patrick.net

Rin says

Peter P says

Globalism is a good thing. We need to start seeing the world as our playground

Since it's already happened, there's no need to pretend that we can change it. I don't like globalism but I've come to accept it.

It really isn't that bad. When the playing field gets larger, the strong can only get stronger. Be strong.

Peter P says

Rin says

Peter P says

Globalism is a good thing. We need to start seeing the world as our playground

Since it's already happened, there's no need to pretend that we can change it. I don't like globalism but I've come to accept it.

It really isn't that bad. When the playing field gets larger, the strong can only get stronger. Be strong.

Doesn't matter for my career but if I were in some stateside industrial R&D group, I'd be ready to jump ship.

Rin says

Doesn't matter for my career but if I were in some stateside industrial R&D group, I'd be ready to jump ship.

One must balance passion against finance. Of course, having a windfall would change that. :-)

That said, there is no reason why science should be treated any different from art. There are poor artists. There are rich art whores. There are rich people who are artists. Similar for science.

Rin says

That $32-$40K/yr is not big money.

hmm, I thought you were thinking of giving people half a mil a year for running their own research labs. What possible attraction can $32-40k have? It's not even enough to pay for 1BR apt after paying their student loans. Post-docs put up the period of low pay in hopes of getting their own labs someday, complete with half a mil a year funding, hot secretary, wife and kids, and all that stuff. Not 32-40k/yr as the career end goal.

I always say that young people should consider working for a cruise line. No living expenses. Free travel. Easy hookups.

Reality says

What possible attraction can $32-40k have? It's not even enough to pay for 1BR apt after paying their student loans.

All the IP is theirs, not some Honeywell labs or Univ of CO Principal investigator.

And for a student, it's not bad money, since many share apartments or live with their parents and eat cafeteria food. Also, there's the army base in the Carolinas.

Eventually, with the help of having their own blog or a bloggers' community, they can now parlay their skills into either consulting (partially) or getting patents on their ideas.

Reality says

hot secretary, wife and kids, and all that stuff

This is why some ppl will take the exit strategy of medicine, finance, or patent law.

Reality says

Post-docs put up the period of low pay in hopes of getting their own labs someday, complete with half a mil a year funding, hot secretary, wife and kids, and all that stuff.

I wonder if they fantasize working for a Bond villian on a volcanic island completed with monorail. The hot secretary will be seduced away by a secret agent though.

Rin says

This is why some ppl will take the exit strategy of medicine, finance, or patent law.

Finance is the best field for hard science students. It is really no more toxic than the academia.

Rin says

I don't believe that a postdoc stipend, esp one earned through an examination process which at most, a small percentage of Americans can achieve, is the same as a welfare queen or a foster care swindle.

Rin, you seem there to have undercut your earlier explanation for why you switched from the first version of your plan to the second. (And, it took you an astonishingly long time even to recognize that you had changed your plans.) If you are at all serious about your "plan," what steps do you take to accomplish it? I can't help thinking that it serves some other purpose, psychologically, a half-baked dream to distract you, something to talk about rather than something to do actually. The irony is, if you did take the time to think it through, you would see that the current iteration is a Pruitt-Igoe style subsidy to the very ivory tower academies that you claim to deplore, as they would become the gatekeepers to your subsidy program that doesn't even require any useful work. (As a putative scientist, you must surely know the difference between effort and work.) At best, your base pay plus IP model would incent only the sort of jackpot stuff that the current SV dot-con culture drives already; more likely, it would produce new varieties of meth labs and similar underground revenue models. (For example, some of the 9/11 hijackers had university education funded by government.) All of the Pruitt Igoe tenants were supposedly monitored by their government subsidy programs, including domestic inspections, but the project failed catastrophically, with lethal consequences, amid conspicuous attention from everyone with even the slightest interest in the topic. It is a pity that rather than refine your plan you merely defend the latest arbitrary iteration, only ever changing it without realizing you've changed it until the fact is pointed out repeatedly.

Curious, did you and Reality both read the original header, the plan is the same, nothing has changed?

----"The idea is that by getting a particular score in a series of science & engineering exams, i.e. Organic Chemistry, Signals & Systems, Partial Differential Eqs, etc, one can get a stipend of $32K to $40K per year, to sit around and contemplate. The military will also provide some subsidized housing in a coastal area in the Carolinas, next to a base and thus, provide added security. Others, can either get their own place [ wherever they want ] or live with their parents."----

Where you're confused is that New Renter and I had a banter about being born a Rockefeller and financing a lab in Rio with Brazilian supermodels. I think you should be able to understand that New Renter and I have this jibjab all the time.

