERE N'T flying a plane on 9/11 , but they 'd probably tell you about the oil pipeline agreement that came within weeks of the US invasion .
Or , closer to home , I 'm sure American Indians have lots of stories of US altruism -- the government even gave them land where nothing can be cultivated .
And , of course , colonialism " ended " in 1900 , but American generosity and good will ( and covert ops , of course ) helped to ensure that those simple folks would n't have to suffer with the people they actually elected.America is not world policeman , it 's the world mafioso .
Why else does it have 700 + military bases around the world but scoff at the suggestion that another country be allowed to install one here ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"We inevitably get drawn into everyone's little spats.
"  Yes, American military involvement is always so reluctant and altruistic.
Just ask the displaced natives of Diego Garcia (they were even British citizens), forcibly moved to build a military base.
Or you could ask those Afghans about all their dead countrymen who WEREN'T flying a plane on 9/11, but they'd probably tell you about the oil pipeline agreement that came within weeks of the US invasion.
Or, closer to home, I'm sure American Indians have lots of stories of US altruism -- the government even gave them land where nothing can be cultivated.
And, of course, colonialism "ended" in 1900, but American generosity and good will (and covert ops, of course) helped to ensure that those simple folks wouldn't have to suffer with the people they actually elected.America is not world policeman, it's the world mafioso.
Why else does it have 700+ military bases around the world but scoff at the suggestion that another country be allowed to install one here?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289967</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289447</id>
	<title>Re:That's Obvious</title>
	<author>Ethanol-fueled</author>
	<datestamp>1244656620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So, extrapolating from those two points, we just need a big, old-fashioned war.</p></div><p>It worked for DS9 and Voyager...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So , extrapolating from those two points , we just need a big , old-fashioned war.It worked for DS9 and Voyager.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, extrapolating from those two points, we just need a big, old-fashioned war.It worked for DS9 and Voyager...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289299</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28292983</id>
	<title>Re:It is</title>
	<author>reg106</author>
	<datestamp>1244732280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yay!  You are the first I've seen to mention budget numbers.  Since WWII, the United States has funded significant amount of research.  This was largely a result of the Cold War, in which high technology played a significant role, and continues today because of the positive effects this research ultimately has on the US economy.   <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vannevar\_Bush" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Vannevar Bush </a> [wikipedia.org] played a large role in established the beaurocracy to fund pure and applied research.  In addition to the purer science agencies you mentioned NIH, NSF, DoE, the military also funds a significant amount of pure and applied research through DARPA, ONR, AFRL, DHS, etc.   <br> <br>One should note that government employees are not allowed to claim IP.  It is automatically freely usable.  For this reason, many modern numerical packages (e.g. Matlab, GSL) are based on LINPACK and LAPACK, Fortran code written in the 70s and 80s by the National Institute of Standards and Technology, freely available to anyone.  Up until the early 80s, intellectual property could not be claimed on governement funded research.  Of course, the problem was that the US dumped huge amounts of money into research, but the entire world benefited from the results.  At that time, the finger was especially pointed at Japan, who people thought provided no innovation but took advantages of advanced developed in US labs.  The <a href="http://www.rieti.go.jp/en/events/bbl/05052301.html" title="rieti.go.jp" rel="nofollow">Baye-Dole Act</a> [rieti.go.jp] created a uniform patent policy across funding agencies and allowed federal research money to result in patents held by the researchers organization.  This helped ensure that US benefited financially from US funded research.  It also helped lead to the current patent madness.   Note that under the previous system in which the government owned the IP, it would be nearly impossible to ensure that US companies would benefit preferentially from US funding.   The current structure encourages this naturally, and places the responsibility for tracking IP violations in the hands of the organization that  developed the IP.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yay !
You are the first I 've seen to mention budget numbers .
Since WWII , the United States has funded significant amount of research .
This was largely a result of the Cold War , in which high technology played a significant role , and continues today because of the positive effects this research ultimately has on the US economy .
Vannevar Bush [ wikipedia.org ] played a large role in established the beaurocracy to fund pure and applied research .
