Slashdot Mirror

Sure, the RACE to the moon was full of innovation, but other than really proving it wasn't made of cheese, it was a more colossal waste of cash than both Gulf Wars put together!

The cost of the Apollo program was $135 billion in 2005 dollars.

George Sr.'s Gulf war cost $61 billion. The cost of the current Iraq war is in excess of $240 billion and rising. Apollo didn't even come close.

If the president had to sell the war on the cost up front there would have been no support whatever. The cost is now around $ 800 per citizen. If you are a middle class tax payer that is more around 2k per family member. Some are claiming much higher.

But Bush was able to sell the war on a deferred payment plan which includes record deficits and raiding surpluses. If Bush said we are going to war and we are going to tax petro an extra 10 cents a gallon to help pay for it he would have gotten booed of the stage. There should always be a cost for all citizens to go to war as some families are called to pay the ultimate sacrifice.

I swear the most important number on peoples mind is the price of gas at the pump. The president's approval rating inversely proportional to the price of gas that fuel pump.

222 billion. My mistake.

Because, you know, we couldn't have invested 222 billion dollars in alternative energy.

We use Startup Monitor and ZoneAlarm Security Suite software firewall. The newest ZA pops up a window the first time anything suspicious happens. It's a big problem convincing users to report the ZA popups, but if they do, Windows is much safer.

However, it's a losing battle. The problem is that Microsoft makes more money if its operating systems self-destruct. What you call "vulnerabilities" billionaires call "maximizing shareholder value".

If rich people sold good operating systems, poor people would not buy the next upgrade.

Using an operating system is like having a partner in your business. If it is a Microsoft OS, your "partners" want some things that are bad for you. If you use Linux or BSD, you can breathe a huge sigh of relief; your partners want what you want.

It's absurd that governments of countries use Microsoft products. It's even absurd that state governments in the U.S. use Microsoft products. The U.S. federal government spends more money on world-wide surveillance than any country in the history of the world. Exploiting computer systems is now one of the biggest new frontiers in surveillance.

The U.S. government's Echelon surveillance system watches everyone all the time. (Echelon quote: "Since the close of World War II, the US intelligence agencies have developed a consistent record of trampling the rights and liberties of the American people.")

The biggest discretionary expense of the U.S. government is the cost of war. The president and the vice-president of the U.S. are people who themselves and their families and friends made their money through oil and weapons. Is it any wonder that the price of oil is so high and we have war?

When a country uses Microsoft operating systems, it effectively has the U.S. government as one of its partners. Given the present climate of corruption and conflict of interest and adversarial behavior and using war as a justification for anything, why do countries want the U.S. government and U.S. billionaires as partners?

If volunteers can make a secure operating system ("Only one remote hole in the default install, in more than 8 years!") is it difficult to believe that the amazing number of vulnerabilities we've seen in Windows are deliberately allowed?

"Hydrogen is a Boondoggle. The energy density is so low, that we might as well use batteries if we're going to power vehicles with it." -StCredZero

Yup, they are quite smart. They've found that the cheapest way to extract oil from difficult areas is to buy themselves a puppet government that will underwrite the costs and pass the (now non-negotiable) bill to us.

Direct link to the chart