🚀 go-pugleaf

>>I really shouldn't argue too much about this, since I won't be paying
>>for the SSC (but for the LHC, which has been ignored almost totally in
>>this discussion), but IMHO the SSC isn't too expensive compared to
>>e.g. the defence budget, or the amounts spent on TV commercials, or
>>whatever. On the other hand, it *is* a lot of money and it would be
>>unfortunate if other science projects would have to suffer.
>
>     It sure is expensive compared to Sweden's defense budget, and
>     compared to my household budget.  However, I'm not sure that
>     comparisons of this nature are very fruitful.

Of course they're not - you're not paying for it out opf your own
pocket, and Sweden isn't paying for it either. (Sweden is too small to
build accelerators of that size by itself - that's why we've joined
CERN). 

On the other hand, since the American taxpayers are going to pay for
most (or all) of the SSC, it *is* relevant to compare it to other
things the American taxpayers already are paying for. 

>>An important question is of course _who_ should pay for the SSC.
>>Saying that biologists should pay, because there will be benefits to
>>biology in the long run, strikes me as typical political tactics, and
>>not very nice to the biologists.
>
>     I did not say that biology should pay, especially since any	
>     results relevant to biological systems are likely to be nonexistent.

And I never claimed you had said that.

Magnus Olsson                   | \e+      /_
Dept. of Theoretical Physics    |  \  Z   / q
University of Lund, Sweden      |   >----<           
Internet: magnus@thep.lu.se     |  /      \===== g
Bitnet: THEPMO@SELDC52          | /e-      \q

-- 
Magnus Olsson                   | \e+      /_
Dept. of Theoretical Physics    |  \  Z   / q
University of Lund, Sweden      |   >----<           
Internet: magnus@thep.lu.se     |  /      \===== g