WILL technology save us for reals?

[']['ear]

Huh? From Atari? Well, that would fit the political position. He's Libertarian IIRC.

[EyeKhan]

I thought Enoch was GhostEnigma.

I was trying to figure out who he was too. Seems too familiar around here to be a newb. If it is GE, bravo to the improved name.

[Enoch the Red]

Whoops! BS argument, like the one applied to Al Gore. If somebody is doing something positive (by their lights), it is BS to criticize them for doing enough. That's the "pure ideology" fallacy, i.e. it's only acceptable to make a bold policy statement if you take it to an extreme in personal practice. Since the point is "less consumption" not "no consumption," clearly this is just specious and lazy ad hominem.

If the stakes are, as you believe, the end of the world as we know it, the mass destruction of life, property, and all we hold dear, yes I consider it to be hypocritical and heartless not to do everything in your power to stop it, especially in the area you are most capable of changing, your own personal actions. That you think otherwise speaks more to your credibility and integrity than my own.

Of course, I can't say I'm terribly surprised that you consider integrity to be fallacious.

An important point, the distinction between needs and wants. For Rand, a widget producer, people having a philosophy of "the more widgets the better" is a no-brainer. Hell, he doesn't care what kind of widget. He just wants people to buy so his own wealth will increase.

As opposed to you, who lives a life dictated by needs, and needs alone? Is the air thinner upon that high, high horse? Can lack of oxygen possibly be a contributing factor to the complete lack of self analysis you are continually prone to?

Same BS argument wrt extremes. So nobody should ever push for a more humane/environmentalist/sustainable/whatever approach to things because they can't d it perfectly? Yeah, Chaloobi would be much better of eschewing all technology and going into the African bush to work as a Peace Corps volunteer. Compare the success of that group collectively with those who make systemic changes.

Straw man. If you aren't actually going to address what I wrote, why are you wasting your time?

Sound like a cheap-ass rationalization by those who'd prefer to sit on their asses and ensure that the flow of goodness comes to them. Oops, sucks to be the target of BS knee-jerk slurs, eh?

If you are going to slur me, could you at least make sure they make sense, and are applicable? Slur away if you must, but I don't think it's too much to ask for a little effort to go into them.

Yes, far, far better so cynically sit back and hurl insults while nihilistically not giving a fuck, which is really a front for attacking a philosophy that might crimp your personal wank-fest, all because the people suggesting changes don't meet your arbitrary standards of ideological purity.

Why don't you just be honest and say "fuck 'em if they can't get theirs." The faux sanctimony is somewhat nauseating.

Because I genuinely believe in helping people, and I do so whenever I can. I don't pay lip service to my ideals all the while enjoying the benefits of that which I decry. If you are a true believer, (and to be frank, it's hard to tell what exactly you do believe, and what is just a posturing on your part) then I expect your beliefs to be backed by actions.

To be clear, I am not a true believer in a Malthusian catastrophe, but if you are I would expect a Herculean effort on your part to prevent it.

1) I'll cite, well, all of history. Virtually ALL successful economies have been backed by governments that used power to manipulate markets. In many cases, the two were virtually indistinguishable (consider Venice, Florence and Genoa during the Renaissance). As examples that you may recognize, both the UK and then the US used projection of power and trade barriers (the former to remove barriers, the latter to ensure direction of flow of goods) to increase their own wealth, in a positive feedback loop of increasing power. What, you're not familiar with the economic wars of the US? Or the trade barriers before the modern era?

Not sure what you are getting at here. The fact that truly free markets haven't been tried is not a point scored in your favor. By that same token, can we use the thousands of failed economies that have been backed by governments that used power to manipulate markets as strikes against your argument?

2) Prima facie. Show me markets with vision past ten years. Rare venture capitalists will invest in a project with a yield further than 5 years out. The vast majority are thinking about the next quarter, and strategizing for the 1-3 year range.

False dichotomy. Having a plan and strategy for the next quarter does not negate having long term plans. I recently read an article that talked about IBM's R&D department, which invests millions, if not billions of dollars a year in long term R&D.

Hell, look no further than current space entrepreneurs like Richard Branson with Virgin Galactic. If you think his vision for his company is only five to ten years, I think you're sadly mistaken.

There is no contradiction. A space industry, while having large startup costs, will generate gigantic wealth. Re-engineering and replacing our energy infrastructure will do likewise. It's only those with a vested interest in the status quo who shout about the costs while ignoring the dividends.

Where did the initial funding for the space industry come from? Where will the funding for replacing energy infrastructure come from?

I thought Enoch was GhostEnigma.

That's right.

I was trying to figure out who he was too. Seems too familiar around here to be a newb. If it is GE, bravo to the improved name.

I don't know if I can say the same. I rather liked Chaloobi.

[']['ear]

If the stakes are, as you believe, the end of the world as we know it, the mass destruction of life, property, and all we hold dear, yes I consider it to be hypocritical and heartless not to do everything in your power to stop it, especially in the area you are most capable of changing, your own personal actions. That you think otherwise speaks more to your credibility and integrity than my own.

Of course, I can't say I'm terribly surprised that you consider integrity to be fallacious.

Wow, epic distortion. I see you haven't changed. I'm done here, no point debating somebody who just outright lies.

[EyeKhan]

I like your new avatar too.

[Enoch the Red]

Wow, epic distortion. I see you haven't changed. I'm done here, no point debating somebody who just outright lies.

How so?

I like your new avatar too.

Everything has been blatantly stolen from Neal Stephenson and company, but thanks.

[']['ear]

How so?

You've engaged in an utterly specious line of reasoning, similar to "because you only gave a thousand dollars to the homeless shelter this year, and not your complete earnings, you are selfish and evil." Any discussion starting from such a mockingly dishonest point of view is a bust from the beginning, so why should I engage you? Debates are a two-way street. If you abandon all pretense of honest debate from the get-go, why should I waste my time on you? Trolling should not be rewarded.

[Aimless]

You know it might just be so that he really and honestly was thinking along those lines rather than trying to desroy your life I'm just saying man.

Wait what am I on about he's an old regular so clearly you should continue with your crazy

[RandBlade]

If the rationale is the succes and long term survival of the species then it doesn't matter if 99% of humanity remains on Earth as that still means millions of people are living not on Earth (at current population numbers we're talking between 60 and 70 million people.) Even a 0.1 or 0.01 percent would be sufficient as long as there's always a sufficiently sized community living at any one place (a couple 1000 is iirc considered sufficient to propagate the species). So the "spreading life" rationale is not in contradiction with the bulk of humanity staying put. They're both possible at the same time.

That only matters if "survival of the species" matters, that is so far down on a list of priorities for me as to barely register. I'm sorry but I'm an atheist and have no religious need to propogate a species. You may believe that God said to Noah "go forth and multiply" and want to dream to recreate that vision but I care about the rest of humanity and don't view that as any success.

That's not the point I recognized. The point I recognized is that no matter what happens, it will almost certainly be easier for the species to survive/deal with it on Earth than it will be for us to survive/handle extra-terran habitation.

Sorry, I got confused, it was wiggin who said: "* Our population increases at about 200-250k a day. That means that you'd need to export millions of people a year to even make a dent in the numbers. "

Of course it does. Consumerist capitalism is taking us down the road toward extinction and your personal ideology says do nothing about it.

Since there is no logical responses to anything but just two words suffice, let me try: Citation Needed.

Or let me try another two word: Bull Shit. Our population has never been higher, our life expectancy has never been longer, our prospects have never been better there is not a single objective measurement you'd use on any other species to put us on an even endangered let alone exinct list. You're talking nonsense while trying to be high any mighty about it.

That's an idiotic reason to do nothing. We'd be still living in caves if ancient humanity was motivated the way you advocate.

Because I advocate doing stuff about real issues rather than make dreams about meeting magic men in the sky? No, its my attitude that makes society move on.

The solution to the problem of an asteroid impact is not to leave Earth. Leaving Earth is the ace in the hole should the efforts to save humanity at home fail. This is no argument against colonizing other worlds.

How is that an ace? How will it save the people on Earth?

Really, even if you don't buy the 'ensure the survival of the species' argument, the nearly infinite riches right outside our doorstop should be enough to get us going. With current metal demands growing faster than production, those problems could be solved with all the resources just floating around out there. I think most people's time horizons are just too short.

Now there's a better argument . Still nowhere near the point though that it's remotely economical - but the science is advancing. A yardstick of success won't be inhabiting other worlds as a means to saving us though.

It's even better when it's being used to explain why we shouldn't invest in the technology that will solve the problems.

Provide evidence that we could do anything economical to save our problems.

