SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the still-paid-for-by-the-taxpayer/consumer dept.
For the first time in the post–World War II era, the federal government no longer funds a majority of the basic research carried out in the United States. Data from ongoing surveys by the National Science Foundation (NSF) show that federal agencies provided only 44% of the $86 billion spent on basic research in 2015. The federal share, which topped 70% throughout the 1960s and '70s, stood at 61% as recently as 2004 before falling below 50% in 2013.
The sharp drop in recent years is the result of two contrasting trends—a flattening of federal spending on basic research over the past decade and a significant rise in corporate funding of fundamental science since 2012.
[...] The U.S. pharmaceutical industry is the major driver behind the recent jump in corporate basic research [...] investment in basic research soared from $3 billion in 2008 to $8.1 billion in 2014, according to the most recent NSF data by business sector. Spending on basic research by all U.S. businesses nearly doubled over that same period, from $13.9 billion to $24.5 billion.
Basic research comprises only about one-sixth of the country's spending on all types of R&D, which totaled $499 billion in 2015. Applied makes up another one-sixth, whereas the majority, some $316 billion, is development. Almost all of that is funded by industry and done inhouse, as companies try to convert basic research into new drugs, products, and technologies that they hope will generate profits.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday March 10 2017, @09:33PM (6 children)
Communication by radio was in use before relativity was understood.
And communication by radio was in use after relativity was understood too.
(Score: 2) by butthurt on Saturday March 11 2017, @12:03AM (5 children)
And you think that knowledge of relativity is somehow used for that purpose? Do tell.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday March 11 2017, @05:43AM (4 children)
And you think that knowledge of relativity is somehow used for that purpose?
How can you understand how general relativity affects or doesn't affect important things like radio communication till you have a model of it?
(Score: 2) by butthurt on Tuesday March 14 2017, @07:15AM (3 children)
Near the Earth, the effects described by general relativity are minuscule and, for most purposes, can simply be ignored. An often-mentioned exception is satellite navigation. The caesium atomic clock in a navigational satellite ran faster than clocks on the Earth by 442.5 parts in 1012.
http://www.phys.lsu.edu/mog/mog9/node9.html [lsu.edu]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday March 14 2017, @07:55AM (2 children)
Near the Earth, the effects described by general relativity are minuscule and, for most purposes, can simply be ignored. An often-mentioned exception is satellite navigation. The caesium atomic clock in a navigational satellite ran faster than clocks on the Earth by 442.5 parts in 1012.
And you would know this ahead of time how? For example, this eliminates a fair number of anti-gravity schemes.
(Score: 1) by butthurt on Wednesday March 15 2017, @01:11AM (1 child)
> And you would know this ahead of time how?
As I was trying to communicate, it was predicted by general relativity.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday March 15 2017, @06:45AM
And you would know this ahead of time how?
As I was trying to communicate, it was predicted by general relativity.
So you would have to know general relativity first in order to know about this prediction of general relativity. It's not sexy, but theories that show certain near future avenues of research are fruitless to pursue, are useful too.