Why do so many people deny climate change

[flacaltenn]

Early developments of the integrated circuit go back to 1949, when the German engineer Werner Jacobi (de) (Siemens AG)[5] filed a patent for an integrated-circuit-like semiconductor amplifying device[6] showing five transistors on a common substrate in a 3-stage amplifier arrangement. Jacobi disclosed small and cheap hearing aids as typical industrial applications of his patent. An immediate commercial use of his patent has not been reported.
The idea of the integrated circuit was conceived by a radar scientist working for the Royal Radar Establishment of the British Ministry of Defence, Geoffrey W.A. Dummer (1909–2002). Dummer presented the idea to the public at the Symposium on Progress in Quality Electronic Components in Washington, D.C. on 7 May 1952.[7] He gave many symposia publicly to propagate his ideas, and unsuccessfully attempted to build such a circuit in 1956.
A precursor idea to the IC was to create small ceramic squares (wafers), each one containing a single miniaturized component. Components could then be integrated and wired into a bidimensional or tridimensional compact grid. This idea, which looked very promising in 1957, was proposed to the US Army by Jack Kilby, and led to the short-lived Micromodule Program (similar to 1951's Project Tinkertoy).[8] However, as the project was gaining momentum, Kilby came up with a new, revolutionary design: the IC.
Robert Noyce credited Kurt Lehovec of Sprague Electric for the principle of p-n junction isolation caused by the action of a biased p-n junction (the diode) as a key concept behind the IC.[9]

Jack Kilby's original integrated circuit


Newly employed by Texas Instruments, Kilby recorded his initial ideas concerning the integrated circuit in July 1958, successfully demonstrating the first working integrated example on 12 September 1958.[10] In his patent application of 6 February 1959, Kilby described his new device as “a body of semiconductor material … wherein all the components of the electronic circuit are completely integrated.”[11] The first customer for the new invention was the US Air Force.[12]
Kilby won the 2000 Nobel Prize in Physics for his part of the invention of the integrated circuit.[13] Kilby's work was named an IEEE Milestone in 2009.[14]
Noyce also came up with his own idea of an integrated circuit half a year later than Kilby. His chip solved many practical problems that Kilby's had not. Produced at Fairchild Semiconductor, it was made of silicon, whereas Kilby's chip was made of germanium.
Fairchild Semiconductor was also home of the first silicon gate IC technology with self-aligned gates, which stands as the basis of all modern CMOS computer chips. The technology was developed by Italian physicist Federico Faggin in 1968, who later joined Intel in order to develop the very first Central Processing Unit (CPU) on one chip (Intel 4004), for which he received the National Medal of Technology and Innovation in 2010.

Pretty much what I said about Apollo being a first customer.. The innovation was very distributed through industry. Not a focuse effort by govt...

 

[PMZ]

Encouraging innovation can be used sparingly.

Why sparingly?

Strategically, not tactically.. Because Govt has to get into the pants of MULTIPLE corporations on the same project. And then there is the problem of proprietary information being leaked and favorites being played. That leads to more govt/corp collusion. Universities also develop conflicts of interest when being fed from both sources.

AND -- because the govt has the attention span of a Valley girl.. And doesn't have the motivation to see things thru that motivates investment in the private sector.

PURE research or strategic programs in space, military, or medicine for example, I highly favor over giving GE $75 for each Energy efficient washer/dryer that they sell.

''because the govt has the attention span of a Valley girl''

You say so much based on only one fact. Somebody told you without evidence, it felt good, so you repeat it without evidence.

That makes you so easy to cult-tivate as a minion.

Millions of conservatives led by their feelings.

 

[westwall]

 

[flacaltenn]

Have you ever noticed how damn accurately the projections of our tormenters match their demonstrated beliefs and actions???

It's incredibly reflectant. Virtually NOTHING gets absorbed. It's a perfect mirror..
Hope you're not "left enough" to have a dose of that...

 

[westwall]

Have you ever noticed how damn accurately the projections of our tormenters match their demonstrated beliefs and actions???

It's incredibly reflectant. Virtually NOTHING gets absorbed. It's a perfect mirror..
Hope you're not "left enough" to have a dose of that...

I'm a scientist first, observations always win out over personally held beliefs.

 

[PMZ]

The computers used for the moon mission had less power than a digital watch. it was afterwards when private industry got involved in the computer chip business when we saw great leaps and bounds.



The government did not develop construction methods all it did was set minimum standards for buildings. The construction industry had to find a way to meet those standards in an efficient affordable manner.






It's not the government's job to provide for our needs.



Here we go again with the Somalia red herring.

Where has anyone here suggested we have no government?

Somalia is not a red herring. It's the realized vision of extreme conservative politics, though it was realized just by people who didn't know any better. Conservatives don't know any better either. They merely follow those selling plutocracy.