Whoops! BS argument, like the one applied to Al Gore. If somebody is doing something positive (by their lights), it is BS to criticize them for doing enough. That's the "pure ideology" fallacy, i.e. it's only acceptable to make a bold policy statement if you take it to an extreme in personal practice. Since the point is "less consumption" not "no consumption," clearly this is just specious and lazy ad hominem.

Less consumption is not what society needs.

An important point, the distinction between needs and wants. For Rand, a widget producer, people having a philosophy of "the more widgets the better" is a no-brainer. Hell, he doesn't care what kind of widget. He just wants people to buy so his own wealth will increase.

No actually. I believe in the best widgets. I strive to ensure my widgets are better than anybody else's widgets and want everybody to buy my widgets not someone else's.

Two points made (governments and time frames)

1) I'll cite, well, all of history. Virtually ALL successful economies have been backed by governments that used power to manipulate markets. In many cases, the two were virtually indistinguishable (consider Venice, Florence and Genoa during the Renaissance). As examples that you may recognize, both the UK and then the US used projection of power and trade barriers (the former to remove barriers, the latter to ensure direction of flow of goods) to increase their own wealth, in a positive feedback loop of increasing power. What, you're not familiar with the economic wars of the US? Or the trade barriers before the modern era?

Disagreed, actually both the US and the UK succeeded while having less manipulation than other nations. No nation ever has or ever would have no government, but then nobody says that so trying to argue against a straw man that has never happened proves nothing.

2) Prima facie. Show me markets with vision past ten years. Rare venture capitalists will invest in a project with a yield further than 5 years out. The vast majority are thinking about the next quarter, and strategizing for the 1-3 year range.

All markets have visions past ten years. The whole point of "the invisible hand" is that you don't need to be centrally planning to succeed. The Soviets attempted what you suggest, the dead-hand of the State is no alternative for free innovation.

[Enoch the Red]

You've engaged in an utterly specious line of reasoning, similar to "because you only gave a thousand dollars to the homeless shelter this year, and not your complete earnings, you are selfish and evil." Any discussion starting from such a mockingly dishonest point of view is a bust from the beginning, so why should I engage you? Debates are a two-way street. If you abandon all pretense of honest debate from the get-go, why should I waste my time on you? Trolling should not be rewarded.

I don't really think that was the point I was getting at, ']['ear, rather your delightful spin of it.

If you can't see the difference in stakes between a homeless shelter, and what some people view as a cataclysmic, end of the world event, then we are clearly operating on different wavelengths. If you aren't one to put stock in Malthusian predictions, or environmental Chicken Little-ing, then my scenario clearly doesn't apply to you, and you shouldn't go out of your way to get offended, eh?

[']['ear]

Sorry, not interested in your BS manipulation of facts and posts. Pass.

[Enoch the Red]

Cop out. God, it's good to be back.

[Lebanese Dragon]

Alright.. Alright. I will navigate this mess of mines.

First of all it IS ABSOLUTELY neccessary, essential, WILL HAPPEN, that we WILL Colonize other planets, the survival of our species depends on this fact. If you're content with going extinct (which when we draw nearer to the time, people won't be) then we don't need to do anything than to make our current lives better. However, perhaps you're right (even if you value perpetuating the species) that our immediate focus should not be on living on other worlds, because we can help both now and future humans by improving and building up what we have going, and preventing/treating more immediate threats. However, at some point the earth will die out, and unless we have other worlds inhabited we will die out with it. This will be important for those going to be living at that time, because it's a not a FAKE, or a chance event, it will happen, we just need to be aptly prepared when it does.

I agree with, from your atheistic standpoint, your nihilistic conclusion that all in all it shouldn't and does matter eitherway, whether you live tomorrow, die today, have fun don't have fun, all irrelevant, perhaps it is just your biological programming perpetuating your existence, while your reasoning tells you it doesn't matter. Pain, happiness, life/death it's all the same. That said, I would argue to the nihilist, the idea of hope, in the off chance they're wrong, or there is worth in life, one might as well live, we might as well encourage the idea of perpetuating and improving society, both this one and future ones. And in order to ensure future ones at some stage significant pre-planning, and research needs to be done to improve and make viable other world living. (It is needed or the future of the species is 100% doomed).

[']['ear]

Cop out. God, it's good to be back.

Troll

[Wraith]

Now there's a better argument . Still nowhere near the point though that it's remotely economical - but the science is advancing. A yardstick of success won't be inhabiting other worlds as a means to saving us though.

