There's nothing unusual or evil about Paul Allen in particular. But there is a disastrous trend at reducing public funding for research and education and pretending that that a few volunteer enthusiast or fund raisers can compensate for it. Or that the amusement of and for the increasingly super rich are adequate technical compensation.

Such much so that a company devoted to amusement rides into sub orbit is often called the superior of NASA and the word philanthropy now, incredibly, applies to the subject mater of this article. With a posting worded as over the top as this one, it's an opportunity to clearly point out this silliness.

Calls to additional action are quite right as you say. But likewise, pointing these issues out here does not preclude other action.

>Yeah, there's always some guy who says this

I certainly hope so. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_gadfly

Yeah, telling HN readers that we should spend more on science and technology is really attacking the status quo.

Saying "There's a better way..." is like saying "I've got an idea for a company." Sure, it would be better that Allen didn't have to spend $300 million on brain research but until you convince the right audience to spend the taxpayer dollars, I don't see you adding any value to the conversation.

Execution really is important. I'd love to see other ways for people to fund real science, etc in a big way.

Yes execution is important. But failing to discuss a problem does not improve execution, surely it is always the first step.

So where would the right audience be? If perhaps there were some corner of the web where technologist, scientist and innovators gather (albeit mixed with plenty of crackpots). A place so influential that it is flooded by astro-turf when subjects involving large industries come up and so ugly that ordinary people are afraid of it. Maybe there.

>Yeah, telling HN readers that we should spend more on science and technology is really attacking the status quo.

Well I also denigrated a tech billionaire, criticized space-x, called for higher taxes and said this site was ugly. On HN that's not a gadfly as so much an invitation to be lynched.

More likely to simply be called out as an idiot or crackpot yourself. Think about it, you think the American public would fund searching for WW2 Japanese battleships?

I never could understand why people pride themselves in being Armchair Generals:

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Armchair+Gene...

What a strange redefinition of "armchair general".

Probably the standard meaning http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/armchair_general

is too offensive to conservatives.

But since when did the public decide every archeology project? Did this one have any merit? Even so, they did pay for it. Just not with normal taxes but instead with the exorbitant expense of supporting an empire built on unscrupulous business practices. Some surplus was spent on whimsy now sycophantically called "philanthropy". An even more bizarre word misuse.

So the web should be a place solely for advertisement, astroturf and ludicrous self-aggrandizement? No one should criticize bull when they see it?

You should have told this guy http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/ Then he could have had a deeply meaningful career writing apps.

I didn't realize Paul Allen was advertising, etc. sounds like you're conflating as much shit as possible and hoping that it sounds like you've got some higher purpose, and you've thought all this though. Well, I've gotta say it's not really working