LightSquared CEO Resigns Amid Appearance of Bribery

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

LightSquared CEO Resigns Amid Appearance of Bribery

Posted by Unknown on Wednesday February 29, 2012 @04:30AM from the punished-with-huge-severance-package dept.

New submitter msauve writes "LightSquared, the company who's request to use make use of spectrum in a way likely to interfere with GPS was recently denied, has suffered another setback. CEO Sanjiv Ahuja has now resigned, only a week after a report detailing political contributions and the personal financial interests of Obama and officials in his administration in SkyTerra, the precursor company to LightSquared. Ahuja's one and only contribution to the Democratic Party occurred on the same day he tried to arrange a meeting with Obama administration officials, apparently as part of LightSquared's desire to fast track FCC approval of a change beneficial to the company."

149 of 211 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Important to note by geekoid · 2012-02-29 04:32 · Score: 4, Interesting

He attempt to do what many /.ers say happen all the time, and got busted.

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
1. Re:Important to note by ColdWetDog · 2012-02-29 04:39 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  He attempt to do what many /.ers say happen all the time, and got busted.
  Oh, that's just because he tried to cheap it out. 28K for a Senate Seat, 50K for Obama.
  When you're in the big leagues, you've got to drop the big bucks. Remember this kids, you get what you pay for!
  
  --
  Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
2. Re:Important to note by ColdWetDog · 2012-02-29 04:42 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Actually it was only 8K for the Senate seat. The Dems returned $20,000.
  Must have been running a special that week.
  
  --
  Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
3. Re:Important to note by vlm · 2012-02-29 04:45 · Score: 2
  
  LS raised billions of dollars... yet just defaulted on their first payment to inmarsat last week. Those billions are gone. All of it.
  If I were that guy, I'd be getting out of my contract by any means necessary, purchasing a new identity, grabbing my family and running for the hills.
  Heck if I took company paper clips home I'd be using that as an ethics violation to get the heck out, alive.
  
  --
  "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
4. Re:Important to note by Mashiki · 2012-02-29 04:47 · Score: 1, Informative
  
  Well this makes a bunch of really funny things going on for Obama. And what 8 or 9 failed solar companies that got massive hand outs and F&F plus an extra gun running program that was started that let guns walk. Obama not better than the last guy, he's much, much worse.
  
  --
  Om, nomnomnom...
5. Re:Important to note by Kythe · 2012-02-29 04:50 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  F&F began under Bush. And I'm aware only of one solar company that received a grant, yet later failed (not sure what a business failing has to do with anything, that DOES happen in a market economy). Perhaps you can elaborate?
  
  --
  
  Kythe
6. Re:Important to note by ColdWetDog · 2012-02-29 04:53 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Perhaps you can elaborate?
  It's Obama's fault!
  Further explanations are unnecessary and might complicate things.
  
  --
  Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
7. Re:Important to note by tripleevenfall · 2012-02-29 04:54 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  To be fair, F&F was not doing anything close to what it did under Holder during the Bush years, and it's not Bush's attorney general lying up and down about what he knew about the program and when.
8. Re:Important to note by russotto · 2012-02-29 04:54 · Score: 2
  
  This was a clumsy and failed bribe that doesn't really reflect on Obama. Also I think the gun-running program started under Bush Jr. (and then ATF used their own program to argue for gun control by claiming that legal gun owners in the US were providing guns to Mexican drug cartels), though Bush III Obama did continue it.
9. Re:Important to note by steelfood · 2012-02-29 04:54 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  He wasn't doing it right.
  First off, at that level, he needs to start bri *ahem* making campaign donations to everybody, not just to the President. Senators, congressmen, judges, even the ones running the party all need their cut. And he needs to be doing it over multiple election years.
  A few thousand dollars doesn't cut it anymore these days--at least not at the Federal level. To play in that game, he needs a warchest of at least half a million.
  Additionally, he needed a lobbying firm to do the dirty work on his behalf. If it was a lobbying firm who did the brib *ahem* gift-giving instead, he would be shielded from all this by plausible deniability and would have kept his job. He could've just fired the lobbying firm and re-hired them under a different company name *ahem* I mean find another one.
  
  --
  "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
10. Re:Important to note by GrumpySteen · 2012-02-29 05:01 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  The only thing 'funny' about it is that LightSquared's CEO didn't anything for his 'donation'. No private audience with Obama and no fast-track approval for the company's idiotic plan.
  The Democratic Party took the donation and treated it as a donation while the administration killed the company, which is exactly what should have happened. For once, the system worked as intended.
11. Re:Important to note by geekoid · 2012-02-29 05:04 · Score: 1
  
  No true Scotsman fallacy.
  Why let evidences and data have an actual impact on any conclusion you come to, right?
  
  --
  The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
12. Re:Important to note by hairyfeet · 2012-02-29 05:11 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Sadly F&F was nothing under Bush, and Solyndra was just the tip of a VERY stinky iceberg, one of the Kennedy kids got millions in tax free handouts for a "green' company that had never made a single dime. I'd google it for you but I'm just about to head out the door "Solyndra tip of iceberg" in any search engine will find the info for you. Summary 19 out of the 20 companies that got huge handouts were significant donors to the elect Obama fund. I'm a democrat and hated Bush but Obama is trying his damnedest to be worse than Bush in EVERY single way, worse on human rights, worse on jack booted crap, worse on bribery, hell i can't think of a single thing the man did better and that's just fricking sad. if you want to see what changed read this. Frankly I'm voting green rather than waste my vote on such a lousy POTUS. don't worry he'll still win simply nobody is gonna vote for mittens.
  
  --
  ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
13. Re:Important to note by tragedy · 2012-02-29 05:14 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  They all failed because they can't compete with China. US solar companies can't compete with Chinese solar companies because the Chinese government backs its renewable tech companies while the US doesn't.
14. Re:Important to note by Kozz · 2012-02-29 05:14 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Actually it was only 8K for the Senate seat. The Dems returned $20,000.
  Must have been running a special that week.
  8K should be enough for anybody.
  
  --
  I only post comments when someone on the internet is wrong.
15. Re:Important to note by ShavedOrangutan · 2012-02-29 05:14 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Ia lot of the noise about F&F is coming in the form of conspiracy theories from the NRA
  Mainstream news is almost totally ignoring the debacle, so at least one organization is talking about it.
  
  It's not really a conspiracy theory when gun dealers openly say, "Yeah, we knew that buyer was a drug runner but the ATF agent in our back office told us to sell him the guns anyways."
  
  --
  Godaddy is a scam and a ripoff.
16. Re:Important to note by NicknameAvailable · 2012-02-29 05:25 · Score: 2
  
  He attempt to do what many /.ers say happen all the time, and got busted.
  Actually he got busted because he was trying to bribe his way around a technological limitation that has no known solution and would completely disable the American military - and he's not being tried for treason. I'd hardly say he got busted.
17. Re:Important to note by Mister+Whirly · 2012-02-29 05:26 · Score: 2
  
  Yes but apparently they may have been on strike.
  
  --
  "But this one goes to 11!"
18. Re:Important to note by Feyshtey · 2012-02-29 05:27 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  I think you could argue that it was a mistake to break the law to begin with... On the part of the CEO, and Democrat party reps, and the Obama administration....
  