As for IP (and I mean potential IP, because the real goal here is intellectual freedom with IP as a side effect when lucky), I can tell you this ... I know someone who actually pulled off exactly that, without any Silicon Valley types, by doing water treatment experiments in his parent's basement in Massachusetts and was able to get his own patents. His partners, years later, were in Asia-Pacific. During this time, he had part-time jobs, as he was shunned by R&D labs. Today, he's retired.

Another guy did physics, also in his parent's home, but later, had to take a programming job at a bank because only one of his papers got anywhere. Thus, he gave it a try and passed on it later.

And I don't know why you keep bringing up Meth labs? A criminal does not want to be on the radar. It'll be very easy for the FBI to profile ppl in the program as the DoD will gather data on the participants. Did you not understand that with my Samuel Jackson's "Formula 51" illustration? A drug maker, earning $300K/yr, isn't studying for exams. He's living off the grid.

curious2 says

9/11 hijackers had university education funded

My program is for Americans, not Saudi nationals on a tourist or student visa. This is a misdirection.

Rin says

did you and Reality both read the original header, the plan is the same, nothing has changed?

I can only speak for myself, but yes I did read it, and yes you did change your plan, which you eventually acknowledged but have since forgotten. I read the rest of your comment as well, but your questions seem rhetorical. You should read more about policy and the importance of thinking through consequences, if you are serious. Otherwise it's a half-bakery with determination never to proceed, in which case TLDR.

Rin says

My program is for Americans....

Bruce Edwards Ivins was American, and worked in a government lab.

curious2 says

All of the Pruitt Igoe tenants were supposedly monitored by their government subsidy programs, including domestic inspections, but the project failed catastrophically

And again, housing projects are for lower income ppl who have no qualifying skills. Many of them will not pass the exams and the DoD has something called the military police/MP, who're far better at law enforcement than some inner city precinct.

Rin says

My program is for Americans....

Bruce Edwards Ivins was American, and worked in a government lab.

Rin says

housing projects are for lower income ppl....

You changed your plan to make that "for lower income ppl" also. Then you denied having changed your plan, because you hadn't even thought through your plan well enough to realize you'd changed it.

You don't need some big government program to restore science in the US. Tarrifs will do that.

Rin says

Rin says

My program is for Americans....

Bruce Edwards Ivins was American, and worked in a government lab.

And he committed suicide before his prosecution so where's the problem. He was investigated and took an easier path out.

curious2 says

Rin says

housing projects are for lower income ppl....

You changed your plan to make that "for lower income ppl" also. Then you denied having changed your plan, because you hadn't even thought through your plan well enough to realize you'd changed it.

Nope you just split my argument, housing projects were for lower income ppl with no skills. My program will be for any income (that's not the qualifier) who can pass those exams.

Rin says

Rin says

Rin says

My program is for Americans....

Bruce Edwards Ivins was American, and worked in a government lab.

And he committed suicide before his prosecution so where's the problem. He was investigated and took an easier path out.

If that's your definition of success, I don't want your program.

Rin says

the DoD has something called the military police/MP, who're far better at law enforcement than some inner city precinct.

You really refuse to think through your own plans.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/military-sex-offenders-fly-radar-returning-civilian-life/

Rin says

My program will be for any income....

You changed that back and forth now, while denying changing it. That's just dishonest.

Rin says

And again, housing projects are for lower income ppl who have no qualifying skills. Many of them will not pass the exams and the DoD has something called the military police/MP, who're far better at law enforcement than some inner city precinct.

Curious, how did you read this and conclude that my plan was about income?

Rin says

Rin says

And again, housing projects are for lower income ppl who have no qualifying skills. Many of them will not pass the exams and the DoD has something called the military police/MP, who're far better at law enforcement than some inner city precinct.

Curious, how did you read this and conclude that my plan was about income?

The income disqualifier is that if the person has some job, like analyst at JP Morgan, he needs to be unemployed for a year before signing on. That's it.

And unfortunately, one can't include his parent's income, so it's money in his own name.

Rin says

Curious, how did you read this and conclude that my plan was about income?

You wrote "a means tested, welfare/state sponsorship program." Then you wasted hours denying it.

curious2 says

Rin says

Curious, how did you read this and conclude that my plan was about income?

You wrote "a means tested, welfare/state sponsorship program ." Then you wasted hours denying the fact.

I think I'd made myself clear

1) The means is the exam

2) One needs to be separated from a job like an analyst in a financial firm or an R&D company, so that the govt stipend isn't a bonus structure.

