From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: Supercollider "For" or "Against"
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 19:46:41 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <1992Jul29.165150.8668@dscomsf.desy.de> hallam@zeus02.desy.de writes:
>In article <Bs5J72.6t3@apollo.hp.com>, nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter
>Nelson) writes:
>|>In article <1992Jul28.233106.2299@dscomsf.desy.de>
>|>>secrecy compartmentalises expertise. After the cold war is over we need
>|>>to rescue as much of that expertise as possible lest it be lost.
>|>
>|>  Again, I don't understand:  if that expertise is genuinely valuable
>|>  to meet people's needs then it won't be lost, it will be used by
>|>  private companies to develop new products. 
>
>Problem is that the immediate usefulness of a technology is not always
>apparent. Also a technology that is only marginaly useful now may prove
>to be critical much later.

   But there's no way to tell which ones those might be.  If money 
   was not a big issue then I would agree that it might be reasonable
   to maintain a number of lines of "basic research" in the expectation
   that a fraction of those might be useful down the road.   But money
   IS an issue so I think we have to only pursue those areas that 
   appear to lead toward significant practical benefits.  The US is 
   running a $400 billion (US) budget deficit.  I used to also be a
   major supporter of basic space and astronomy research, too, but 
   under these economic circumstances I think it's financially
   irresponsible to spend the kind of money it takes for projects
   like the space station.  


>|> Satellite communications, 
>|>  jet engines, radar, certain IC technology and *many* other things are
>|>  all instances of technology that was successfully transitioned into
>|>  private hands because it met a need.    If that expertise is NOT 
>|>  useful to the general market then who cares if it's "lost" (it won't
>|>  be completely lost, I assume records will be kept).
>
>Records are not much good as a means of preserving technology. Too much
>of the actual expertise tends to reside in the culture that supports the
>technology.

   By "records" I mean detailed technical descriptions of the technology.
   What couldn't you reconstruct from that? 

   I'm not suggesting basic science be totally eliminated.   If the
   world had half as many high energy physicists, astronomers, etc
   as it has today, and the total money spent in these fields were
   half what it is today, we wouldn't return to a Dark Ages of
   science; things would just happen a lot slower and on a smaller
   scale than now.  


>|>  its latest CDROM drives, HP developed its Scanjet, Intel its clock-
>|>  doubled CPU's and MediaVision its latest sound card for private gain
>|>  and profit.   But they also meet *my* needs which is why I expect to
>|>  buy them in the next 6 months.   
>
>But there is also the counter example of industries which deliberately
>refused to persue research. GM and Ford used to be pleased as punch that
>rust rendered a replacement for their products necessary after a few
>years. Built-in obselesence was the name of the game.

  And the market responded to this by clobbering the big 3's market share
  and opening the doors to more reliable, quality-conscious imports!  
  I think this is a good example of how the market ensures that 
  private companies keep their customer's needs in mind.   


---peter





Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc