See my other reply: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1465601

detst · on June 27, 2010

That's not really fair. The government funds more than "development of military technology".

grandalf · on June 27, 2010

What percentage of the technologies that people cite as being made possible by the government were developed for non-military purposes?

Edit: The NSF started out as a way of enhancing military research: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Science_Foundation

detst · on June 27, 2010

What's wrong with the NSF starting that way? Are they not a significant source of funds for "basic science" research?

Even if you want to be cynical about this issue, haven't we been doing this long enough to know that research for military purposes often translates to advances in non-military applications?

EDIT: and don't get me wrong; I would love to see some shift in the way funds are allocated.

grandalf · on June 28, 2010

My point isn't that central coordination doesn't work, it was just that central coordination is extremely unsophisticated and is typically not a source of added insight, just a source of funds.

In my experience in academe, researchers tailor their work to what the NSF is funding, not what they consider most interesting/important.