On 21 January 2012 15:11, Peter Franta <[email protected]> wrote: > VPRI answer to their Government and Private Funders, not those of us who > have the fortune to observe as they go.
Government-funded is publically funded. I'm disappointed that public funding rules apparently impose nothing more than an annual report on publically-funded research programs. > It is my understanding the deliverable is not a "product" but "lessons > learned" to go and do it for real! Not ideal for us but then they're not > serving us. If they're government-funded they're serving the US taxpayer. Admittedly I'm not a US citizen, but heck, I contribute to the revenues of plenty of US corporations, on which they presumably pay tax. And I said nothing about product, but I'll get to that later. > Clearly this doesn't match your expectations. This is frustrating to you but > are your expectations their concern? Where do these expectations come from? It matches my expectations all too well: brilliant research looking like it will be flushed down history's toilet like so much other brilliant research before it. > Popular/Successful <> Better. Exactly. If it were the same, it wouldn't be necessary to popularise better research in order to make it successful. Good stuff doesn't drive out bad by sheer superiority, sadly. Simply doing good research is not enough. If it were we'd be decades ahead in computing, and centuries in other fields. -- http://rrt.sc3d.org _______________________________________________ fonc mailing list [email protected] http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