Rin says

1) The means is the exam

Your refusal to read and think through your own plan means that you literally don't know what you're saying, and I'm not going to waste more time finding links for you, I'll simply cite Wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Means_test

I'm not talking about someone else's means test, I'm talking about my own. And I put it out

1) Exams

2) A year separation from prior job

The above is not a big deal and since grants get cancelled and companies go out of business regularly, that separation from work isn't hard to come by.

Rin says

I'm not talking about someone else's means test, I'm talking about my own.

Wake me when you decide to speak English instead of making up your own language as you go along. Otherwise, it's half-baked semantics.

curious2 says

Otherwise, it's half-baked semantics.

Sorry that I'd insulted some sacred, proper compound noun. For me, it's two nouns, forming a conceptual notion, not someone's name or department.

I still don't see why scientists and researchers should be favored by the system.

Peter P says

I still don't see why scientists and researchers should be favored by the system.

They shouldn't. A successful plan would reward results, not credentials. A successful plan would award prizes and grants for innovations that solve shared problems while reducing spending. Our current system has a market failure especially in the medical sector, where technology is used mainly to maximize lemon socialist subsidies. We could benefit from a counterweight program to promote innovations that save money while improving results, e.g. more cures and fewer daily maintenance revenue models.

curious2 says

Our current system has a market failure especially in the medical sector, where technology is used mainly to maximize lemon socialist subsidies. We could benefit from a counterweight program to promote innovations that save money.

Isn't it more efficient to outsource medical research to somewhere with less regulations on human testing? We can even call it moral arbitrage. :-)

Peter P says

Isn't it more efficient to outsource medical research to somewhere with less regulations on human testing?

We already do that, although in practice it means usually outsourcing to places that aren't as particular about results, i.e. when PhRMA wants to sell another disproved drug, they have it tested in a "rescue country" to get FDA approval and American government subsidies. The net result is Americans paying more for drugs that don't work. We could benefit from a program that rewards good results, regardless of where they are produced, although if we want to promote American prosperity we should probably make some effort to promote work happening here.

Peter P says

I still don't see why scientists and researchers should be favored by the system

Here's the thing ... fine arts programs, while interesting, do not require the same level of work to accomplish, relative to let's say mechanical engineering.

When New Renter and I finish off our careers, we will probably not see a single American, graduating from a STEM program, aside from these sort of STEM-to-business school types or premeds or prelaws.

No one will study a subject which require many hours of work, versus something which be can done a lot easier.

What that means is that in the future, the ideas, thinking, etc, will pretty much be in Asia, including formerly closed off countries like Mongolia. Here's a brilliant kid from Mongolia, being recruited by MIT via his success in an online MIT course ...

http://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/blog/2013/09/13/mongolian-teen-aces-mit-online-course-gets-mit/

In the distant future, that school will maintain a museum, much like the old Polaroid building in Mass, while everything else is done in Asia with research campuses between Seoul, Jakarta, and Almaty. At best, it may only keep its namesake, despite not being anything of importance in Mass.

Thus, what'll happen is that we'll have a society where no one will be studying science and soon, you won't be hearing about a neighbor, working on a water purifier in his basement nor about some guy, attempting to write a paper on spatial anomalies in physics. These inspired individuals will simply give up, earlier on in life, and get videodrome-d.

The resources for real STEM work will be outside of the US but also, Americans won't be able to get technical visas, to work over there, as many of those countries are not easy to immigrate to.

So the end result is bad for America without attempting to get a certain population of individuals, studying science and engineering, whether or not their work is of immediate value.

Rin says

Here's the thing ... fine arts programs, while interesting, do not require the same level of work to accomplish, relative to let's say mechanical engineering.

This is debatable. Engineering degrees, while vigorous, are very straight-forward.

There will always be people studying science and engineering for 2 reasons:

1. they want to start a company
2. they are passionate about the subject

Americans are still the innovative bunch. This is not due to the education system. Rather, the culture here still rewards success, and the first crucial ingredient of success is to be different.

Peter P says

1. they want to start a company

2. they are passionate about the subject

And my idea will help both crowds. In the case of the water purifier guy, he had to develop his own work, independent of a company owning his IP. In addition, he didn't have the Angel investing angle of an SVer, as that would have made his potential royalties from his patents less palatable. Many SVers are money grubber types.

Thus, he worked for years on it and paid his bills by part-time work. When he finally got an Asian company to partner with him, his change of fortune was a direct result of his patent royalties.

The other guy was passionate about physics. He did a lot of his own theoretical work, until he realized that he wasn't going nowhere, and took up a programming job at a bank. I believe that both guys are success stories for STEM for it indicates that independent types can do their own work.

