Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: elmatador who wrote (61111)	2/14/2010 12:55:35 PM
From: koan	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 218005

>>Steve Jobs and Bill Gates did not come as innovators because of university system.>> Exceptions to the rule. And Bill Gates did drop out of Harvard. >>The drive was defense money driving innovation. By Cold War end, 2/3 of all engineers and scientists were working for defense effort. I never see any innovation in discovering new particles. Mooney going to the so called pure science is money thrown down the drain.>> Surely you are not saying the best expenditure of money is on defense? You cannot think of a better expenditure of money than on defense? Defense spending crowds out other important spending. And you cannot be serious to say money spent on pure science is money down the drain. Had we fininshed building the huge collider in Texas that Clinton was force to shut down we might have found the Higgs Boson and how matter is created and the birth of the universe, not to mention a zillion other insights into quantum physics who theories directly affect 40% of everything we produce. Pure science is the most imporant thing to study. Hard or soft science. You don't think discovering economical fusion might be important to our energy needs going forward? Or medicine e.g stem cell research, social sciences, artificial intelligence, and the list is infinite.