Forum menu
wikipedia is your friend
mass production was developed by Margaret Hutchinson Rousseau funded by the us army with 2.3 million doses ready for the invasion of normandy
previously the 1 stsuccessful treatment of 1 patient required half the worlds existing stock
But seeing as you have no understanding of how these things are decided, who the hell are you to decide if it was worth funding or not?
I thought you were going to enlighten me on how things are funded?
Why the hostility? If you actually bother to read my original post, and have a think about it for a few minutes, you might actually see that far from attacking Science as a whole, I am merely wondering if time, effort and resources can't sometimes be used more effectively, for the benefit of more people Worldwide. How many more times must I make this point?
So, perhaps, just perhaps, I'm actually asking for Science to be used in a more egalitarian and humanitarian manner. What's the big problem with that?
Take the iPad; the current 'must-have' gadget. Wonderful technology. I can't help 'wanting' one.
Where is the funding to develop this kind of technology for those who could really benefit, such as those suffering from physical disabilities? I am not so naive that I can't see that consumerism and market forces have a part to play, and perhaps I'm being too idealistic, but it would be nice if such a thing were to take place. Instead, it seems that Science is too often hijacked to serve the greedy, rather than being used to help the needy.
Kimbers; I'm sorry if you are offended by anything I've said. I never meant to cause any offence, so I apologise. I think those who work in places like you do, do an incredible and invaluable job. I'd like to see them get more funding, and better access to the resources they need.
treatments of cancer requires xray machines
yay, guess what I'm currently programming...
Alternatives to oil-based fuels have been in existence for decades, but only now are we seeing their development. The development of such fuels has been stifled by powerful lobbies concerned with protecting their investment in the oil industries
What fuels are these and were they really stifled by shadowy oil companies or are they really just not ready for mainstream yet (i.e. hydrogen fuel cells).
Overall, from what you've said, I'd say your beef isn't really with science, but with Capitalism. Which is a whole other topic! 😀
Overall, from what you've said, I'd say your beef isn't really with science, but with Capitalism.
You know, you could have a point there... 😀
It has been an interesting discussion, this, and I'd like to think I've been given some food for thought. I don't think my overall position has changed much, but I've found quite a few points of view very interesting.
toys19; you need to relax a bit.
Also, you are "RudeBoy" and I claim my five pounds.
Eh? I've tried to be as polite as possible. That's a bit unfair. 🙁
toys19 - Member
EDIT - Its simpler to say: you are talking utter sh1t about something you clearly know nothing about.
He's not talking sh!t, he's 'blue sky' talking 😉
If provocative, simplistic or naive statements are just met with abusive replies, no-one learns anything except about the limitations of the responder.
It's not really the place for intelligent polite discussion I know, but if someone knows/understands something that the other doesn't why not just explain it ???
Actually, I'd like to thank all those who've posted intelligent comments, as surely it's through discussion and debate, that we can learn. I can certainly accept that some who are more knowledgeable than me have more insight into the matter. I think I've come away with perhaps a slightly more philosophical view of Science, and am willing to admit there is a degree of naivety on my part. I do still think that we, as a society, don't question and challenge Science enough, however. It's not an easy task. But I don't think blind acceptance of [i]everything[/i] you are told is healthy. You should always be prepared to challenge that which you feel may be flawed; that way maybe you can learn more and become more informed.
It's not really the place for intelligent polite discussion I know
😆
Oh ye of little faith!
Oh ye of little faith!
Oh FGS don't bring religion into it 😆
Eh? I've tried to be as polite as possible. That's a bit unfair.
hmm... "RudeBoy" is a former frequent poster on here, who you sound a lot like at points, rather than a reflection on the politeness of your posts (which is better than most here). 😀
Oh FGS don't bring religion into it
😆
And so it begins....
I've tried to be as polite as possible. That's a bit unfair.
I think you'll find that GrahamS was referring to a former STWer......a jumped up mouthy git, who talked a lot of crap.
I haven't really been paying much attention to this thread, so can't comment on whether you resemble him
........... what you been saying mate ?
Erm, that some stuff is good and some stuff is bad and maybe you should have an open mind... 🙄
Well you don't sound like him then........the geezer was a right obnoxious ****.
i must say, turkey murder is doing a fantastic impression. if he's not our friend then he's definately rory bremner.
Although if you don't mind me saying, you do sound a bit dopey mate.
Trailmonkey you're weird. You were going on about a certain rotund Boltonian steam enthusiast earlier. 😯 ❓
Ernie, that's nice, isn't it? What have I done to upset you? Why the nastiness? 😥
Now [i][b]I'm[/b][/i] starting to have my suspicions.
Just so we can discount all probabilities, tell me Talkemada, how tall are you ? And what would you do if a couple of disabled Bangladeshi shirt-lifters turned at your bed and breakfast to book a room for the night ?
Taller than Prince, not as tall as Peter Crouch.
What's their disability, ethnicity and sexual orientation got to do with anything? I don't own a B+B.
What on Earth are you going on about? 😯
What's their disability, ethnicity and sexual orientation got to do with anything?
Ouuuu....................WRONG answer 😐
Anyway, to conclude, I think it's safe to summarise that most Scientific Exploration is 'worth it', but some is a waste of time and money. Fair enough.
He's not talking sh!t, he's 'blue sky' talkingIf provocative, simplistic or naive statements are just met with abusive replies, no-one learns anything except about the limitations of the responder.
talkemeda,
Apologies, I was irritated by some of the things you said and didn't and still don't have the time to critique and be as nice as I'd wanted, so I am genuinely sorry for being a cranky ****er.
My major gripe is that your lack of knowledge about this area is exacerbated by what appears to be an education in science research from the various forms of media; ie TV and newspapers. They only tell you about the bad and annoying stuff.
I would request that you google and really study:
1) EPSRC
2) Technology Strategy Board
3) cordis.lu (especially NESTA on here)
Everything you need to know about blue skies funding and more outcome driven funding is found here. I'm deliberately not explaining these as you should have a poke around and find out for yourself. I'll bet after a few days of getting bored on these sites come back and tell us what you think of science and technology research funding decisions.
Love and peace..
Toys
I am quite suspiscious that you are fred dibnah aka padded bra aka rudeboy. Deny it!
Your point about energy consumption is valid and science is needed to make our systems more efficient AND we need nuclear energy to replace oil.
The population problem is driven by the availability of food. Today's population levels are only possible because of the development of fertilisers and farming mechanisation. Medievel farming techiques yield a fraction of the food needed now.
😯 ❓
I'll put on a dress and you can call me 'Monique', if it makes you happy...
Speaking of food, I need to pop out to the supermarket.
Or there will be no supper.
Dibnah, bang to rights, always was s bit comma happy....
Surely in that London the supermarket can't be so far away?