In addition to the purer science agencies you mentioned NIH , NSF , DoE , the military also funds a significant amount of pure and applied research through DARPA , ONR , AFRL , DHS , etc .
One should note that government employees are not allowed to claim IP .
It is automatically freely usable .
For this reason , many modern numerical packages ( e.g .
Matlab , GSL ) are based on LINPACK and LAPACK , Fortran code written in the 70s and 80s by the National Institute of Standards and Technology , freely available to anyone .
Up until the early 80s , intellectual property could not be claimed on governement funded research .
Of course , the problem was that the US dumped huge amounts of money into research , but the entire world benefited from the results .
At that time , the finger was especially pointed at Japan , who people thought provided no innovation but took advantages of advanced developed in US labs .
The Baye-Dole Act [ rieti.go.jp ] created a uniform patent policy across funding agencies and allowed federal research money to result in patents held by the researchers organization .
This helped ensure that US benefited financially from US funded research .
It also helped lead to the current patent madness .
Note that under the previous system in which the government owned the IP , it would be nearly impossible to ensure that US companies would benefit preferentially from US funding .
The current structure encourages this naturally , and places the responsibility for tracking IP violations in the hands of the organization that developed the IP .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yay!
You are the first I've seen to mention budget numbers.
Since WWII, the United States has funded significant amount of research.
This was largely a result of the Cold War, in which high technology played a significant role, and continues today because of the positive effects this research ultimately has on the US economy.
Vannevar Bush  [wikipedia.org] played a large role in established the beaurocracy to fund pure and applied research.
In addition to the purer science agencies you mentioned NIH, NSF, DoE, the military also funds a significant amount of pure and applied research through DARPA, ONR, AFRL, DHS, etc.
One should note that government employees are not allowed to claim IP.
It is automatically freely usable.
For this reason, many modern numerical packages (e.g.
Matlab, GSL) are based on LINPACK and LAPACK, Fortran code written in the 70s and 80s by the National Institute of Standards and Technology, freely available to anyone.
Up until the early 80s, intellectual property could not be claimed on governement funded research.
Of course, the problem was that the US dumped huge amounts of money into research, but the entire world benefited from the results.
At that time, the finger was especially pointed at Japan, who people thought provided no innovation but took advantages of advanced developed in US labs.
The Baye-Dole Act [rieti.go.jp] created a uniform patent policy across funding agencies and allowed federal research money to result in patents held by the researchers organization.
This helped ensure that US benefited financially from US funded research.
It also helped lead to the current patent madness.
Note that under the previous system in which the government owned the IP, it would be nearly impossible to ensure that US companies would benefit preferentially from US funding.
The current structure encourages this naturally, and places the responsibility for tracking IP violations in the hands of the organization that  developed the IP.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289373</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289433</id>
	<title>Nanotech &amp; Enhancing Renewable Energy</title>
	<author>grilled-cheese</author>
	<datestamp>1244656560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I would think something like nanotechnology or enhancing existing renewable energy sources.  It would be really cool for consumer-grade solar power to actually create competition with the electric utility industry.  As well as the extremely broad applications of nanomanufacturing and biotech that could be gained by learning to manipulate/control objects smaller than any current instruments can match.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I would think something like nanotechnology or enhancing existing renewable energy sources .
It would be really cool for consumer-grade solar power to actually create competition with the electric utility industry .
As well as the extremely broad applications of nanomanufacturing and biotech that could be gained by learning to manipulate/control objects smaller than any current instruments can match .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would think something like nanotechnology or enhancing existing renewable energy sources.
It would be really cool for consumer-grade solar power to actually create competition with the electric utility industry.