  --
  "But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,..." - Nancy Pelosi
19. Re:Important to note by john82 · 2012-02-29 05:29 · Score: 1
  
  Kind of hard to keep up with your eyes clamped shut and your hands over your ears.
  Politicians are dirty, period. It's not like Republicans have a monopoly on corruption.
20. Re:Important to note by j35ter · 2012-02-29 05:30 · Score: 2
  
  They all failed because they can't compete with China. US solar companies can't compete with Chinese solar companies because the Chinese government backs its renewable tech companies while the US doesn't.
  Oh, and if a Chinese company goes down the drain for corruption (AKA greedy CEO), there is quite a chance that their board gets a front row seat in an open-air public execution spectacle. Makes them think twice about stealing subsidies!
  
  --
  Delta-Mike November Bravo Tango
21. Re:Important to note by tnk1 · 2012-02-29 05:37 · Score: 2
  
  Obama probably has almost nothing to do with this, except that it's under his watch. The people responsible are those bits of dirt and grime that are swept into positions of authority on his very long coat-tails.
  This sort of thing can happen with *any* modern President, and while I am not an Obama supporter, this isn't something wrong with him, or even the Democrats as individuals. It's what's wrong with government that is big enough that it has its fingers in everything.
  If there is something wrong with Obama and the Democrats, it's that they are trying to add even more services, and hence size, to the government. Granted, the Republicans haven't always been on target with their own actions, either, but at least they are pretending to work for smaller government.
22. Re:Important to note by DigiShaman · 2012-02-29 05:37 · Score: 1
  
  How you vote is up to you. But just so you know, the Green Party espouses core values of Marxism. Essentially, it's a hybrid Communist party. No joke. Read it for yourself.
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eco-socialism
  Last I remember, Cynthia McKinney joined the Green Party. That women has a foul rap like you wouldn't believe. Corrupt and intimidating to the core against journalists. I can't find the video, but there was one floating on YouTube for awhile with her telling the press that "you are not going to report this, you hear?" or some such.
  Perhaps you know all this. But just in case you don't. The Green Party is far worse that either the Democratic or Republican party.
  
  --
  Life is not for the lazy.
23. Re:Important to note by Kythe · 2012-02-29 05:38 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, I'm talking about the "this is all a way to enact gun control!" crap that eternally comes from the NRA.
  
  --
  
  Kythe
24. Re:Important to note by poity · 2012-02-29 05:39 · Score: 2
  
  That only happens if they didn't establish the right connections in government. The ones who get shot are the little guys who stepped on bigger toes.
  
  --
  your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
25. Re:Important to note by GodfatherofSoul · 2012-02-29 05:40 · Score: 2
  
  hell i can't think of a single thing the man did better and that's just fricking sad.
  Finding Osama Bin Laden for one. Oh, you were speaking in hyperbole.
  
  --
  I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
26. Re:Important to note by Gilmoure · 2012-02-29 05:40 · Score: 2
  
  Ah, like that old Bloom County Picayune editor: It's Reagan's Fault!
  
  --
  I drank what? -- Socrates
27. Re:Important to note by HornWumpus · 2012-02-29 05:40 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Had it been left entirely up to the FCC they would have made their money.
  Their mistake was underestimating the strength of the push back from the GPS users and manufacturers.
  That and overestimating the power of law. They thought all they had to do was bribe someone to change the laws of physics.
  
  --
  John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
28. Re:Important to note by Straif · 2012-02-29 05:42 · Score: 1, Interesting
  
  F&F is 100% Obama's; it began in 2009.
  "Wide Receiver" was a Bush program that failed but unlike F&F, WR was at least set up to track the weapons they allowed to be sold to the cartels. The 450 guns the ATF allowed to be sold under WR were tagged with RFID chips and tracked through aerial surveillance. Of course the ATF did a awful job tagging them and used RFID with short battery lives and also damaged most of them when installing them, reducing their effectiveness. There were also refueling issues with the surveillance they opened huge windows in the smuggling window.
  F&F, on the other hand, allowed over 1600 weapons to be sold to suspected traffickers without even the smallest attempt to track them. It was essentially a "let's just see what happens" type of deal.
  Solyndra and Beacon Power were the loan recipients that outright failed but here are several other green energy companies that received loans under the DOE program that are hemorrhaging money. The independent auditor put the current risk at about $2.7 billion loss on loans totaling about $24 billion but even on the companies that will be making payments it's expected the terms will be renegotiated since they are having some difficulty. Solyndra and Beacon were excluded because they had already failed at the time of the review.
  In general, the government should not be in the game of picking winners and losers in the market. It's fine to give some assistance to emerging markets (I'd prefer limited tax write offs as opposed to outright loans or loan guarantees) but when the Feds pick company A over company B that is artificially affecting the market and it is no longer free.
  
  --
  Of course that's just my opinion...... you could be wrong!
29. Re:Important to note by RenderSeven · 2012-02-29 05:45 · Score: 2
  
  A fair point, but the Fed's should have been smart enough to know that before handing over the coin. Accurately assessing market conditions and foreign competition should have been a key part of the vetting process. If that vetting was done by smart knowledgeable professionals then they are culpable for not getting it right. If it wasnt done by smart knowledgeable professionals then they are culpable for not vetting properly. Either way blaming it on China doesnt give the Feds a pass, even if its true.
30. Re:Important to note by tnk1 · 2012-02-29 05:47 · Score: 1
  
  The Green Party is bad in the way that every single interest party is. A political party can't just get into office and work on only one thing, they have to work on everything that a government is responsible for. That means it usually sneaks in some sort of unusual or undesirable underlying governmental goals while relying on general support for their one special interest to get them into office.
  Yes, the Greens are usually socialists, and that's why I won't touch them with a ten foot pole. I think the environment needs some attention, but the rest of the package they bring in will make just about everything else worse.
31. Re:Important to note by Kythe · 2012-02-29 05:47 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Spectra Watt did not receive a loan guarantee (they received a small grant). Evergreen Solar received no federal assistance. Uni-Solar is still in business, and at any rate did NOT receive a loan guarantee. I'd tell you to take your own advice, but given your anonymous sniping, I truly doubt accuracy is among your values.
  
  --
  
  Kythe
32. Re:Important to note by Feyshtey · 2012-02-29 05:48 · Score: 1, Interesting
  
  Here's a list of 5 green energy companies that recieved gauranteed loans through the DOE, and have since filed for bankruptcy :
  Solyndra
  Beacon Power
  SpectraWatt
  Evergreen Solar
  AES - Eastern Energy
  
  Here are more that got loans are having notable difficulties:
  A123
  Fisker Automotive
  Nevada Geothermal
  Sun Power
  First Solar
  
  These alone are putting the taxpayers on the hook for $6billion. It's not that there was a company that failed. It's that there is a laundry list of companys that have and continue to fail. They were given financial ratings as low as CCC+, which would prevent me from getting a used car loan, and yet the Obama administration "encouraged" the DOE to fast track loans. Any one of these loans were bad investments by anyone's defintion, but we dont have 1 or 2. We have a list, and the predictions from economists and business analysts suggest that the list will continue to grow. And THEN if you cross-reference these failed or struggling companies with the list of Obama and Democratic party contributions it's enough to make your blood start to boil. http://www.popmodal.com/video/11918/Obama-does-it-again-11-green-energy-failures-costing-Billions-of-your-money
  
  --
  "But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,..." - Nancy Pelosi
33. Re:Important to note by HornWumpus · 2012-02-29 05:48 · Score: 2
  
  When in the big leagues you've got to bribe both political parties just to start.
  Then buy lots of inexplicable advertising time on the news networks, sponsor a PBS show or two.
  Keep it up for a decade or two. Always remember, it's soft power, it disappears in daylight. So use a light hand.
  Light Squared are children grabbing at candy. No surprise they got caught.
  
