Well good to see where you were coming from all along.

Ohh that is a whole nother can o worms.

That question is "when is the science good enough to dislocate the entire world and crush people's dreams of a better life"

Oh and I forgot to mention it. But most radionuclides for medicine are made in reactors not with accelerators. Though I would be willing to bet there are people trying to adapt a Farnsworth Fusor to the production.

But please keep on posting factual inaccuracies, it leaves little doubt why you are posting anonymously.

What I am referring to is the fact if you had petascale processor back in the 70s it wouldn't have mattered. The understanding of the underlying physical system has changed. If you don't have adequate knowledge of the system your model will never yield accurate results.

Well I would be completely taken aback, If I knew nothing about the field.

Lets go one by one

Ion implantation, This goes back to the 1950s you want to tell me how it's a spin off from the LHC ?

Synchrotron Light Sources : At least back to the 70s and btw you forgot to mention it's cousin the Free Electron laser

Radiotherapy: Goes back to the early 1900s

Radio Isotope generation for medicine: Goes back to the original cyclotrons, want to tell me how this is a spinoff from giant accelerators ?

Your list may in no way be comprehensive except for being comprehensively wrong.

Really I don't know how it would be possible to more completely miss a point. It's not about particular tech it's about the process of funding. You fund fund Brodibingian versions of things you have already done, it means you aren't funding other approaches. You want another good example ? Take the human genome project, Ventner's shotgun technique blew away the existing techniques.

Woosh sailed over your head.

Oh my god. The quality of any model is much more dependent on the understanding of the system and the mathematics governing it, than it ever will be on the computational horsepower you throw at it. If anything the need for computational capacity indicates how lacking a model is. The most powerful models of the physical universe can all be run on pencil and paper.

Where I live would be under water after being scoured away by hurricanes. If the doomsday people had of been right in their predictions from the 80s.

I also see you and Spy Handler were smacked because you don't accept the doomsday religion.
  That pretty much sums it up. GLOBAL WARMING BECAUSE "STFU"

It's much more general than that. You should never take untestable propositions of any kind on faith. 30 Years ago the global warming people were saying my home would be under water now, and that would have been after being scoured away by storms.

Unh hunh. Where do I start

LHC cost vs Accelerator spending in the U.S. nice change up there. Why don't you argue botswana's particle physics budget as the opposition ?

And while you are at it why don't you mention just how much of the U.S. laser budget is military based, rendering the pure science aspects a freebie ?

Name a few, there's virtually none. The last time I saw someone make this claim it was a colleague working at RHIC trying to tie his work to P.E.T. scans, and he knew it was B.S. and I knew it was B.S.

No I am pretty sure I have stepped on the toes of someone who is happy with the status quo of how government funds academic science, and probably aspires to have the spot occupied by a dieing generation.

What issues have you raised ? You have blathered on about plasma accelerators getting funding 20 years late.

LOL scratch a big scientist and find someone who believes in a command economy. The difference between the LHC and Hard drives is that people buy hard drives of their own free will. The money for the LHC is extracted at the threat of imprisonment.

And just an FYI plasma accelerators go back to the 80s, when it was already clear the SSC had reached ridiculousness.

We could just make it easier to get the research and experimentation tax credit.

Just to put things on the table, I am pro science but I am anti lazy science. The LHC is by any standard lazy science, in that the thought progress for 60 years leading up to it, was build it BIGGER BIGGER BIGGER. It was pretty clear as far back as the SSC proposals there were other routes to go, ring type accelerators just have been a conceptually lazy approach. Also they tended to funny money and prestige into the mini industry that grew up around them, choking off potential other approaches.

Sorry my candidates don't shoot roses from their loins like yours do.
If I get a level of reasonably competent government with a level of theft less than the democrats I will be very pleasantly surprised.