Hopefully one of the Research assistants isn't called Gordon Freeman
Especially after someone on another forum found this http://lhc-hl-lh.ytmnd.com/

"Wake up Mr Freeman....Wake up and smell the..Ashes"

:o:rotfl::rotfl:

I'm not a hallucination, YOU are.

Uhhh unless we both are. :doh:

Didn't "you" say that "I" im (is?) an illusion.

:damn: :88)

How about this? LHC really *is* Black Mesa... :D
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3207/...eaa629ea_o.jpg
:rotfl:

So the LHC is switch on with that small lever???:hmm: :hmm: :hmm:

The end of the world was a lie:D... Just like the cake:cry:

Help we're all going to die but not for another two months, as if. :doh:

Oh Cr*p , thats it Im stocking up on Crowbars :o

An optimistically so-called "friend" once talked me into trying Swedish Sürströmming. I know that since the first smell I am already living in the afterlife. :lol:

Will this machine make us all look like sürströmming?

They did it. :yep:

Live webcast: http://webcast.cern.ch/

I was referring to private firms having more money for research and development, amongst other things. While one cannot dispute that state-funded research has produced some amazing things, private research tends to be more effecient and practical.

Actually, more money is provided by charity and comercial cancer research than is provided by the government, and it doesn't cost billions of taxpayer dollars.

And while it is nice that NASA got people on the moon, how did that help us, exactly? Were the benefits worth the 135 billion dollars (inflation-adjusted) that were spent on it? Not to mention the hundreds of billions invested in NASAs other programs and administration over the years?

Commercialization of space and the research to do so is a far more attractive option IMO.

However, you do have a point. A lot of beneficial products have been derived from defense research, and seeing as how defense is generally an integral function of government, I would support research like this for defense applications, to some degree.

Are you happy with your government, headcase? Are they efficient and effective?
Would you really trust them to allocate funding to the proper research initiatives?

Private research has to produce results. If it doesn't, it loses funding and it goes away until someone who can produce results comes along, or technology makes obtaining results more feasible.

State research needs only to convince a budget committee that they can produce something. And if they don't produce results they just take more of your money, or increase the burden you bear in the form of public debt and inflation.

So, wouldn't it be better if you could support research initiatives that you favor by investing in companies that pursue them, while letting me invest in those that I favor?

The alternative is to let some bureaucrat make the decision for both of us. And don't forget that there are much larger (and richer) entities who also have your representatives' ears.

Your thoughts?

Oh screw that:rotfl:
I'm investing in Aperture Science.:D

Gps, weather mapping radars, epribs, oceoanographic and biographic
global surveys. international cross cultural communications, Tang

radar, radar detectors, scuba, pennicilin, space launch vehicles.
nuclear power ............

not always, the road to hell is paved by the self justified.
my thoughts are that a balance between the two needs exist
Corporate life motivates people to careers educated by universities
that conduct outward researchs for general advancement (loosely ok)
the joint extreme research's generally include Government university and
buisness. this is probably right. the government finances the high risk
high yield arbitrage research and the corporate world finances and
conducts the blue chip research. (ish)

but they share and mutually generate and motivate the talent pool,

Balance my thoughts are balance.

as for bad government decision making all I can do is
lead by example.

The problem with this whole test is that their are people who are making decision that could even if small may cause the end of us.

History has show that when scientist experiment with new power experiments in the end someone gets hurt.

How many people have suffered from Nuclear power..

How many people brainwashed to believe duck and cover will save you?

I'm not saying this isn't a great discovery. I like the idea of them exploring new sciences using new technologies but not on the expense of our lives even if the risk is small.

Unlike a nuclear bomb will kill millions.

This experiment if it fails it will kill us all. Maybe not today maybe not a hundred year maybe not a 1000 years. I'm sorry guys I don't like the idea of my life in a russian roulette game!

There is only one law that governs the universe CHAOS.;)

So...you could say you are a little con-CERN-ed.

Baaaahahahaha gettit? gettit?

Concerned....CERN

See?
Baaahahhahahahhaha
CERN!


/death by forced pun

Thank you captain Punnishment

attention all stations subsim apprehend and dont Letum do that again.