  --
  John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
34. Re:Important to note by Seraphim1982 · 2012-02-29 05:49 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  F&F began under Bush.
  No, "Project Gunrunner" began under President Bush. "Operation Fast and Furious", while part of Project Gunrunner, didn't begin until 2009.
  
  And I'm aware only of one solar company that received a grant, yet later failed
  I can think of three off the top of my head: Solyndra and Beacon Power who both received DOE money, and Evergreen Solar who received Massachusetts money.
  While they are still around I personally don't have high hopes for 1366 Technologies, who also received DOE money. They appear to be repeating the same mistake Evergreen made, specifically, betting that the price of silicon isn't going to go down. They may also be falling into the non-standard panels problem but I don't know enough about their final process to be sure.
  Also, while not a solar company, Ener1, another DOE recipient filed for chapter 11 about a month ago.
35. Re:Important to note by hawguy · 2012-02-29 05:52 · Score: 1
  
  Well this makes a bunch of really funny things going on for Obama. And what 8 or 9 failed solar companies that got massive hand outs and F&F plus an extra gun running program that was started that let guns walk. Obama not better than the last guy, he's much, much worse.
  I don't think it should be a surprise that some green-tech companies receiving government backed loans failed. Even if you discount the cheap panels coming from China's subsidized industry, if these companies were strong companies with a proven market and were on solid financial footing, the private market would have been lining up to invest in them.
  Instead, these companies were in a speculative industry whose strength depends heavily on the price of oil (which has its own hidden and explicit government subsidies), so it's not surprising that some of them failed.
36. Re:Important to note by Tsingi · 2012-02-29 05:58 · Score: 1
  
  +1
  Did you notice the fancy lingo the intro?
  "LightSquared, the company who's request ...
37. Re:Important to note by wganz · 2012-02-29 06:00 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Gunwalker started under Bush and was ended because the Mexican authorities weren't catching them on their side. The Mexican authorities were informed prior to the sale unlike F&F were it was unilaterally decided to let weapons go.
  Fast & Furious was 0bama's baby. We're three years into this mess and time for 0bama to 'man up' to take responsibilities.
38. Re:Important to note by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-29 06:01 · Score: 1
  
  You need to pull your head out of your ass. In a true market economy, grants would not exist. Companies would rely solely on investors for financial backing and if they don't feel the company would bring a return, they don't invest. Grants in private enterprise are a political ploy by socialists to make the appearance of supporting a free market system, when in fact, the act of issuing the grant removes the free market aspect.
39. Re:Important to note by Tsingi · 2012-02-29 06:04 · Score: 1
  
  Actually it's even worse than that...
  "LightSquared, the company who's request to use make use of spectrum in a way...
  Never mind comments, People can't even be bothered to check a topic post when they write one, or when they accept one.
40. Re:Important to note by Kythe · 2012-02-29 06:06 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  See above. SpectraWatt and Evergreen Solar did NOT receive federal loan guarantees (Evergreen received no federal assistance at all). AES Eastern was a coal subsidiary of AES that went bankrupt, not the project funded by DoE. Beacon is probably the closest you get on that list, and they paid back their loan.
  
  When I get the time, I'll look up the others.
  
  My suggestion would be: perhaps before you get your "blood boiling", you should consider NOT taking what the right wing says about Obama at face value. They have a strong vested interest in generating scandal where there is none.
  
  --
  
  Kythe
41. Re:Important to note by Archangel+Michael · 2012-02-29 06:18 · Score: 1
  
  If that is the best you can do, that is pretty sad. And it wasn't Obama who did it, it just happened on his watch. However, I'll give the guy Kudos for actually giving the kill order, something I didn't think he had the guts to do.
  That being said, if Bush gets the blame for starting all the things that went south on Obama's watch, then shouldn't Bush get credit for the things that went right under Obama's watch?
  The thing about Politics, is it is always the other guys fault, unless it is something "good", then I should take all the credit.
  
  --
  Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
42. Re:Important to note by HornWumpus · 2012-02-29 06:20 · Score: 2
  
  It's just a market in government influence. No government has ever been able to stop markets. They can however make the economic incentives perverse.
  I think 'Perverse Economic Incentives' would make a good porno title.
  
  --
  John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
43. Re:Important to note by ichthus · 2012-02-29 06:27 · Score: 1
  
  What change did Obama make in military operations that facilitated the finding of Osama Bin laden? How does Obama get any credit for this?
  
  --
  sig: sauer
44. Re:Important to note by im_thatoneguy · 2012-02-29 06:34 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  I don't buy the "Bribery" angle that's just more anti-obama birther nonsense.
  It's true that the Democratic party received about $20k from Falcone in 2010. But the Republican Party received nearly $50k in 2008.
  If you go through his political contributions he tended to shotgun across party lines. And none of the money in 08 was for Obama. It was almost exclusively for Senatorial candidates and Giuliani and Chris Dodd.
  http://www.campaignmoney.com/political/contributions/philip-falcone.asp?cycle=08
  And yes I do imagine there was some Lightsquared/Obama white house conversations--One of Obama's campaign promises was broadband for all. Lightsquared promised to deliver on that promise for the president. I'm unaware of another company which Lightsquared favoritism would have pushed out of business. By the very nature of their technology it seemed that there *can't* be a competitor since they themselves don't work. ;)
45. Re:Important to note by ravenshrike · 2012-02-29 06:38 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  No you stupid fuckwit, it didn't. Operation Wide Receiver did, however that was known and sanctioned by the Mexican government and was a serious attempt to track the routes the guns used, with the majority of the weapons having GPS trackers in them, albeit ones that turned out to be ineffectual. Said operation used less than 500 guns and was STOPPED because it was completely ineffectual. The operations, multiple, started under Obama all had the express purpose of shifting as many guns as possible across the border to, and I quote, be recovered at crime scenes. It did NOT have the sanction of the Mexican government, technically making it an act of war, and coincided with the 90% of Mexican crime guns FUD pushed by the government and helped along by CBS NBC et al. The operation started after the Brady bunch was told Obama was working on gun control back in early 2009 and the only logical interpretation of what happened was that they were attempting to drum up support for another AWB. Either that or they're batshit fucking insane. Completely different fucking operations to anybody with two fucking neurons to rub together.
46. Re:Important to note by Attila+Dimedici · 2012-02-29 06:51 · Score: 1
  
  No, Project Gunrunner began under the Bush Administration. Operation Fast & Furious was the expansion of it under the Obama Administration. Operation Fast & Furious had several modifications from Project Gunrunner as run under the Bush Administration. The biggest one being that they no longer bothered to work with the Mexican authorities (or even inform them--or U.S. agents working in Mexico) to attempt to intercept the guns once they entered Mexico.
  
  --
  The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
47. Re:Important to note by Straif · 2012-02-29 07:07 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  F&F did not involve legal gun sales that just happened to end up being misused, it involved illegal gun sales to suspected traffickers. Gun store owners were directly instructed to illegally sell guns and were told that the ATF would be tracking them. The owners were actually very wary about making the sales but were instructed to keep selling by the ATF agents in charge.
  So people are crying foul because A) the ATF had to instruct shop owners to disregard local, state and federal laws to sell the guns in question, B) there was no real program in place to track the illegally sold guns which led to terrible consequences and C) people in Washington are already using F&F as an excuse to talk about toughening gun laws even though the laws in place to prevent just such sales had to be expressly ignored to allow the program to take place.
  
