Lololololol
Printable View
I'm not disputing that it is money that may be better spent. I'm just saying that the article is typical propaganda to draw more attention to a particular issue.
Although given the current state of affairs a greater investment was going to be required regardless. As you say lets just hope what investment that is made delivers the greatest return!
[VVV] Yeh, that's fair comment too. It's just that when I see ridiculous things like this being proposed I jump all over them for all I'm worth because they have a terrible habit of growing wings and flying. In this field, more money does not neccessarily = greater effectiveness. What equals greater effectiveness is better/tighter/honest process and the development of a smarter/more targetted/better aimed/better timed testing regime. That does not need 3/4's of a million to achieve. Money will need to be spent but not anywhere near that.