As well as the extremely broad applications of nanomanufacturing and biotech that could be gained by learning to manipulate/control objects smaller than any current instruments can match.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289623</id>
	<title>Re:Its simple....</title>
	<author>TheJerbear79</author>
	<datestamp>1244658060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Government funded research programs are all over the place, the CDC, NASA and DARPA are the three biggest examples I can think of right now who have done vast amounts of research that has trickled to the private sector and expanded the economy of the country. Bigger/more profitable economy means more tax revenue for the government, less taxes you pay and higher wages you earn. Everyone wins if you spend money on pure research. This is proven time again in both History and every strategy game I've ever played.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-) The next time you use your microwave powered by a nuclear powerplant to heat your chicken sammich to 160 degrees so you don't catch the salmonella (sp?) that the CDC warned you about... question your opinion on the value of pure research. It does alot more for your quality of life than you apparently realize.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Government funded research programs are all over the place , the CDC , NASA and DARPA are the three biggest examples I can think of right now who have done vast amounts of research that has trickled to the private sector and expanded the economy of the country .
Bigger/more profitable economy means more tax revenue for the government , less taxes you pay and higher wages you earn .
Everyone wins if you spend money on pure research .
This is proven time again in both History and every strategy game I 've ever played .
: - ) The next time you use your microwave powered by a nuclear powerplant to heat your chicken sammich to 160 degrees so you do n't catch the salmonella ( sp ?
) that the CDC warned you about... question your opinion on the value of pure research .
It does alot more for your quality of life than you apparently realize .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Government funded research programs are all over the place, the CDC, NASA and DARPA are the three biggest examples I can think of right now who have done vast amounts of research that has trickled to the private sector and expanded the economy of the country.
Bigger/more profitable economy means more tax revenue for the government, less taxes you pay and higher wages you earn.
Everyone wins if you spend money on pure research.
This is proven time again in both History and every strategy game I've ever played.
:-) The next time you use your microwave powered by a nuclear powerplant to heat your chicken sammich to 160 degrees so you don't catch the salmonella (sp?
) that the CDC warned you about... question your opinion on the value of pure research.
It does alot more for your quality of life than you apparently realize.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289341</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289979</id>
	<title>Re:Its simple....</title>
	<author>Cormophyte</author>
	<datestamp>1244661660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why you're wrong is as simple as the difference between advanced research funded by the government in the hopes of advancing science and narrow research funded by corporations in order to keep their profit margins at an acceptable level while not falling behind their competitors.</p><p>The really big gains over the past 50 years have seldom been privately funded because that is simply not their goal. If they make a breakthrough it's either by accident or because they've pushed their current capability to the point which requires a breakthrough to avoid stagnation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why you 're wrong is as simple as the difference between advanced research funded by the government in the hopes of advancing science and narrow research funded by corporations in order to keep their profit margins at an acceptable level while not falling behind their competitors.The really big gains over the past 50 years have seldom been privately funded because that is simply not their goal .
If they make a breakthrough it 's either by accident or because they 've pushed their current capability to the point which requires a breakthrough to avoid stagnation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why you're wrong is as simple as the difference between advanced research funded by the government in the hopes of advancing science and narrow research funded by corporations in order to keep their profit margins at an acceptable level while not falling behind their competitors.The really big gains over the past 50 years have seldom been privately funded because that is simply not their goal.
If they make a breakthrough it's either by accident or because they've pushed their current capability to the point which requires a breakthrough to avoid stagnation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289341</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28291433</id>
	<title>Re:Medical research</title>
	<author>ThatsNotPudding</author>
	<datestamp>1244725200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You're close the reason.  Ask yourself this question: how many actual cures have been provided by Big Pharma?  I honestly can't think of any.  Their business model is selling 'maintenance' drugs, not cures.  Repeat customers locked in for a lifetime - literally.  In the worst sense of the phrase, Big Pharma ARE Drug Dealers.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're close the reason .
Ask yourself this question : how many actual cures have been provided by Big Pharma ?
I honestly ca n't think of any .
Their business model is selling 'maintenance ' drugs , not cures .
Repeat customers locked in for a lifetime - literally .
In the worst sense of the phrase , Big Pharma ARE Drug Dealers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're close the reason.
Ask yourself this question: how many actual cures have been provided by Big Pharma?
I honestly can't think of any.
Their business model is selling 'maintenance' drugs, not cures.
Repeat customers locked in for a lifetime - literally.
