Posts by Sacha
-
What relationship is there between the metaphysical claims of religion on one hand, and its ethical strictures and effect on an individual's relationship with their wider community on the other?
Being Christian or christian
-
Thank you Dr Haywood. Magnificent!
could this be one for the copyright thread?
As dead as god in Australia, I'm afraid
I love Top Gear. Of course, I partially watch it because Richard is so lickably gorgeous. Your excuse is probably different. Cars or something.
Fast lovely cars - the skits with caravans and old dungers not so much. And nothing about licking, you're right.
-
because she thinks that late TV is mostly shite
What, compared with the gems of the early eve?
-
I only saw Eagle vs Shark recently (I think it was on TV?), and I found it boring and tedious.
Phew, not just me then. I'm looking forward to Boy though, expecting some reminders of childhood living a way up the coast. Nostalgia humoured.
-
I too have a dream of fighting the power while riding the whale...
roflnui
-
Those are appalling
-
the pool of money for science needs to get bigger
And most of the increase should come from the private sector by world standards. How do we make that happen?
-
Iz on the Twitterz
Yay. Followd
-
Thank you for the well-informed discussion (now to find time to read those Gluckman speeches).
that means projects have to prove their value before they get funded (which if you think about it is daft)
Sounds all too familiar from other fields: you are expected to provide the business case before the underpinning work you are proposing has been done. Without any resources. So what do you know, only the largest most risk-averse established organisations can afford to apply. The Digital Strategy "Community" Partnership Fund was one such disappointing instance.
A lot of it seems to come down to those making the decisions not being good enough at assessing risk and potential and so setting the process up to offload that onto applicants.
We seem to refuse to embrace fast and reflective failure as an essential part of innovation in any field. Someone needs to underwrite healthy failure, but the system must also support it and ensure learnings are shared widely so everyone's performance and potiential is improved. It must be welcomed and understood by all participants and become part of the culture.
Well not necessarily. Research is often multi-staged over time, so a researcher might get a small grant or some time to explore something, and then once it looks promising might go for a larger grant to do a three year study on it to turn it into reality.
Good. I'm a fan of the resourced multi-stage approach used in some business innovation, where from a quick proposal stage (not three year risk and budget forecasts), the shortlisted entrants all get seed funding to progress their application to the next detailed proposal stage, as well as access to specialised support services for that.
Expert hand-holding helps make sure attention is paid to other factors like quality and sound partnering between organisations with different mandates and motivations including business and community.
I'd like to see that type of approach applied more to other fields like science and public policy, with suitable experts involved in assessment (which is a part that I think science probably gets right already, though I'm open to correction). We can not afford to have researchers and other workers spending most of their valuable time writing detailed applications.
I wonder if this approach might also be more attractive (staged risk and investment) to our laggard private sector?
-
Which is nothing more than a subsidy from every other road user and taxpayer to big trucking companies.