But...it is economical. It's just that it's a long-term investment. We already have most of the technology needed. The real problem, I think, is that it'll take too long to see a return on the investment, and it ceases to matter that the return will be practically infinite (there are candidate asteroids out there that could supply all our metal needs at current rates for a million years). The time horizon problem again. Nobody wants to start it because even though the rewards are great and vast, it'll be a couple decades before we can start really collecting on them.

If we just sit around twiddling our thumbs waiting until somebody else does all the hard stuff for us, well maybe that will actually happen, but it'll be a much longer wait, and all on the backs of a handful of people. We'll be cheating ourselves out of at least several decades, if not centuries, of ridiculous levels of mineral wealth. And that's not even touching all the relatively unpredictable benefits these sorts of endeavors almost always bring.

[']['ear]

Absolutely. Nobody predicted the communications that resulted from the original space programs. Also awesome materials sciences advances.

Seriously, think what we could have gotten for the cost of the Iraq war. Such a tragic waste.

[Aimless]

we have never been as rich and as successful as we are today, we should cut down on welfare

if someone made better widgets you'd still want people to buy yours you're no better than Bell Labs

[EyeKhan]

Since there is no logical responses to anything but just two words suffice, let me try: Citation Needed.

Or let me try another two word: Bull Shit. Our population has never been higher, our life expectancy has never been longer, our prospects have never been better there is not a single objective measurement you'd use on any other species to put us on an even endangered let alone exinct list. You're talking nonsense while trying to be high any mighty about it.

Its going to be tough but you're (probably) going to learn one day that you didn't learn everything you need to know about the world and life in the study of business and economics and reading Ayn Rand. For example, the measures you think scream success, in the natural world portend disaster. And in the end, business and economics are just a cultural manifestation, whereas humanity is truely and permanently rooted in and governed by the natural world.

Because I advocate doing stuff about real issues rather than make dreams about meeting magic men in the sky? No, its my attitude that makes society move on.

Who said anything about magic men in the sky??? And what you don't understand is that your idea of "moving on" is a relentless, uncontrolled, unplanned ride on a rocket ship that by all observed natural phenomena has to crash. And your further ideas that absolutely nothing should be done to adjust or plan for that crash is just to the right of lunacy.

How is that an ace? How will it save the people on Earth?

Intentionally daft again I see. Think about this: maybe the goal I am talking about isn't saving the people of Earth. If you read what I wrote with some semblance of honesty and/or care you will see it says, and I paraphrase, that if the people of Earth cannot be saved, at least with extra-solar colonies some people, and life in general, would survive whatever catastrophe occurred on Earth. Duh. I guess its only an ace if you value the survival of humanity or life in general even when you or your descendants can't survive. If that doesn't matter to you, then I can understand why your jaw is slack with confusion.

A yardstick of success won't be inhabiting other worlds as a means to saving us though.

When the inevitable happens, that will be the only measure of success and even people as confused as you will recognize it.

[RandBlade]

But...it is economical. It's just that it's a long-term investment. We already have most of the technology needed. The real problem, I think, is that it'll take too long to see a return on the investment, and it ceases to matter that the return will be practically infinite (there are candidate asteroids out there that could supply all our metal needs at current rates for a million years). The time horizon problem again. Nobody wants to start it because even though the rewards are great and vast, it'll be a couple decades before we can start really collecting on them.

It will take more than just a couple of decades to achieve what you're talking about - it will take a lot of time, money and technological progress. We already have the technological progress happening though, in a few decades our technology will be nothing like it is today - we are already starting to commercialise space, which will achieve far more than militarising it has done.

If we just sit around twiddling our thumbs waiting until somebody else does all the hard stuff for us, well maybe that will actually happen, but it'll be a much longer wait, and all on the backs of a handful of people. We'll be cheating ourselves out of at least several decades, if not centuries, of ridiculous levels of mineral wealth. And that's not even touching all the relatively unpredictable benefits these sorts of endeavors almost always bring.

But collectively "we're" not doing that already.

Absolutely. Nobody predicted the communications that resulted from the original space programs. Also awesome materials sciences advances.

Seriously, think what we could have gotten for the cost of the Iraq war. Such a tragic waste.