In the worst sense of the phrase, Big Pharma ARE Drug Dealers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289357</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28290837</id>
	<title>gene technology</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244716260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What ever nature can make, humans will be able to design and make with genes, given enough research and time.<br>There is the biggest gold mine for new tech for the next 100 years.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What ever nature can make , humans will be able to design and make with genes , given enough research and time.There is the biggest gold mine for new tech for the next 100 years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What ever nature can make, humans will be able to design and make with genes, given enough research and time.There is the biggest gold mine for new tech for the next 100 years.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28295681</id>
	<title>Re:That's Obvious</title>
	<author>doulos05</author>
	<datestamp>1244741940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>And let us not forget that it was the US playing world police who saved Europe in WWII, changed Japan from a militaristic empire to the Western democracy that they are now, brought South Korea from poverty to wealth and has been a staunch ally of the only truly western country in the middle east.</p></div><p>Minor quibble: The US did not 'save' by it's intervention in WWII (and before you ask: Yes, I'm an American). None of the Allies won WWII by themselves. Yes, the US provided a large portion of the economic muscle, but all that had to happen for a very different war (and a very different outcome) is for the spirit of the British people to have been broken during the Battle of Britain. The groundwork for that could have been laid at Dunkirk, had the Germany army not pulled up short of the withdrawing British forces. Or, the Soviets could have decided enough was enough and signed a peace treaty in 1942 or 43 (even a temporary one), which would have given Hitler time to consolidate. Let's not oversimplify what was possibly one of the most complex events of the 20th century to "The world was going to hell, the British were seriously contemplating starting German classes in their school, then America stepped in and sent the big, bad fascists to the corner."</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And let us not forget that it was the US playing world police who saved Europe in WWII , changed Japan from a militaristic empire to the Western democracy that they are now , brought South Korea from poverty to wealth and has been a staunch ally of the only truly western country in the middle east.Minor quibble : The US did not 'save ' by it 's intervention in WWII ( and before you ask : Yes , I 'm an American ) .
None of the Allies won WWII by themselves .
Yes , the US provided a large portion of the economic muscle , but all that had to happen for a very different war ( and a very different outcome ) is for the spirit of the British people to have been broken during the Battle of Britain .
The groundwork for that could have been laid at Dunkirk , had the Germany army not pulled up short of the withdrawing British forces .
Or , the Soviets could have decided enough was enough and signed a peace treaty in 1942 or 43 ( even a temporary one ) , which would have given Hitler time to consolidate .
Let 's not oversimplify what was possibly one of the most complex events of the 20th century to " The world was going to hell , the British were seriously contemplating starting German classes in their school , then America stepped in and sent the big , bad fascists to the corner .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And let us not forget that it was the US playing world police who saved Europe in WWII, changed Japan from a militaristic empire to the Western democracy that they are now, brought South Korea from poverty to wealth and has been a staunch ally of the only truly western country in the middle east.Minor quibble: The US did not 'save' by it's intervention in WWII (and before you ask: Yes, I'm an American).
None of the Allies won WWII by themselves.
Yes, the US provided a large portion of the economic muscle, but all that had to happen for a very different war (and a very different outcome) is for the spirit of the British people to have been broken during the Battle of Britain.
The groundwork for that could have been laid at Dunkirk, had the Germany army not pulled up short of the withdrawing British forces.
Or, the Soviets could have decided enough was enough and signed a peace treaty in 1942 or 43 (even a temporary one), which would have given Hitler time to consolidate.
Let's not oversimplify what was possibly one of the most complex events of the 20th century to "The world was going to hell, the British were seriously contemplating starting German classes in their school, then America stepped in and sent the big, bad fascists to the corner.
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28292139</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28292935</id>
	<title>NIH Grant</title>
	<author>EngineeringMarvel</author>
	<datestamp>1244732040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The government does fund research, but not always for direct projects.  NIH Grants <a href="http://grants.nih.gov/grants/oer.htm" title="nih.gov">http://grants.nih.gov/grants/oer.htm</a> [nih.gov] provide funding for lots of research related things, such as laboratory improvements, new equipment, etc.