I believe that by 2100, we won't be hearing these stories anymore. Sure, they'll be told over a campfire in Kazakhstan but as you can gather, that's on the other side of the globe.

Rin says

The idea is that by getting a particular score in a series of science & engineering exams, i.e. Organic Chemistry, Signals & Systems, Partial Differential Eqs, etc, one can get a stipend of $32K to $40K per year, to sit around and contemplate. The military will also provide some subsidized housing in a coastal area in the Carolinas, next to a base and thus, provide added security. Others, can either get their own place [ wherever they want ] or live with their parents.

Sir,

Your proposal sounds like a purely Merit based system to focus STEM towards solving real world problems. This progressive type of technology focus, broadly applied was pushed by the White house, and applied over 100 years ago.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_Era

It was designed to defuse corruption, and simultaneously redirect funds into Science. Within years the Telegraph was invented, motorized flight, radio, TV, Modern Physics, and the total payoff 100000X the investment.

Now in the 2000s we also have a very corrupt system, of Cronyism, people abandoned Science, and Manufacturing.

With Lawyers expending > $700B per annum, and Basic Small Business funding and Applied Research funding by to NIH, DOE, DOT, DOD

continued:

With Lawyers expending > $700B per annum, and Basic Small Business funding and Applied Research funding by to NIH, DOE, DOT, DOD

With Lawyers expending > $700B per annum, and Basic Small Business funding and Applied Research funding by to NIH, DOE, DOT, DOD less than $3B (1/2 of one percent of that of Legal Fees) - how do you get the Legal / Lobbyist leadership to abandon the non-productive Malinvestment and have a high ROI type investment that you proscribe short of a full fledged Reset?

Peter P says

Isn't it more efficient to outsource medical research to somewhere with less regulations on human testing? We can even call it moral arbitrage. :-)

Lets take this idea to the limit. Lets evaluate what has not been outsourced and attempt to have a NAFTA to outsource other key industries (that remain).

Then near all Americans can work at Target/Walmart/BK/Hardies and will have the pay equalization that Warren/Clinton ascribe to?

Entitlemented says

Your proposal sounds like a purely Merit based system to focus STEM towards solving real world problems.

The idea is not so much a direct 'solving of real world problems' but to give freedom to those, who can do science/engineering work on their own, without the academy or corporate America.

Entitlemented says

how do you get the Legal / Lobbyist leadership to abandon the non-productive Malinvestment and have a high ROI type investment that you proscribe short of a full fledged Reset?

There's nothing one can do with the above. Most of our politicians are lawyers in themselves. And many, upon leaving Congress, join a lobbying firm.

Dems get > 95% of Lobbying funds. No wonder of all the Malinvested and Superstitious Laws...........

Lobbyist To Dems To Repubs To Super PACs

Barnes, Ben $181,410 $167,050 $3,600 $5,000
Bingel, Kelly $149,221 $132,121 $0 $5,000
Burgos, Tonio $246,576 $190,426 $9,050 $40,000
Castagnetti, David $149,225 $143,075 $0 $0
Champlin, Steven M $141,400 $115,900 $0 $25,000
Elmendorf, Steven $168,865 $155,365 $0 $10,000
Fazio, Vic $162,500 $144,900 $0 $1,000
Finley, Shannon $188,896 $171,536 $0 $10,000
Geduldig, Sam K $200,260 $250 $199,760 $0
Graefe, Frederick H $136,526 $111,076 $24,200 $0
Hohlt, Richard F $135,300 $0 $129,300 $0
Jankowsky, Joel $200,615 $174,765 $0 $0
Kies, Kenneth J $180,150 $1,000 $179,150 $0
Kimberly, Richard H $196,000 $1,500 $189,500 $0
Kountoupes, Lisa $124,450 $120,200 $0 $0
MacKinnon, Jeffrey M $148,070 $0 $148,070 $0
O'Brien, Lawrence F III $173,000 $168,000 $0 $5,000
Podesta, Heather $166,998 $127,500 $0 $35,748
Podesta, Tony $178,200 $161,800 $2,600 $0
Raffaniello, Patrick J 'Pat' $148,204 $3,000 $144,204 $0
Ryan, James 'Jimmy' $161,900 $111,900 $0 $50,000
Smith, Michael D $132,380 $130,680 $500 $0
Spicer, Tracy B $131,700 $125,200 $0 $0
Woods, Andrew L $252,700 $145,200 $2,500 $100,000
Zirkin, Nancy $140,849 $134,845 $1,000 $0

This is better to view Lobbyists

https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/lobby_topcontribs.php?cycle=2014&type=F