What a joke that you complain like such a broken record about one military program, in order to contrast it with another military program.

we have never been as rich and as successful as we are today, we should cut down on welfare

if someone made better widgets you'd still want people to buy yours you're no better than Bell Labs

I work in a highly competitive industry, a very dog-eat-dog one. If my widgets were to bad, I'd be unemployed. If another person could do their widgets better than mine, I'd either have to update mine or move on.

Its going to be tough but you're (probably) going to learn one day that you didn't learn everything you need to know about the world and life in the study of business and economics and reading Ayn Rand. For example, the measures you think scream success, in the natural world portend disaster. And in the end, business and economics are just a cultural manifestation, whereas humanity is truely and permanently rooted in and governed by the natural world.

So in other words you have no reason at all to claim we're on the path to extinction; thought so.
[quote[Who said anything about magic men in the sky??? And what you don't understand is that your idea of "moving on" is a relentless, uncontrolled, unplanned ride on a rocket ship that by all observed natural phenomena has to crash. And your further ideas that absolutely nothing should be done to adjust or plan for that crash is just to the right of lunacy.[/quote] Evidence please of this impending crash.

Intentionally daft again I see. Think about this: maybe the goal I am talking about isn't saving the people of Earth. If you read what I wrote with some semblance of honesty and/or care you will see it says, and I paraphrase, that if the people of Earth cannot be saved, at least with extra-solar colonies some people, and life in general, would survive whatever catastrophe occurred on Earth. Duh. I guess its only an ace if you value the survival of humanity or life in general even when you or your descendants can't survive. If that doesn't matter to you, then I can understand why your jaw is slack with confusion.

No, I don't, why should we?

When the inevitable happens, that will be the only measure of success and even people as confused as you will recognize it.

What inevitable?

[Being]

I like your new avatar too.

Too many crosses, too few bodies. Empty crosses don't project the justice they were meant to deliver.

[GGT]

Does the UK have a space program? If so, how much money does it contribute to global space exploration and its technology that ends up benefiting everyone, from microwave ovens or thermal space blankets, to dehydrated foods (Tang! ) or turning urine into drinking water?

[EyeKhan]

Does the UK have a space program? If so, how much money does it contribute to global space exploration and its technology that ends up benefiting everyone, from microwave ovens or thermal space blankets, to dehydrated foods (Tang! ) or turning urine into drinking water?

Don't waste your time.

[GGT]

Don't waste your time.

Yeah, you're probably right. Never mind.

[']['ear]

What a joke that you complain like such a broken record about one military program, in order to contrast it with another military program.

What a joke to conflate a war with military research. Are you serious? There's a huge difference between having a state of the art military to defend ourselves and dicking around in other countries for 8 years. You've gone off the deep end if you're making statements like that to support your opinion.

[RandBlade]

What a joke to conflate a war with military research. Are you serious? There's a huge difference between having a state of the art military to defend ourselves and dicking around in other countries for 8 years. You've gone off the deep end if you're making statements like that to support your opinion.

The two are linked, without wars the incentive for military research declines.

You have very rose-tinted spectacles if you think the Space Race was a purely scientific and humanitarian endeavour, it was part and parcel of the Cold War. Arguably without the Cold War and conflicts like the Cuban Missile Crisis, Korean War, Vietnam War etc there would have been no will to go to the Moon etc in the manner that occured.

Modern research like the X Prize and Virgin Galactic etc are of a different nature and the likes of the latter I think are long-term more sustainable.

[']['ear]

The two are linked, without wars the incentive for military research declines.

Does it? I disagree. Without threats the incentive for military research declines. Or maybe not even that. To what degree has military research slowed since the end of the Cold War in 89/90? During this time, there have been minimal existential threats to our country, and most threats at all were tiny and regional. Look how easy and cheap it was to contain Hussein in Iraq for 13 years. Look how cheap and easy it was to resolve Balkan conflicts. Afghanistan is really the only major justifiable expense of that period, and even that many experts are arguing was done completely wrong, entailing a long-term occupation and low-level war (which is mid-level now), neither of which were really necessary to keep the Taliban on their heels and al Qaeda training minimized.

Besides, the Iraq war answered no threat, did nothing to make the US safer, and cost the US, what, 4500 lives and ~32000 wounded, and repopulated the homeless segment of US, which was sorely lacking as the fucked up Vietnam vets have died off. The costs for life-long care for the many crippled Iraq vets will be staggering, and that won't include the impact on families and communities throughout the country.