One of the stimulus packages included added more funding for NIH Grants.  You can see all the active ones at <a href="http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/search\_results.htm?year=active&amp;scope=pa" title="nih.gov">http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/search\_results.htm?year=active&amp;scope=pa</a> [nih.gov]</htmltext>
<tokenext>The government does fund research , but not always for direct projects .
NIH Grants http : //grants.nih.gov/grants/oer.htm [ nih.gov ] provide funding for lots of research related things , such as laboratory improvements , new equipment , etc .
One of the stimulus packages included added more funding for NIH Grants .
You can see all the active ones at http : //grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/search \ _results.htm ? year = active&amp;scope = pa [ nih.gov ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The government does fund research, but not always for direct projects.
NIH Grants http://grants.nih.gov/grants/oer.htm [nih.gov] provide funding for lots of research related things, such as laboratory improvements, new equipment, etc.
One of the stimulus packages included added more funding for NIH Grants.
You can see all the active ones at http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/search\_results.htm?year=active&amp;scope=pa [nih.gov]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28290007</id>
	<title>Re:Baby Boomers</title>
	<author>wall0159</author>
	<datestamp>1244661840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While there's some truth in what you say, such behaviour is in no way restricted to baby-boomers (IANABB<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</p><p>Give today's kids half a chance and they'll do the same thing - people are people. That's why our economic and political systems need to be premised on the idea that people tend to be greedy and selfish.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While there 's some truth in what you say , such behaviour is in no way restricted to baby-boomers ( IANABB ; - ) Give today 's kids half a chance and they 'll do the same thing - people are people .
That 's why our economic and political systems need to be premised on the idea that people tend to be greedy and selfish .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While there's some truth in what you say, such behaviour is in no way restricted to baby-boomers (IANABB ;-)Give today's kids half a chance and they'll do the same thing - people are people.
That's why our economic and political systems need to be premised on the idea that people tend to be greedy and selfish.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289415</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28291767</id>
	<title>Title is a Troll</title>
	<author>mozzis</author>
	<datestamp>1244727720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The US Government spends Billions on research of every conceivable kind, including batteries and biomedical. I should know, it pays my bills. The ignorance of the OP would be astounding if this were not<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The US Government spends Billions on research of every conceivable kind , including batteries and biomedical .
I should know , it pays my bills .
The ignorance of the OP would be astounding if this were not / .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The US Government spends Billions on research of every conceivable kind, including batteries and biomedical.
I should know, it pays my bills.
The ignorance of the OP would be astounding if this were not /.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289543</id>
	<title>it is...</title>
	<author>Goldsmith</author>
	<datestamp>1244657460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The US government is funding research.  A lot of it.  So much that a giant company like GM opening a *single* research lab is big news.  Either directly (through grants and contracts) or indirectly (through tax incentives) the government is funding much of the industrial research that is done anyway.</p><p>Why has science stalled since the 70s?  That's when the number of physicists being trained exceeded the demand.  The job market for physicists tanked and has never recovered (due to an excess of government funding for training).  Physics became very competitive (rather than collaborative), and focused on making very small incremental changes in niche areas so that you could keep your job (big risks are bad, now).  We've make tremendous scientific progress, but the system isn't designed for rock-star leaders and breakthroughs any more.  More industrial labs will only change that until growth saturates again.</p><p>We need to either stop training too many physicists (and make sure we're not doing the same with other fields), or live with what we have (which does work well, for anyone who is not a physicist).  To encourage risk (and thus greater... or at least flashier scientific rewards), we need more long term grants and contracts (long term being &gt;10 years).  If I know a several year project can fail, but I'll still be able to pay the rent, I'm more likely to try something new.  To actually answer the question, I would put those grants in solar fuel research.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The US government is funding research .
A lot of it .
So much that a giant company like GM opening a * single * research lab is big news .
Either directly ( through grants and contracts ) or indirectly ( through tax incentives ) the government is funding much of the industrial research that is done anyway.Why has science stalled since the 70s ?
That 's when the number of physicists being trained exceeded the demand .
The job market for physicists tanked and has never recovered ( due to an excess of government funding for training ) .