  --
  Of course that's just my opinion...... you could be wrong!
48. Re:Important to note by Feyshtey · 2012-02-29 07:21 · Score: 1
  
  Did you look at the link I posted? That information is all from a CBS News report. I dont think I've ever heard CBS accused of being right wing....
  
  --
  "But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,..." - Nancy Pelosi
49. Re:Important to note by nedlohs · 2012-02-29 07:27 · Score: 1
  
  He said "go" to an act of war against a sovereign ally.
  If Osama wasn't there or they'd gotten into a firefight with Pakistani military forces I'm sure you'd agree that'd be his fault for authorising the action.
50. Re:Important to note by Straif · 2012-02-29 07:31 · Score: 2
  
  As I posted above, F&F did not involve the legal sale of guns, gun shop owners were directly instructed by the ATF to sell weapons illegally. There are even official statements released by the ATF showing shop owners were concerned about making the sales.
  
  --
  Of course that's just my opinion...... you could be wrong!
51. Re:Important to note by Straif · 2012-02-29 07:44 · Score: 1
  
  With over 80% of the receipients of the DOE grants/loans being Obama supporters, there is definitely at least the appearance of something; Solyndra being the best (worst) example. Solydra was not given the loans under Bush because their balance sheets just didn't add up. Even people within the Obama administration warned that their numbers were funny and not worth the risk but they received over half a billion in loan guarantees anyway. There was also communication between the Admin and Solyndra involving the scheduling of layoff announcements to avoid having a negative impact (for the Dems) on the 2010 elections.
  The gun walking program under Bush was a joint operation with the Mexican government where 450 weapons were permitted to be sold and then tracked with RFID tags. The tracking failed for several reasons (including inept ATF agents installing the tags) and the program was discontinued. Fast & Furious was a completely new program started in 2009 with no interaction with the Mexican government and no plan to actually track the over 1600 (and possibly over 2000) guns that shop owners were being forced to sell illegally (even after they complained about having to make the sales).
  
  --
  Of course that's just my opinion...... you could be wrong!
52. Re:Important to note by Mitreya · 2012-02-29 08:08 · Score: 1
  
  They all failed because they can't compete with China.
  
  According to what I read, they failed because they thought people would pay more for good product. Something to the tune of 30% extra for better quality panels. Last decade had shown the opposite trend, where people would buy things at 1/2 quality that don't last a full year, as long as it saves 15% off the price.
53. Re:Important to note by Gideon+Wells · 2012-02-29 08:46 · Score: 1
  
  *PHB mode, miss joke*
  Employee surveys show 8k/year salary is all workers want!
  
  --
  by Anonymous Coward: I, for one, welcome the shift from car analogies to pizza analogies. um.. overlords?
54. Re:Important to note by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-29 09:32 · Score: 1
  
  You mean when Senator Feinstein came out to support MORE gun control laws???
  During that hearing, Sen. Feinstein advocated for Operation Fast and Furious as a springboard from which to advocate for strict gun control laws, including national databases and government-controlled firearms registration. She argued that new laws could prevent future programs like Fast and Furious from reaching maturity.
  Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2011/12/07/new-documents-tie-fast-and-furious-to-gun-control-agenda/
55. Re:Important to note by Shotgun · 2012-02-29 10:52 · Score: 1
  
  Dems are giving rebates during an election year? They're treating it like Black Friday?
  
  --
  Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
  Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
56. Re:Important to note by hairyfeet · 2012-02-29 13:36 · Score: 1
  
  Considering this is coming from someone who actually BRAGS in his sig that he follows a pill popping elitist turd like Rush? I'd say that's high praise indeed. Oh and just FYI but my grandfather was a card carrying socialist, thanks. I think a social democracy would frankly be better than the corporate fascism we seem to be growing now, where the top 1% can do any damned thing they want and get paid the money of the poor for doing it. See GE getting billions in tax rebates to send their last factory to India, see Cheney and Halliburton, frankly BOTH dems and reps are total whores now for the corps. Honestly the socialists couldn't do any worse.
  
  --
  ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
57. Re:Important to note by tragedy · 2012-02-29 14:16 · Score: 1
  
  Well, yes, but it's not just a question of market conditions and competition, it's also a question of commitment. The Chinese government might have made a better choice about what technologies to back (or maybe they just made a safer choice), but they also won't waffle as much in their commitment as the US does. The whole point of product research is to develop something that can compete, but there's plenty of products that can compete, just not until a lot of development money has been sunk into them. When it comes to helping to fund things like that, the US government can be very fickle.
58. Re:Important to note by RenderSeven · 2012-02-29 15:49 · Score: 1
  
  Well, OK. Personally I wasnt that upset about Solyndra in principle (in practice it smells dirty even if it wasnt but that in itself isnt damning). But IIUC the money was for ramping production, and Im not sure the Fed should be investing at that business stage. Think of how much research and/or development could have been done with that kind of money. I'd be all for a grant/loan for basic research. Or if the Fed's had ordered $500M of Solyndra panels over a few years for Fed buildings or military bases or something, er, tangible, that would have been better. But in both cases, yes you are correct, do it for the long term and stay the course.
  
  On a side note, how about instituting a loan program for basic research, such that at any time you can either a) forgive the debt and transfer all results to the public domain or b) repay the loan from sales or royalties. Would that work?
59. Re:Important to note by Xeranar · 2012-02-29 17:55 · Score: 1
  
  Socialist! I would glare at you hard now in the most satirical of ways.
  What you just described is a form of socialism where the government backs private corporations in order to gain a better product and advance society. We would be setting up these sorts of programs if the New Deal coalition had held together longer. Instead we have a party that is wholly uninterested in public research and a party that would support it but is afraid of being tarred for socialism that is beneficial to society.
60. Re:Important to note by tragedy · 2012-02-29 17:57 · Score: 1
  
  On a side note, how about instituting a loan program for basic research, such that at any time you can either a) forgive the debt and transfer all results to the public domain or b) repay the loan from sales or royalties. Would that work?
  That could be a pretty good idea. As for government involvement in the production rather than just the research, it's not like government doesn't do this all the time in all kinds of industries it wants to promote. It does plenty of that kind of stuff for oil companies. As I understand the Solyndra case, it wasn't strictly speaking a handout, it was a loan guarantee. As it stands, the company assets still exist and it's being restructured so it's not actually necessarily dead and, if it is, it still has assets that can be sold to get at least some of the $535 million back. In the long run, it's a lot of smoke and very little fire.
61. Re:Important to note by DigiShaman · 2012-02-29 18:28 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, they can do far worse. See China for example. Fascism and Communism are essentially two sides of the same coin called Statism. It has been and always will be an epic fail to follow down these paths.
  So what exactly is the perfect system or solution? Trick question. There is none. People suck. Period.
  
  --
  Life is not for the lazy.
62. Re:Important to note by ichthus · 2012-02-29 19:03 · Score: 1
  
  Culpability for potential fallout with Pakistan (had they not already been cooperative, which they were) would, of course, be on Obama's head. He is commander in chief of the US military. But, to give him credit -- attributed as an actual accomplishment in his presidency is ridiculous. As you said, he said "go." He got lucky that he happened to be in office when Osama was found -- nothing more. And, that was my question. What policy or action did Obama put in place that lead to finding Osama?
  
  --
  sig: sauer
63. Re:Important to note by Feyshtey · 2012-03-01 05:29 · Score: 1
  
  I dont fault the energy companies. I dont even fault the pursuit of clean energy or some level of assistance by the federal govt to do so.I fault the Obama administration's role in encouraging the DOE to disregard questionable qualifications of those companies to recieve loans and providing the loans anyway. I get flat out pissed when I learn about companies treated in this way coinciding with political contributions.
  
