I mean this as an even-handed question: with public funding of research, where would the incentive come from to find stuff that was actually useful, as opposed to just interesting for the researcher?
By not requiring the government to fund every researcher regardless of what they intend to do?
Well, obviously. But once the funding has been disbursed, what incentive there is to pursue useful, as opposed to interesting, research?
If you're going to fund drug development through government funding, why grant a monopoly? Just release it to the public domain. The company who can produce the cheapest generic will get the business. In order to fund development of drugs, charge a surcharge on all drugs. The whole thing could be revenue neutral from the government's perspective. But the drugs would be cheaper in the end. The reason is that drug companies do *not* charge extra to make up their development costs. They charge what the market will bear. You will essentially be removing the profit from the drug companies and keeping it in the pockets of consumers.
I mean this as an even-handed question: with public funding of research, where would the incentive come from to find stuff that was actually useful, as opposed to just interesting for the researcher?
Deaths per terrawatt hour is not a useful metric. Even if that number is certain to be higher with everyone favorite whipping boy, coal or oil, natural gas, solar whatever there is very little that can go wrong with those which would render a large area unlivable all at once. The deaths and health costs they create are spread over time. Society can budget for and deal with those costs and even cope with the occasion colamity.
With neuclear on the other hand the absolute costs might be less but the potential to have bear them all at once exists and it could very well be a back breaker for any society, that is the prespective you have to use.
This is certainly deserving of +5 insightful, but I disagree with it, and for the following reason: deaths per Twh gives some perspective to an otherwise ridiculously one-sided debate about the dangers of nuclear. If we had had more Gen II nuclear reactors built during the 70s instead of panicking about very unlikely accidents, then our current energy problems would be far, far less troublesome.
Hmm, so a baby at 36 weeks but still in the womb isn't alive? Even though, were the child to be outside the womb, it would survive on its own without any medical intervention?
Do you see a problem with this? I am not seeing why this should be a problematic thing to accept.
Because of the obvious analogy to other situations where humans are helpless but apparently still considered alive, e.g. life support.
I think there are two possible solutions to this:
1. Don't allow downmodding. Or maybe just have a reporting system for spam. The best posts should still rise to the top if you increase the score ceiling, say to +20.
2. Don't allow people to choose which posts they moderate. Have moderation work like metamoderation does now - the system decides which posts you can moderate. That should stop karma raids dead.
"On the contrary, I would argue that the problem with nuclear power is that, as is becoming increasingly clear, people's fears about it are *justified*."
Nonsense. All significant accidents have happened in old (in some cases, 3 "generations" old) technology plants, and sometimes human error was a major component.
But, in fairness to the parent poster, human error, slackness in applying regulations, construction short-cuts etc. will always be a risk. Of course newer designs are much safer, and FWIW I am pro-nuclear, but is it really nonsense to say that people's fears are justified?
Physician: One upon whom we set our hopes when ill and our dogs when well. -- Ambrose Bierce