Physics became very competitive ( rather than collaborative ) , and focused on making very small incremental changes in niche areas so that you could keep your job ( big risks are bad , now ) .
We 've make tremendous scientific progress , but the system is n't designed for rock-star leaders and breakthroughs any more .
More industrial labs will only change that until growth saturates again.We need to either stop training too many physicists ( and make sure we 're not doing the same with other fields ) , or live with what we have ( which does work well , for anyone who is not a physicist ) .
To encourage risk ( and thus greater... or at least flashier scientific rewards ) , we need more long term grants and contracts ( long term being &gt; 10 years ) .
If I know a several year project can fail , but I 'll still be able to pay the rent , I 'm more likely to try something new .
To actually answer the question , I would put those grants in solar fuel research .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The US government is funding research.
A lot of it.
So much that a giant company like GM opening a *single* research lab is big news.
Either directly (through grants and contracts) or indirectly (through tax incentives) the government is funding much of the industrial research that is done anyway.Why has science stalled since the 70s?
That's when the number of physicists being trained exceeded the demand.
The job market for physicists tanked and has never recovered (due to an excess of government funding for training).
Physics became very competitive (rather than collaborative), and focused on making very small incremental changes in niche areas so that you could keep your job (big risks are bad, now).
We've make tremendous scientific progress, but the system isn't designed for rock-star leaders and breakthroughs any more.
More industrial labs will only change that until growth saturates again.We need to either stop training too many physicists (and make sure we're not doing the same with other fields), or live with what we have (which does work well, for anyone who is not a physicist).
To encourage risk (and thus greater... or at least flashier scientific rewards), we need more long term grants and contracts (long term being &gt;10 years).
If I know a several year project can fail, but I'll still be able to pay the rent, I'm more likely to try something new.
To actually answer the question, I would put those grants in solar fuel research.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28290089</id>
	<title>Re:Its simple....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244662740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am the guy who posted the original library post (parent of your post).  For my argument above, I don't worry about how things used to be done...true, there are trusts behind many libraries, but there are a lot of national funds that libraries can draw from these days...and many libraries NEED it, since people in many small towns aren't willing enough to give enough private donations to keep libraries bustling.  OF course, we get into the whole "are libraries necessary in the age of digitization" argument...don't go there. please.  I'm not going to read it. I'm tired.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am the guy who posted the original library post ( parent of your post ) .
For my argument above , I do n't worry about how things used to be done...true , there are trusts behind many libraries , but there are a lot of national funds that libraries can draw from these days...and many libraries NEED it , since people in many small towns are n't willing enough to give enough private donations to keep libraries bustling .
OF course , we get into the whole " are libraries necessary in the age of digitization " argument...do n't go there .
please. I 'm not going to read it .
I 'm tired .
; - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am the guy who posted the original library post (parent of your post).
For my argument above, I don't worry about how things used to be done...true, there are trusts behind many libraries, but there are a lot of national funds that libraries can draw from these days...and many libraries NEED it, since people in many small towns aren't willing enough to give enough private donations to keep libraries bustling.
OF course, we get into the whole "are libraries necessary in the age of digitization" argument...don't go there.
please.  I'm not going to read it.
I'm tired.
;-)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289683</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289281</id>
	<title>fp</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244655060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>n/t</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>n/t</tokentext>
<sentencetext>n/t</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289419</id>
	<title>Re:That's Obvious</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244656440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Another part of the puzzle is the war must be against another superpower. Fighting non-superpowers has gotten has really nowhere, 'Nam, Iraq, and the South.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Another part of the puzzle is the war must be against another superpower .
Fighting non-superpowers has gotten has really nowhere , 'Nam , Iraq , and the South .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Another part of the puzzle is the war must be against another superpower.
Fighting non-superpowers has gotten has really nowhere, 'Nam, Iraq, and the South.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289299</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28292389</id>
	<title>Re: Star Wars?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244730240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Dude, Reagan spent a shitload of money on research. Not to defend the Republican agenda, but, when it came to "defense research", Reagan spent a lot of money. That's how concepts like SSTO got started, and although many of those projects are just dusty remains now, a lot of gains were made in materials research and propulsion technologies.</p><p>Don't underestimate what Reagan did for basic research. He spent so much money in the defense arena that the Soviet Union essentially bankrupted itself trying to keep up with him. The Berlin wall fell mostly due to the fact that the Soviets were still stuck with a lot of WWII technology, and they ran out of money in the technological war of the 80's.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Dude , Reagan spent a shitload of money on research .
Not to defend the Republican agenda , but , when it came to " defense research " , Reagan spent a lot of money .
That 's how concepts like SSTO got started , and although many of those projects are just dusty remains now , a lot of gains were made in materials research and propulsion technologies.Do n't underestimate what Reagan did for basic research .
He spent so much money in the defense arena that the Soviet Union essentially bankrupted itself trying to keep up with him .
The Berlin wall fell mostly due to the fact that the Soviets were still stuck with a lot of WWII technology , and they ran out of money in the technological war of the 80 's .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dude, Reagan spent a shitload of money on research.
Not to defend the Republican agenda, but, when it came to "defense research", Reagan spent a lot of money.
That's how concepts like SSTO got started, and although many of those projects are just dusty remains now, a lot of gains were made in materials research and propulsion technologies.Don't underestimate what Reagan did for basic research.
He spent so much money in the defense arena that the Soviet Union essentially bankrupted itself trying to keep up with him.
The Berlin wall fell mostly due to the fact that the Soviets were still stuck with a lot of WWII technology, and they ran out of money in the technological war of the 80's.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289467</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289371</id>
	<title>Why Isn't the US Government Funding Research?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244656020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Do you really need to think about this?<br>It is simple.<br>We Don't Have Any Money!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do you really need to think about this ? It is simple.We Do n't Have Any Money !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do you really need to think about this?It is simple.We Don't Have Any Money!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_2317238_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289299
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289449
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289967
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28290743
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28295843
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28301411
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_2317238_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289299
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289449
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289967
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28291197
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_2317238_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289373
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28290469
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_2317238_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289783
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28295485
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_2317238_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289357
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28290315
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_2317238_93</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289467
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28292389
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_2317238_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289415
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289789
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_2317238_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289341
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289939
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_2317238_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289341
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289979
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_2317238_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289341
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289685
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_2317238_86</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289341
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289421
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_2317238_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289383
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28290435
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28298945
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_2317238_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289293
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28291313
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28292571
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_2317238_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289341
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289671
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28302999
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_2317238_81</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289341
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28290601
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_2317238_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289341
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289623
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_2317238_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289341
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289743
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_2317238_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289829
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28291945
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_2317238_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289415
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289905
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_2317238_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289293
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28291313
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28291795
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_2317238_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289341
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289671
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28291085
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_2317238_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289415
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289897
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_2317238_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289383
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28294729
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_2317238_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289293
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28292081
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_2317238_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289357
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28290515
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_2317238_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289293
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28291313
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28298991
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_2317238_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289293
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28291313
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28310701
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_2317238_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289341
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289417
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289705
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_2317238_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289415
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28302575
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_2317238_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289551
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28293045
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_2317238_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289357
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28291731
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_2317238_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289341
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28290035
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28299793
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_2317238_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289341
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289671
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28290235
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_2317238_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289299
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289449
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289967
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28302915
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_2317238_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289415
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28290007
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_2317238_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289383
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28290435
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28304923
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_2317238_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289415
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289785
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28290119
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_2317238_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289551
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28290465
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_2317238_85</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289299
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289447
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_2317238_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289299
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289449
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289967
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28290743
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28292039
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_2317238_90</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289829
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28290645
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_2317238_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289373
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28290767
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_2317238_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289299
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289427
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_2317238_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289783
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28290139
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_2317238_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289299
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289449
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289967
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28290415
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_2317238_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289357
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289413
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_2317238_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289341
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28292029
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_2317238_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289299
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289449
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289967
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28290743
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28292261
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_2317238_91</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289783
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28293063
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_2317238_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289373
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28291461
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_2317238_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289341
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289395
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289745
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_2317238_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289299
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289449
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289967
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28293079
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_2317238_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289373
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28290695
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_2317238_84</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289293
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28298053
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_2317238_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289383
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28291011
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_2317238_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289341
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289557
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_2317238_83</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289341
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289741
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28295529
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_2317238_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289415
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289879
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_2317238_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289371
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289923
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_2317238_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289293
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28291313
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28295203
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_2317238_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289415
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289785
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28291189
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_2317238_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289341
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289671
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28294039
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_2317238_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289341
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289741
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28291229
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_2317238_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289299