Up-front bill for Iraq war (no research): ~750 bn
Annual NASA budget: 18.7 bn
Annual NIH budget: 31.2 bn
Annual NSF budget: <7 bn

Now are you going to tell me that we couldn't have rocked the shit out of research for ten years for a tiny fraction of what we wasted in Iraq? Hell, we probably could have increased the entire federal investment in all science and technology research including military by 10% for ten years for one-tenth of the cost of the Iraq war. Or what if we had kept those agencies to inflationary increases, and instead sunk all that money into energy research?

If you want to assess impacts on economy, then divide total earnings from computer and internet industries and divide by total research expenditures into those industries. Whaddaya think, was that money well spent? How about the estimated 80-90% of the biotech/pharma industry that is based on government research? The vast majority of those products are based on decades of government funding, and thus wouldn't exist at all without government funding.

Chemistry? Physics? Need we go on? Our modern economy is built on two things: a) excellent foundational research funded overwhelmingly by governments, and b) excellent private free market development and marketing. Take one away and the other isn't worth much.

Don't take my word for it. Look at the countries who don't invest in foundational research. How are their technology industries doing? And let's not forget that all of our scientists are trained by doing that foundational science, so that a large chunk of them can move on to private industry.

The Space Race was part and parcel of the Cold War, arguably without the Cold War and conflicts like the Cuban Missile Crisis, Korean War, Vietnam War etc there would have been no will to go to the Moon etc

You do realize that the Cold War was not a war, right? Just because somebody comes up with a clever buzzword to describe the stalemate of MAD doesn't change the actual definition of "war." Se me note about "threat" vs. "war."

Modern research like the X Prize and Virgin Galactic etc are of a different nature and the likes of the latter I think are long-term more sustainable.

Yes, I think things like the X-prize are a good idea. A great idea, even. I also think they are spotty and will lead to a handful of technology burps. In other words, they are a good idea (necessary, even), but not sufficient. I'll note that similar avionics prizes were available through much of the 20th century, but in hindsight they contributed only modestly to avionics advancement. Perhaps we should base our assessment of such programs on how they have fared in the past wrt to moving the field forward?

[Nessus]

You have very rose-tinted spectacles if you think the Space Race was a purely scientific and humanitarian endeavour, it was part and parcel of the Cold War. Arguably without the Cold War and conflicts like the Cuban Missile Crisis, Korean War, Vietnam War etc there would have been no will to go to the Moon etc in the manner that occured.

If you're arguing that the current Afghan and Iraq theaters are in any way related to the realities of the Cold War you are even dumber than I ever imagined.

[RandBlade]

If you want to assess impacts on economy, then divide total earnings from computer and internet industries and divide by total research expenditures into those industries.

You have a figure for total R&D into those industries? I honestly wouldn't even know where to start, Intel alone spent $5.7bn on R&D in 2009 alone. Source

Don't take my word for it. Look at the countries who don't invest in foundational research. How are their technology industries doing? And let's not forget that all of our scientists are trained by doing that foundational science, so that a large chunk of them can move on to private industry.

Which countries are you talking about?

You do realize that the Cold War was not a war, right? Just because somebody comes up with a clever buzzword to describe the stalemate of MAD doesn't change the actual definition of "war." Se me note about "threat" vs. "war."

Were Korea and Vietnam not wars?

Yes, I think things like the X-prize are a good idea. A great idea, even. I also think they are spotty and will lead to a handful of technology burps. In other words, they are a good idea (necessary, even), but not sufficient. I'll note that similar avionics prizes were available through much of the 20th century, but in hindsight they contributed only modestly to avionics advancement. Perhaps we should base our assessment of such programs on how they have fared in the past wrt to moving the field forward?

Similar to government research then. It is private industry that has really led to almost all progress from the Industrial Revolution onwards, while the nations that have succeeded like the UK and US are those that have encouraged private enterprise.

[']['ear]

How much did Intel spend in 1950? 1960? Oh wait, there was no industry to make money on then, was there? Wow, good thing the government plowed money into relevant research for decades!

Thanks for proving my point for me.

[RandBlade]

How much did Intel spend in 1950? 1960? Oh wait, there was no industry to make money on then, was there? Wow, good thing the government plowed money into relevant research for decades!

Thanks for proving my point for me.

Funny, I thought IBM were in existance in the 1950's. Oh wait, they were. Well done for proving your own ignorance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History...ness_computing