  --
  "But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,..." - Nancy Pelosi
64. Re:Important to note by rhalstead · 2012-03-01 08:23 · Score: 1
  
  Only a week after the report? The contributions to Obama and the Democratic party were known and made public the same week the FCC *did fast track the application*. At least they attached the provision that they had to prove they would not cause interference, but when independent studies showed they did create substantial interference they denied it while trying to make it appear those tests were biased and rigged. Then they blamed the design of the GPS equipment which was never meant to compete with high powered terrestrial signals as they were in a band dedicated to lower power satellite signals. The whole thing smells from the FCC's end with them violating their own regulations to fast track the implementation of LightSquared's hardware, to the political contributions, to the denying they were responsible for the interference. "sarcasm on"Of course the administration's goal of broadband for everyone was never a consideration."sarcasm off" Sounds a lot like Solyndra with their political contributions and then leaving the real investors out in the cold when they folded, or "fast and furious" implemented for political gain and more control as admitted my Holder. At least we didn't end up giving LightSquared hundreds of millions in subsidies..."that we know of"...yet. Then there was bailing out the auto industry, giving the unions money, and again leaving those who had invested in the companies, high and dry. I can't say as I've ever had a lot of faith in politicians but this administration has set the bar to a new, record low for honesty, Chicago style politics, "pay to play", lack of transparency (remember his campaign promise), and sticking it to the working man (and woman). It's been an example of crony capitalism at it's best or rather worst. I'm all for the free market and capitalism, but keep politicians out of Industry and industry out of politics. (IOW no Lobbyists going directly into government jobs) Maybe a 5 or 10 year prohibition against retiring politicians and government workers from going to work in any arm of industry to which their job was originally related. Best we stay alert, because there are many in congress as well as the administration that want to tax the Internet, control the Internet, censure free speech on the Internet, monitor the Internet, and even put a kill switch on the Internet. The UN treaty would give other governments, that have far more restrictive controls over the Internet, that same control over the Internet here.
65. Re:Important to note by rhalstead · 2012-03-01 08:29 · Score: 1
  
  Not me! I'm expensive. Many IT project consultants make that (or more) in a week. OTOH I am retired, so the 8 grand does sound pretty good. If we didn't have SS and I could have invested all they took out of my paycheck, I'd be rich and with all that money from everyone in the economy we'd probably still be in good shape.
66. Re:Important to note by rhalstead · 2012-03-01 09:08 · Score: 1
  
  First, I'm not a Republican, but with Obama's record of indecision, installing convicted fire bombers and other anti American radicals to his staff, alienating our allies, and comforting our enemies, broken campaign promises, and crony capitalism, it becomes very easy to become anti-Obama. As for the birther, that's a non issue. He's already admitted his father was never a US citizen so he does not qualify as a "natural born citizen" and should not be allowed on the ballot. As for the campaign contributions That CEO *and* one of the major investors (Falcone) of the company still has a history of giving to the candidate and party. Unfortunately for him, as some one else pointed out, he just wasn't big enough to play with the "high rollers" . However look up how much Falcone gave to Obama and the party in addition to the CEO. As for LightSquared, giving them preferential treatment endangered the navigation system used not only by airlines, but general aviation and the military as well. All instrument flying in the future will be based on GPS (another problem) while the NDB and VOR based systems along with the ILS are going away within just a few years. LightSquared's interference to these systems could easily endanger thousands of lives. Just think of a large airliner landing at a major hub during a storm. If they lost instrument reference at a few hundred feet above ground when coming in to land it could result in a disaster. LightSquared's history on this project is one of spin and fraud. They purchased spectrum reserved for weak signal satellite receivers and tried to get away with repurposing it to use tens of thousands of high powered, ground based transmitters running 45 thousand watts each according to one of their earlier documents. With the FCC violating their own rules to fast track LightSquared's implementation there is something deeply fishy about the FCC's actions that makes a person wonder who else had their fingers in the pie with enough power to influence the FCC's decision making process to the point of violating their own rules.
67. Re:Important to note by rhalstead · 2012-03-01 09:31 · Score: 1
  
  Hey, Your are right. There is something good about Obama. He makes Bush look really good! :-))
68. Re:Important to note by rhalstead · 2012-03-01 09:40 · Score: 1
  
  Don't confuse the issue with details that most of us are familiar with already:-)) Ah, what the Hell... It takes very little to find quite a few "green" companies and particularly solar that Obama gave millions to that failed within a year from when he gave the money. In solyndra's case, even his own advisers told him they were very risky and not to do it. He ignored them. It just so happens that major investors in a number of these companies were also major campaign contributors to Obama, and/or the Democratic party. It's not abnormal for businesses to fail, but when the president personally picks them out for gigantic stimulus contrary to his advisers , some over half a billion dollars, but with a total of well over a billion dollars, and then they fail with in a year, or even a couple of months, something smells.
69. Re:Important to note by rhalstead · 2012-03-01 09:44 · Score: 1
  
  I'm glad you said, "Probably", although we'll probably never know. However he has surrounded himself with a staff consisting of radicals and even convicted terrorists (fire bombers) and those who are openly anti-American. Some so anti American and outspoken he had to get rid of them.
70. Re:Important to note by rhalstead · 2012-03-01 09:52 · Score: 1
  
  Hmmm..I think I heard about it a couple weeks back. I heard about it some months back. He heard about it the same day the agent was killed. This isn't lying? Also he is responsible for something of this magnitude, so he had better be in charge of those in charge and he best be well informed. That means Holder either lied to congress multiple times and/or he is guilty of not doing his job. Guilty either way.
71. Re:Important to note by rhalstead · 2012-03-01 09:55 · Score: 1
  
  They did know and Obama's advisers told him not to do it as the company was not healthy. Some one even predicted to the week when they would fail.
72. Re:Important to note by rhalstead · 2012-03-01 11:07 · Score: 1
  
  The price of Silicon went down some months ago to some where IIRC in the $60USD per Kilo range from over $400, or they expect to see it settle around $60. It's unlikely to go much lower. It's reached the point where it's time to thin out the manufacturers again. For some time there were 3, and then 2 manufacturers of poly crystal Silicon. Demand and capacity rose to drive the price to well over $400 USD /Kg. At that point the business was quite profitable so there were many new comers getting in. Hemlock Semiconductor (The world's largest producer) has doubled their capacity at least 3 times if not 4 and last I knew had a Billion dollar expansion under way again. They have also opened a second production facility, I believe in Kentucky. The Poly production industry has always been feast or famine. Back in the early days as demand rose and production struggled to keep up the price rose to something like $60/Kg IIRC. Then as new technology increased capacity and purity I think poly hit a low of close to some where between $6 and $12/Kg. Early production rods were only about 3/4" (1961) in diameter and 16" long. 20 years ago they had progressed to rods larger than 2 men could carry. The purity of the Poly had reached the point where it was of a higher purity coming right out of the reactor than we could get from multi pass zone refining 30 years prior to that. To point out how simple things can make major changes: About 40 years ago we developed a method of sawing wafers with only half the loss we had been getting. This meant the available silicon doubled almost overnight (the time frame was actually about a week) with no real increase in production cost. That simple move put the industry on its knees because there was suddenly twice as much silicon available for the same demand. It caused industry wide layoffs and some companies went under. As to solar panels, we are reaching a point where the support structure, inverters, storage (if used), and installation are becoming the major portion of the cost of implementing any system. So there are two areas of interest and competition. Building the cells where the cost of competing materials is significant, and the cost of implementing the solar array where the cost of the cells may be a minor portion of the system cost. As the Silicon industry in other countries is highly subsidized that can make building cells on an economically viable basis somewhat problematic. We are reaching the point where making the cells less expensive has much less impact on the cost of implementing a complete system.
Re:I knew it was too good to be true. by MightyMartian · 2012-02-29 04:35 · Score: 2

Well, of course, apart from the fact that it would smashed neighboring frequencies and would probably have never worked properly, of course.