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289419
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28298285
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_2317238_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289293
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28291313
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28297809
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_2317238_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289373
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28292983
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_2317238_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289299
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289449
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289967
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28290743
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28292139
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28295681
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_2317238_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289341
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289417
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289683
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28290089
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_2317238_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289453
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28290029
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_2317238_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289299
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289449
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289967
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28290743
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28292139
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28304817
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_2317238_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289341
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289699
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_2317238_89</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289829
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28293205
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_2317238_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289341
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289741
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28291677
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_2317238_82</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289751
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28291315
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_2317238_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289341
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28291137
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_2317238_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289341
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289579
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_2317238_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289341
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289545
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_2317238_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289415
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28290111
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_2317238_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289299
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289419
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28290739
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_2317238_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289341
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289671
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28290249
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_2317238_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289299
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289449
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289967
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28290743
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28292139
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28295603
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_2317238_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289357
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28291433
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_2317238_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289299
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289419
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28290509
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_2317238_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289481
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289847
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_2317238_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289299
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289449
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289967
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28290475
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_2317238_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289341
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289393
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_2317238_88</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289299
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289449
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28291285
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_2317238_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289293
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28291313
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28294467
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_2317238_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289341
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289995
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_2317238_92</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289341
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28290709
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_2317238_87</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289341
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28290195
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_2317238_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289341
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289671
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289937
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_2317238_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289341
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289909
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_2317238_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289751
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28293465
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_10_2317238.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289531
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_10_2317238.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289367
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_10_2317238.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289373
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28290767
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28290695
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28291461
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28292983
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28290469
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_10_2317238.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289751
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28291315
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28293465
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_10_2317238.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289415
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289897
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289879
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28290111
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289789
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289785
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28290119
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28291189
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28302575
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289905
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28290007
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_10_2317238.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289609
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_10_2317238.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289383
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28290435
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28298945
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28304923
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28294729
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28291011
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_10_2317238.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289289
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_10_2317238.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289511
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_10_2317238.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289481
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289847
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_10_2317238.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289589
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_10_2317238.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289467
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28292389
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_10_2317238.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289577
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_10_2317238.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289505
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_10_2317238.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289293
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28291313
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28295203
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28292571
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28294467
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28298991
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28291795
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28297809
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28310701
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28292081
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28298053
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_10_2317238.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289299
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289449
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289967
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28293079
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28290743
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28292039
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28295843
-----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28301411
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28292139
-----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28304817
-----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28295681
-----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28295603
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28292261
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28291197
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28290475
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28302915
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28290415
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28291285
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289419
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28290739
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28290509
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28298285
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289447
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289427
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_10_2317238.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289357
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28291731
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289413
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28290515
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28290315
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28291433
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_10_2317238.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289855
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_10_2317238.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289551
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28293045
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28290465
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_10_2317238.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289565
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_10_2317238.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289543
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_10_2317238.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289453
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28290029
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_10_2317238.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289783
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28290139
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28295485
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28293063
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_10_2317238.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289341
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289393
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28291137
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289557
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289685
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289579
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289545
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289995
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289699
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28292029
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28290195
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289939
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289743
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28290709
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289671
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289937
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28291085
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28290235
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28302999
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28290249
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28294039
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289909
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289741
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28291677
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28295529
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28291229
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289979
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28290601
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289395
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289745
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289623
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28290035
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28299793
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289417
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289683
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28290089
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289705
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289421
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_10_2317238.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289829
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28293205
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28290645
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28291945
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_10_2317238.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289371
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2317238.28289923
</commentlist>
</conversation>