That you can't see advocating for less intrusive government is not the same as advocating for no government tells me all I need to know about your intelligence.

Show us some evidence that less government is advantageous. How about some examples.

 

[PMZ]

Have you ever noticed how damn accurately the projections of our tormenters match their demonstrated beliefs and actions???

It's incredibly reflectant. Virtually NOTHING gets absorbed. It's a perfect mirror..
Hope you're not "left enough" to have a dose of that...

I'm a scientist first, observations always win out over personally held beliefs.

You simply have presented no evidence of being a scientist and mounds to the contrary.

 

[PMZ]

Have you ever noticed how damn accurately the projections of our tormenters match their demonstrated beliefs and actions???

It's incredibly reflectant. Virtually NOTHING gets absorbed. It's a perfect mirror..
Hope you're not "left enough" to have a dose of that...

Completely absent of fact.

 

[freedombecki]

Encouraging innovation can be used sparingly.

Why sparingly?

Strategically, not tactically.. Because Govt has to get into the pants of MULTIPLE corporations on the same project. And then there is the problem of proprietary information being leaked and favorites being played. That leads to more govt/corp collusion. Universities also develop conflicts of interest when being fed from both sources.

AND -- because the govt has the attention span of a Valley girl.. And doesn't have the motivation to see things thru that motivates investment in the private sector.

PURE research or strategic programs in space, military, or medicine for example, I highly fProjavor over giving GE $75 for each Energy efficient washer/dryer that they sell.

''because the govt has the attention span of a Valley girl''

You say so much based on only one fact. Somebody told you without evidence, it felt good, so you repeat it without evidence.

That makes you so easy to cult-tivate as a minion.

Millions of conservatives led by their feelings.

Project much?

 

[PMZ]

Strategically, not tactically.. Because Govt has to get into the pants of MULTIPLE corporations on the same project. And then there is the problem of proprietary information being leaked and favorites being played. That leads to more govt/corp collusion. Universities also develop conflicts of interest when being fed from both sources.

AND -- because the govt has the attention span of a Valley girl.. And doesn't have the motivation to see things thru that motivates investment in the private sector.

PURE research or strategic programs in space, military, or medicine for example, I highly fProjavor over giving GE $75 for each Energy efficient washer/dryer that they sell.

''because the govt has the attention span of a Valley girl''

You say so much based on only one fact. Somebody told you without evidence, it felt good, so you repeat it without evidence.

That makes you so easy to cult-tivate as a minion.

Millions of conservatives led by their feelings.

Project much?

I observe.

 

[westwall]

 

[freedombecki]

''because the govt has the attention span of a Valley girl''

You say so much based on only one fact. Somebody told you without evidence, it felt good, so you repeat it without evidence.

That makes you so easy to cult-tivate as a minion.

Millions of conservatives led by their feelings.

Project much?

I observe.

While you're typing out inanities? Oh yeah baby.

..

..

..​

.[

 

[Abraham3]

Pretty much what I said about Apollo being a first customer.. The innovation was very distributed through industry. Not a focuse effort by govt...

Without government investment and purchasing, integrated circuits would have taken years longer to get into the marketplace.

And this is certainly not the only example of both direct and indirect beneficial government investments in research. Damn few companies out there conduct unapplied research. How many satellites would be in orbit? Would we have a Hubble? Any of the manned missions? Mercury, Gemini, Apollo, the Shuttle or the ISS? Any of the planetary probes? Why didn't business fund the Human Genome Project? Surely there was money to be made there? How about the massive biological surveys that have been conducted across several nations? There's all manner of stuff that the goverment has funded, that has benefitted humanity six ways from Sunday, that no business would ever have put a dime towards: too risky and too little gain to be had.

Arguing that government is all bad is just a crap position.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Pretty much what I said about Apollo being a first customer.. The innovation was very distributed through industry. Not a focuse effort by govt...

Without government investment and purchasing, integrated circuits would have taken years longer to get into the marketplace.

And this is certainly not the only example of both direct and indirect beneficial government investments in research. Damn few companies out there conduct unapplied research. How many satellites would be in orbit? Would we have a Hubble? Any of the manned missions? Mercury, Gemini, Apollo, the Shuttle or the ISS? Any of the planetary probes? Why didn't business fund the Human Genome Project? Surely there was money to be made there? How about the massive biological surveys that have been conducted across several nations? There's all manner of stuff that the goverment has funded, that has benefitted humanity six ways from Sunday, that no business would ever have put a dime towards: too risky and too little gain to be had. Arguing that government is all bad is just a crap position.

Arguing that government is all bad is just a crap position.

So is arguing that government is all good.

 

[PMZ]

Project much?

I observe.

While you're typing out inanities? Oh yeah baby.

..

..

..​

.[

Cartoons are inanities.

 

[PMZ]

Pretty much what I said about Apollo being a first customer.. The innovation was very distributed through industry. Not a focuse effort by govt...

