Slashdot Mirror
What's Getting Cut From Science Part of the Federal Budget
Kristina at Science News writes "As part of the announcement of its proposed fiscal year 2010 budget, the Obama administration released a summary (called 'Terminations, Reductions, and Savings: Budget of the US Government, Fiscal Year 2010') that includes which science-related programs are getting cut. Two big programs are the nuclear waste storage project at Yucca Mountain in Nevada and a second prototype airborne laser missile-defense weapon." Update: 05/07 23:03 GMT by T : On the other hand, reader Dusty writes, "The NASA budget for 2010 has been announced, up
5% on 2009. Human space flight plans to be reviewed."
Every gun, bomber, particle weapon made, means less money for those who need to go to college to make better, smarter bombs.
Views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of the author.
Yucca always struck me as pure NIMBY anyway. The location wasn't chosen because it made sense from a logistic or safety standpoint; it was chosen because it was safely out of everyone else's backyard.
Erotic is when you use a feather. Exotic is when you use the whole chicken.
News about government initiatives seem to revolve around the passing of a bill and the subsequent appointment of a blue ribbon panel or the filling of a key post. We rarely get news of how well the initiatives are doing unless there is a scandal, but I can't help but feel that given how undermanned some agencies are, (1/3 to 2/3 of government bureaucrats don't do noticeable amounts of useful work) most new programs and initiatives lack guidance, defined outcomes, and an effective means of targeting funds.
Signatures are the new names.
That fault was known LONG ago. The information about it was suppressed, which is unfortunate. In the end, I hope that Obama will consider re-starting the IFR to process and use up the nuclear "waste" that we have.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
It's not $17 billion in cuts, it's $17 billion in proposed cuts, 99% of which won't happen. For comparison, last year George W Bush proposed 434 billion in cuts, none of which happened.
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
So first they splash out staggering amounts of money in a very hastily drawn up 'fiscal stimulus' package, and then they cut back on the basic, well thought out* spending in the budget? Am I the only one who thinks this doesn't make sense?
* compared to the fiscal stimulus package anyway
Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.
Most of these tax cuts are proposed with "marketable" in mind.
It's very easy to claim that someone with half a million dollars in revenue a year shouldn't be needing precious tax payer dollars. Whether the profit margin is large enough to keep up with the market or, as you say, tide them over for rainy days is a story that these individuals probably don't care about. If it sounds good on paper, then it's probably good enough to pass up the chain.
Signatures are the new names.
Yeah, a waste repository located next to the Nevada Test Range is certainly not in anyone's back yard. I wonder why they don't just bury the waste in the test range. It is not as if they did a lot of geological studies before they detonated nuclear weapons there. And they could hardly make the place less inhabitable.
It doesn't much matter anyhow. Nuclear waste becomes no more toxic than a great many other industrial process after being stored for only 5 years or so. Leave it at the reactor site for 5 years, then move it (which is the actual plan in many places).
We're only storing old fuel because it's valuable, not because it's unusually dangerous. WHy should we care about "safe for 10000 years" storage? It's complete and utter nonsense.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Why? what logic is that?
Other questions:
Do you know what the different grades of waste are?
do you know how it's contained?
Do you know if it's a solid?
if you can't answer those question accurately and in detail, STFU.
I am so sick of people that don't know jack driving policy and decisions about scientific decisions.
I got news for those people:
"Your opinion does not matter."
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
The first ABL laser prototype worked out prety well, actually. The whole point was to bypass countermeasures by hitting the missile while it was still boosting, which is an unmistakable signature. It's somewhat questionable as an overall strategic defense, since you'd need the have a plane in the air somewhat close to the launch site, but for theater defense it would work great.
We don't seem to need to defend against the Russians right now, but a crazy dictator who managed to cobble together 1 working nuke warhead and 1 working long-range missile? That sounds like a likely scenario, and the sot of thing where said mad dictator would give us plaenty of warning time to get our defenses airborn near his country.
Missile defenses don't have to be viable vs a Russian saturation attack with modern countermeasures to be useful this century. Providing solid protection against a low-tech threat with just a few misiles is entirely worthwhile (especially if you live in the major US city closest to N Korea!).
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
most people who make it to 75 aren't the expensive people. it's 40-60.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Eh? I have yet to hear a justification for agricultural subsidies that doesn't amount to: "because I'm from Iowa, and I like money." Why don't they do away with the H1B program and institute programmer subsidies instead? (Sarcasm).
If you planned for every crazy dictator scenario there isn't going to be any money left for anything else.
And even a crazy dictator has gota realise at some level that its going to be "suicide by cop" if they tried.
The whole point of green is creating an Age of Less.
NO, the whole point of green is creating the Age of Sustainability, and anyone who wants less isn't green.
It's true that neo-puritans have glommed on to the environmental movement since the early '70's to the extent that they have dominated it until recently, but there are some actual green voices out there, clamouring to be heard amidst the neo-puritan lies.
The thing that should be stunningly obvious to everyone is: sacrifice is unsustainable. It requires more self-discipline than any large group of humans has ever managed, and in the absence of self-discipline it requires unsustainable (to say nothing of unethical) enforcement measures.
The neo-puritans are in particular trouble right now because green tech has reached industrial viability--wind farms, solar farms, biodiesel, etc. are all becoming viable industries, and in opposing them neo-puritans necessarily reveal that they don't love the environment, they hate industry. While genuine greens are out there making the world a better place, and making money on the way.
Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
i really think its strange that nobody else thinks NASA is a huge waste of money and should be a private company. rather then fixing the problem of what to do with deadly nuclear waste we'd rather the billions of dollars in space flight? its not like it has done us any good, why not fund to send the nuclear waste into space... theres nobody up there and never will be. other than that i really dont see a reason to be doing so, unless pissing away tax dollars is a concern, in that case GO NASA =P
Sure, storing nuke waste and a big laser weapon require science. But they're not science. They're giant contractor employment programmes, both spawned by the Pentagon.
Giving the money directly to science programmes is better for science.
--
make install -not war
What you call neo-puritans are more commonly reffered to as Luddites, and as a "greenie" since the seventies I totally agree they do not represent enviromentalists, most of whom belive a healthy economy is not only compatible with a healthy environment, it depends on it. Thankfully respected econimists are starting to understand what environmentalists have been banging on about for decades. ie: the current rules of the free market are only half a system and are not much better than the total anarchy of an unregulated market.
The biosphere can take a lot of abuse and it has done over the course of the industrial revolution but just as the victorians in 19th century London found there comes a time when you can no longer continue to shit in your own nest without an adequate sewerage system there also comes a time when you can no longer pump your waste into the atmosphere. Of course the answer in London was to pipe it into the the mouth of the Thames and let the tide take it out where as modern sewerage systems are based on natural processes so sophisticated they can extract drinking water, fertilizer and energy from shit, demonstrating that pollution is actually a resource out of place. If the industrial revolution does not fall apart before the 22nd century I think our great grandkids will look back at our pollution with the same disgust that we have for cholera infested open sewers. The anti-science, anti-enviroment movement that is rooted in the US will quite possibly be seen as the luddites who refused to give up a lobsided system that rewards people for shitting in thier own (and everyone else's) nest.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
I don't have a citation, but I do find the comment believable.
1) As a graduate student, you probably don't *really* know what poor is. Yeah, I know you probably eat nothing but Ramen noodles all week, but you aren't paying for them with food stamps.
2) "without dependents" - That's probably a big portion of the 40%. People who make 10k/year and have 4 children.
I bet somebody could whip out a calculator and a W-2 form and figure out what income level corresponds to 0 taxes.