--
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Call me crazy... by Kythe · 2012-02-29 04:36 · Score: 1

...but I have my doubts that a "report" by The Daily Caller had much to do with anything (regardless of its accuracy). Lightsquared's problems seem to run a little deeper than that.

--

Kythe
Implications for the administration? by sandytaru · 2012-02-29 04:37 · Score: 2

It's an election year so they're probably happy to accept any money they can get, but I wonder if anyone within the administration or the DNC itself is going to get some smackdown for this incident.

--
Occasionally living proof of the Ballmer peak.
1. Re:Implications for the administration? by willaien · 2012-02-29 04:40 · Score: 1
  
  Keep in mind that the intended effect (fast track approval) didn't happen.
2. Re:Implications for the administration? by alen · 2012-02-29 04:45 · Score: 1
  
  the 2012 election is going to cost north of $500 million per campaign. figure $20,000 - $50,000 max per donor when you figure the dinners and the individual contribution.
  one less $50,000 check from a pissed off hedge fund manager in a sea of donations isn't going to swing it to the republicans. there are hundreds of funds headquartered in DNC heavy areas that will still go for obama
3. Re:Implications for the administration? by Baloroth · 2012-02-29 04:55 · Score: 1
  
  They did get conditional approval and lots of praise from the FCC, though. The problem was using bandwidth for terrestrial stations that close to the GPS spectrum was always a bad idea. The spectrum was always intended to be used for satellite transmissions: the FCC themselves designated it for that. For them to offer conditional approval later shows someone was pushing for Lightsquared to succeed. Not even that could get past the fact that their system interferes with most GPS systems, though, and it would be nearly impossible to fix that problem.
  
  --
  "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
4. Re:Implications for the administration? by msauve · 2012-02-29 05:04 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  "the intended effect (fast track approval) didn't happen."
  
  Actually, it did, in a way. The fast track process was started, the filing was accepted in one day (a process which normally takes months). The normally required 30 day comment period was reduced by the FCC to an effective 5 1/2 days (it was 10 days, but across a long US holiday weekend). Granted, the actual approval didn't end up happening, but not because the FCC didn't try to help them out. It was an alert CTIA which filed an extension request, and alerted GPS users of the potential issues.
  
  --
  "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
5. Re:Implications for the administration? by maple_shaft · 2012-02-29 05:12 · Score: 1
  
  Exactly. Moreover, despite the implications of the report in The Daily Caller (which has right-wing leanings), there doesn't seem to be much "there", there.
  Exactly. This whole non-story just reeks of another right-wing think tank attempt to paint the picture of a corrupt administration that sneakily gets away with things all the time. And just in time for the 2012 election cycle as their golden boy Mitt is close to clinching the Republican nomination.
  Look for this to be plastered all over the conservative rags and Faux news for the next several months. The sad thing is that the people will just eat it up because they want so badly to believe that Obama is a corrupt president.
6. Re:Implications for the administration? by vlm · 2012-02-29 05:14 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  For them to offer conditional approval later shows someone was pushing for Lightsquared to succeed.
  They appear to be crooks and what they're doing was a dumb idea from a tech standpoint ... but... from personal experience the FCC will license almost anyone to do almost anything on a conditional experimental non-interfering basis. I know this goes against /. group think about the govt, but at least WRT to temporary conditional experimental licenses the FCC has always been very libertarian, perhaps the most so of all the fedgov, maybe more than all the rest of the fedgov put together.
  The way its supposed to work, for a real world example, is 20 ham radio guys who know what they're doing, get a temporary experimental license to F around near the now unused traditional 500 KHz marine radio band, mostly trying to figure out how they can do it without interfering with any remaining primary users (if any?). Then the experiment ends and everyone goes away, more or less happy. Someday, maybe Very Soon the data those guys gathered will get the hams a 500 KHz allocation ... or maybe not. What LS did instead of basically a big lab experiment, was get their standard off the shelf FCC response of "go out there, F around, and for gods sake don't break anything and stop the moment I tell you to" permission slip that anyone else can get for the asking, and then used it to raise Billions of dollars and make campaign contributions and then started crying unfair when it turns out it didn't work out.
  Its not like the FCC was "pushing" just for LS, they pretty much rubber stamp any non-totally stupid experimental request. LS is just crying because the experiment failed and they owe Billions and though thousands in campaign contributions would fix it. Millions in bribes might have. But thousands? Not gonna work.
  
  --
  "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
7. Re:Implications for the administration? by sjames · 2012-02-29 05:31 · Score: 1
  
  What implications? The implication that they don't do special favors in exchange for the donations? Kinda like that F.O.P. sticker on your bumper isn't actually a get out of jail free card?
8. Re:Implications for the administration? by canajin56 · 2012-02-29 05:51 · Score: 1
  
  In January 2011 they were given conditional approval, that if by June 2011, with monthly progress reports, they could form a working group with the GPS providers, and demonstrate that both parties are happy and there is no interference, then they could go ahead (after the MANDATORY 30 day comment period). LightSquared got an extension so their final report was filed June 30th, and the MANDATORY 30 day comment period was July 1-30th. What dates are you talking about? Because it seems to me that there was a full 30 day comment period, and that happened 6 months after the conditional approval was granted. (Conditional approval does NOT let them start, they have to wait until the very end, other than their testing stations).
  
  --
  ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
9. Re:Implications for the administration? by Kythe · 2012-02-29 05:52 · Score: 2
  
  Well said. It should also be remembered (or learned, for those who don't know) that FCC is considered an "independent agency", meaning that while they're technically in the executive branch, their leadership is not part of the Cabinet. They are more responsive to Congress than to the White House.
  
  --
  
  Kythe
10. Re:Implications for the administration? by msauve · 2012-02-29 06:10 · Score: 1
  
  Really? You can't click the obviously labeled "fast track FCC approval" link in the summary? Let me help:
  
  Lightsquared filed the Application on Thursday, November, 18th [2010], and by the end of business on Friday November 19th, the FCC had "Accepted the Filing and issued a Public Notice". The Lightsquared request was Accepted for filing in ONE BUSINESS DAY, while it took the same FCC International Bureau 3 MONTHS to "accept" the Globalstar application for filing...The FCC has waived their "regulatory magic-wand" and now reduced the reply period to 10 days even though the rules require a 30 day reply period. Now the stench is really piling up. The fact that this comes just before the Thanksgiving Holiday which is the busiest travel Holiday of the year where many people leave on Wednesday and business as usual doesn't really get back on line until the following Tuesday.
  
  --
  "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
11. Re:Implications for the administration? by crypticedge · 2012-02-29 06:43 · Score: 1
  
  If I didn't already use all my mod points today, you would be getting a rate up from me. This is seriously +5 informative material here.
Re:Wow by GodInHell · 2012-02-29 04:38 · Score: 4, Informative

Actually... this keeps happening when people try to buy Obama. He got burned by his dealings with Rezzko and has been really strict about reporting and clean hands accounting since.