Without government investment and purchasing, integrated circuits would have taken years longer to get into the marketplace.

And this is certainly not the only example of both direct and indirect beneficial government investments in research. Damn few companies out there conduct unapplied research. How many satellites would be in orbit? Would we have a Hubble? Any of the manned missions? Mercury, Gemini, Apollo, the Shuttle or the ISS? Any of the planetary probes? Why didn't business fund the Human Genome Project? Surely there was money to be made there? How about the massive biological surveys that have been conducted across several nations? There's all manner of stuff that the goverment has funded, that has benefitted humanity six ways from Sunday, that no business would ever have put a dime towards: too risky and too little gain to be had.

Arguing that government is all bad is just a crap position.

Part of the conservative business direction is no R&D. Too risky. While laying off workers who create wealth is not. Shrink to success. Even though that's never been the case in corporate history.

 

[westwall]

 

[PMZ]

Pretty much what I said about Apollo being a first customer.. The innovation was very distributed through industry. Not a focuse effort by govt...

Without government investment and purchasing, integrated circuits would have taken years longer to get into the marketplace.

And this is certainly not the only example of both direct and indirect beneficial government investments in research. Damn few companies out there conduct unapplied research. How many satellites would be in orbit? Would we have a Hubble? Any of the manned missions? Mercury, Gemini, Apollo, the Shuttle or the ISS? Any of the planetary probes? Why didn't business fund the Human Genome Project? Surely there was money to be made there? How about the massive biological surveys that have been conducted across several nations? There's all manner of stuff that the goverment has funded, that has benefitted humanity six ways from Sunday, that no business would ever have put a dime towards: too risky and too little gain to be had. Arguing that government is all bad is just a crap position.

Arguing that government is all bad is just a crap position.

So is arguing that government is all good.

It's all good until someone comes up with data that shows that it's not. So far the data shows that, in this modern, complex world, more education, more energy reform, more diplomacy and less war, more science and less politics, more reliance on the middle class and less on the wealthy, more health care, are productive.

 

[bripat9643]

Pretty much what I said about Apollo being a first customer.. The innovation was very distributed through industry. Not a focuse effort by govt...

Without government investment and purchasing, integrated circuits would have taken years longer to get into the marketplace.

That statement is what the empiricists call "non-falsifiable." However, since history shows that many technologies developed quite rapidly without government subsidies of any kind, we can confidantly assume that it's false. For example, between the wars the airplane went from bi-plane technology capable of little more than 100 mph to low wing, stressed skin monoplane technology capable of over 400 mph.

Industrial planning has shown itself to be a colossal failure wherever it has been tried.

And this is certainly not the only example of both direct and indirect beneficial government investments in research. Damn few companies out there conduct unapplied research. How many satellites would be in orbit?

Why would private companies invest in rocket technology when the government was already spending billions on it?

Would we have a Hubble? Any of the manned missions? Mercury, Gemini, Apollo, the Shuttle or the ISS? Any of the planetary probes?

How have any of those things benefited consumers?

Why didn't business fund the Human Genome Project? Surely there was money to be made there?

Why would they when government was already funding it?

How about the massive biological surveys that have been conducted across several nations? There's all manner of stuff that the goverment has funded, that has benefitted humanity six ways from Sunday, that no business would ever have put a dime towards: too risky and too little gain to be had.

Aside from the human genome project, you haven't listed any. It's also debatable whether the human genome project has benefited humanity significantly.

Arguing that government is all bad is just a crap position.

That's dead wrong. Even if the results of government spending are good, the bottom line is that the revenue for all government spending is obtain by threatening people with guns. That automatically makes it bad.

 

[bripat9643]

Without government investment and purchasing, integrated circuits would have taken years longer to get into the marketplace.

And this is certainly not the only example of both direct and indirect beneficial government investments in research. Damn few companies out there conduct unapplied research. How many satellites would be in orbit? Would we have a Hubble? Any of the manned missions? Mercury, Gemini, Apollo, the Shuttle or the ISS? Any of the planetary probes? Why didn't business fund the Human Genome Project? Surely there was money to be made there? How about the massive biological surveys that have been conducted across several nations? There's all manner of stuff that the goverment has funded, that has benefitted humanity six ways from Sunday, that no business would ever have put a dime towards: too risky and too little gain to be had. Arguing that government is all bad is just a crap position.

Arguing that government is all bad is just a crap position.

So is arguing that government is all good.

It's all good until someone comes up with data that shows that it's not. So far the data shows that, in this modern, complex world, more education, more energy reform, more diplomacy and less war, more science and less politics, more reliance on the middle class and less on the wealthy, more health care, are productive.

First off, you have to demonstrate the government actually produces more health care, more middle class and more education. The term "energy reform" is just a politician's bogus propaganda word.

Government is responsible for all wars, so it's absurd to expect it to be the cause of less war.