-GiH
Re:I knew it was too good to be true. by GodInHell · 2012-02-29 04:39 · Score: 1

Hmm.. When you put it like that, I'm surprised the Iranian government hasn't already implemented this technology.
Nothing new by jone_stone · 2012-02-29 04:39 · Score: 2

There's absolutely nothing new about this situation. It's a fact of modern political life that if you want face time with a politician you have to donate to their campaign. Planet Money did an interesting podcast about the concept of political fundraisers in Washington that really sheds light on the problem: http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2011/11/01/141913370/the-tuesday-podcast-inside-washingtons-money-machine
1. Re:Nothing new by geekoid · 2012-02-29 05:41 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  AS someone who has met with politician, and not made any kind of donation, I call you a liar.
  
  --
  The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
2. Re:Nothing new by Spy+Handler · 2012-02-29 05:52 · Score: 1
  
  AS someone who is not literal-minded, and can parse context and hyperbole, I call you a dumbass.
Grammar fail by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-29 04:40 · Score: 1

"...the company who's request...."
[facepalm] Um yeah... "who's" is not the droid you're looking for.
English? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-29 04:41 · Score: 1

the company who's request to use make use of spectrum
Re:I knew it was too good to be true. by OverlordQ · 2012-02-29 04:43 · Score: 5, Informative

You know, really depressing thing I've found is that there appears to be no proof of this allegation. The accusation enough seems to have been sufficient to stop anyone from even trying to prove it.
Because there isn't anything to prove, it's basic physics. But to appease shills like you, they did do that test.

--
Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
Not sure what the fuss is about by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-29 04:45 · Score: 1

I am not sure why everybody is getting hissy-puffy about this.
If political contributions are not intended to sway the people in charge, or to be in charge, what are they for?
Why would a public company, whose goal is to maximize shareholder value, would give money to politicians if not in hopes of getting some sort of favorable treatment? And if they do it, why would you blame them? I would be upset if a company I have invested money into were to give money to people without hope of getting anything back in return.
The supreme court said it was OK, so it must be OK.
Maybe it's OK as long as you do not do it in a too obvious way?
1. Re:Not sure what the fuss is about by PPH · 2012-02-29 05:37 · Score: 1
  
  I would be upset if a company I have invested money into were to give money to people without hope of getting anything back in return.
  That describes quite a few CEOs, golden parachutes and all.
  
  --
  Have gnu, will travel.
2. Re:Not sure what the fuss is about by msauve · 2012-02-29 05:40 · Score: 2
  
  "If political contributions are not intended to sway the people in charge, or to be in charge, what are they for?"
  
  Are you serious? They're contributions made under the US Campaign Finance laws. The legal intent is that they are to be spent on political campaigns to sway voters to support the candidate/party to whom they're given, not to directly influence policy. The latter is bribery.
  
  If a company has an interest in particular areas of government policy, they should be contributing to candidates who best support their position, not bribing the current officeholder in an attempt to directly influence policy.
  
  --
  "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
3. Re:Not sure what the fuss is about by kbdd · 2012-02-29 08:36 · Score: 1
  
  The difference between giving money to someone without expecting anything in return (political contribution) and giving money to someone while expecting something in return (which is usually considered to be bribery, even though it may not meet the legal definition of bribery) is entirely contained in the expectation of the gifter. Therefore, to an external observer, they are indistinguishable.
4. Re:Not sure what the fuss is about by honkycat · 2012-02-29 08:42 · Score: 1
  
  Are you serious? They're contributions made under the US Campaign Finance [wikipedia.org] laws. The legal intent is that they are to be spent on political campaigns to sway voters to support the candidate/party to whom they're given, not to directly influence policy. The latter is bribery.
  
  Are you serious? Do you really believe that contributions don't influence policy because of their legal intent?
  The rules probably do provide a bit of protection---outright policy-buying is difficult, but I don't think it's possible to truly believe that a successful politician doesn't consider his significant donors when he makes decisions. You can't legislate against this effectively unless you disallow donations. Otherwise there's always the implicit threat that next year's donation won't be made.
Why Bother resigning? by geminidomino · 2012-02-29 04:45 · Score: 4, Insightful

Seriously? Chris Dodd basically dick-smacked the entire concept of "bribing government is bad" into non-existence, but they force this guy out?
I guess that "contribution" wasn't big enough.
1. Re:Why Bother resigning? by DaMattster · 2012-02-29 05:03 · Score: 1
  
  The entire concept of what consitutes bribery is very hypocritical. It seems to be who you're connections are and how much money you have. It was the famous Jewish mobster Meyer Lansky that once said, "Money talks and bullshit walks!"
Re:I knew it was too good to be true. by vlm · 2012-02-29 04:48 · Score: 1

You know, really depressing thing I've found is that there appears to be no proof of this allegation. The accusation enough seems to have been sufficient to stop anyone from even trying to prove it.
If you're getting paid to astroturf, I hope its in cash because LS already stiffed Inmarsat for $50M last week. Its gone, all of it.

--
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
Re:I knew it was too good to be true. by Baloroth · 2012-02-29 04:50 · Score: 5, Informative

You've obviously not been looking hard enough. The Ars Technica article sums up the science behind it pretty well (basically, they did a test run of the terrestrial base-stations and it interfered with ~75% of GPS devises, after LightSquared reduced the stations power to try to fix the problem). There is a ton of proof that they actually interfere with GPS signals, namely, actual experiments.

--
"None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
Re:I knew it was too good to be true. by vlm · 2012-02-29 04:51 · Score: 1

Hmm.. When you put it like that, I'm surprised the Iranian government hasn't already implemented this technology.
How do you know?
http://www.qsl.net/n9zia/wireless/gps_jam-pics.html

--
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
Disgusting in context with Chris Dodd by BMOC · 2012-02-29 04:54 · Score: 3, Informative

This is enough to get someone to resign on the appearance of Bribery but Chris Dodd's blatant admission of buying representation is not? double standard continues for elected officials.

--
I swear they give me mod points to shut me up.
1. Re:Disgusting in context with Chris Dodd by geekoid · 2012-02-29 05:47 · Score: 2
  
  If Chris Dodd had been involved in bribery, you might have had a point, but he wasn't. I'm sure Fox told you he was, and I should expect you to thin for yourself. Still, I have hope you people can rub your two remaining brain cells together.
  He was a victim of the same machine that tried to scandalize Clinton. Make a huge issue and of normal stuff, but when nothing comes out just stop reporting, let the rumor mill work around, and don't mention you were wrong in the first place. If you are lucky, you might find something people don't like and blow it out of proportion.
  
  --
  The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
2. Re:Disgusting in context with Chris Dodd by BMOC · 2012-02-29 05:56 · Score: 2
  
  So, his open complaint pasted all over the internet about not getting the correct result on PIPA/SOPA doesn't strike you as an admission of bribery of elected officials? Mind you, this open admission by Dodd caused thousands of people to directly petition Obama to open an investigation into him. I sincerely doubt most of those people were "Fox News watchers."
  
  --
  I swear they give me mod points to shut me up.
Re:Wow by tripleevenfall · 2012-02-29 04:55 · Score: 2

I agree this happens in politics all the time. The differences are that the purchase of influence is extraordinarily well documented in these cases, and the people buying influence from Obama don't seem to know how to run a business at a profit.
Re:The Chicago Way by vlm · 2012-02-29 04:55 · Score: 1

When the people in the White House do things the Chicago Way in Washington it is a felony.
You do know the whole point of this "drama" is he did it perfectly legally?
Well there is some weirdness with the non-legally-required job data they gather where he listed his former employer, but since its optional data, no one did anything illegal.
You might have the quaint idea that illegal = immoral = unethical but that hasn't been the American way, ever, although its traditionally been how we look inaccurately at the past. Kind of like how we traditionally believe the founding fathers were hyperreligious; you know like Jefferson with the ironic "in god we trust" on his coin...

--
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
assumed its was like India by peter303 · 2012-02-29 04:57 · Score: 1

Its corrupt in the USA, but not that corrupt.
1. Re:assumed its was like India by jshark · 2012-02-29 05:20 · Score: 1
  
  you haven't been here long, have you?
  
  --
  If you're gonna be dumb, you gotta be tough.
2. Re:assumed its was like India by tnk1 · 2012-02-29 06:14 · Score: 1
  
  No, it is really much more corrupt in India, it's just that here, we have certain more stringent expectations of our government that most Indians do not have of theirs.
Re:That link is dead. by ColdWetDog · 2012-02-29 04:59 · Score: 1

I can't believe you're serious. If you put the electrons that have been used to technically decimate the Lightsquared proposal together in a row you could probably make a wire that stretched to Alpha Centuri.
I'm not even going to make a LMGTFY link. You'll have to do it yourself.

--
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
What's the story here? by mrquagmire · 2012-02-29 05:03 · Score: 1

What's the story here? It is completely legal in this great country of ours for companies to bribe, err I mean donate money to political figures. Remember, corporations are "people" and money is "free speech." And it's also business as usual for cronies, err I mean politicians, to give preferential treatment to their buddies.

So what's different about this deal that warranted an article describing something that happens every day here?

--
giggity
So Ahuja Got Fired by Kozar_The_Malignant · 2012-02-29 05:04 · Score: 2

He didn't get fired for trying to bribe the administration. He got fired for not being successful at it.

--
Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
1. Re:So Ahuja Got Fired by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-29 05:28 · Score: 1
  
  He did not get fired. He resigned. He did not try to bribe the administration. He did bribe the administration.
2. Re:So Ahuja Got Fired by Kozar_The_Malignant · 2012-02-29 05:54 · Score: 1
  
  This is how "fired" works at this level. The chairman of the board of directors meets with the CEO and explains that the CEO will no longer be working there. The CEO then resigns "to spend more quality time with my family."
  
  --
  Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
Re:Of course it was Bush's fault! by Kythe · 2012-02-29 05:11 · Score: 2

I'm sorry, but this simplistic view is laughable. After nearly 200,000 documents and several investigations, no evidence that any political pressure was applied to approve the loan has been found.

None.

So no, it wasn't "team Obama" -- it was career feds, doing what they're supposed to do: review loan applications and decide whether to approve or deny.

Some loan recipients go bust. That's the way it is -- which you'd likely admit, if an honest appraisal of the situation were your main goal.

--

Kythe
Re:Of course it was Bush's fault! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-29 05:12 · Score: 4, Informative

Rejected? Rejected is a bit of a strong word. Try deferred until they met certain conditions like raising further outside capital.
Which they met.
And no, it was not Bush's fault. Nobody is saying that. They are saying that Bush originated the program, and that Solyndra was a fast-track candidate, but fault is distinct from the clarification. When it comes to fault, It was China's. Because China massively subsidized their own solar industry.
However, Solyndra DID build their factory, they DID follow through on what they claimed to do, so you know what? The people who claim it was a fraud and a scam are wrong.
Re:The Chicago Way by Cruorin · 2012-02-29 05:19 · Score: 1

"In God We Trust" didn't appear on US currency until lincoln, for religious reasons. It was then required on all currency in the '50s because communists were godless bastards we had to oppose in all things.
Now he can become a politician by realsilly · 2012-02-29 05:20 · Score: 1

Maybe I'm a bit biased against all politicians, but the way I see it, if allegations are true, he's now passed all requirements to become a politician in any country.

--
Life takes interesting turns, but the most interest is when you're off the beaten path.
Less government power is the answer by Kohath · 2012-02-29 05:24 · Score: 2

The way to have less corruption is for government to have less power over people. Why bribe someone who can't help (or hurt) you? Smaller government is the answer.
1. Re:Less government power is the answer by GodfatherofSoul · 2012-02-29 05:45 · Score: 1
  
  Because very simply, governments will always have *some* power and with *some* power there's profit to be made in legalized bribery (campaign contributions). The only way for your suggestion to work is to go the "On the duty of civil disobedience" route which means NO government, which will never work unfortunately.
  
  --
  I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
2. Re:Less government power is the answer by Beelzebud · 2012-02-29 06:05 · Score: 1
  
  And yet you're bringing this up on a story about a case where the bribe didn't work... Smaller government is not the answer.
3. Re:Less government power is the answer by tnk1 · 2012-02-29 06:21 · Score: 2
  
  In his defense, he did say "less corruption", not "no corruption". Corruption is not a good thing, but there's a difference between someone paying off a cop to get out of a speeding ticket and someone paying the government to give them thousands or millions in taxpayer money. You'll probably never get rid of the more venial sort of corruption, except possibly through education and strict control, but you can reduce the scope of what government corruption makes possible. After all, one of the reasons that they can get away with this sort of stuff is because it can all happen without anyone having insight into it, even someone like the President.
  Like water, government is mostly transparent in smaller amounts, but turn it into a lake or an ocean and it gets a lot more murky.
4. Re:Less government power is the answer by BlueStrat · 2012-02-29 07:33 · Score: 1
  
  Like water, government is mostly transparent in smaller amounts, but turn it into a lake or an ocean and it gets a lot more murky.
  Very apt.
  I like the "fire" analogy I've used before as well.
  "Government is like fire, and should be treated very much the same, and for nearly identical reasons. Both are extremely useful, but at the same time extremely destructive, dangerous, swift-spreading, and hard to control, particularly the larger either grows. Both governments and fire, once either has grown to a certain size, becomes impossible for the ones who started it to control and morphs from a useful force for good and champion for freedom and the Rule of Law, to a force for tyranny, evil, and the capricious rule of men."
  Strat
  
  --
  Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
5. Re:Less government power is the answer by Shotgun · 2012-02-29 11:42 · Score: 1
  
  The only stories we'll ever be able to bring it up on are the ones where it didn't work. When it works, we never hear about it, so there aren't any stories to tell.
  Smaller government is the only answer.
  
  --
  Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
  Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
Re:Wow by geekoid · 2012-02-29 05:26 · Score: 1

How much politics have you been involved with? How many government agencies?
I have never seen this happen. Most investigation into these matter find nothing, and when they do people are punished.
But you keep living in your bubble of ignorance... just keep it to yourself.

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Names, but no circumstances by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-29 05:27 · Score: 3, Informative

Let's see, counting Solyndra, you have now come up to 4.
You're still 4 short.
Oh wait, Uni-Solar's PARENT company is the one that filed for bankruptcy, not just the Uni-Solar unit. Maybe the whole company had problems, but the unit itself could have been fine. Evergreen got subsidies from the State of Massachusetts, not the Feds. I'd look up SpectraWatt, but I think two out of three is enough disputation to demand that you share more facts to justify your claims.
Re:That link is dead. by geekoid · 2012-02-29 05:33 · Score: 2

Wikipedia talks about it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LightSquared
IT does look like they were working through the issues; which mostly involved GPS.
Now, maybe they couldn't completely do it, so he tried to bribe people.

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Re:I knew it was too good to be true. by canajin56 · 2012-02-29 05:36 · Score: 1

The tests (that actually happened) showed that 75% of consumer GPS devices received harmful interference when within 100 meters of the base station, and that's what's sufficient. LightSquared tried to argue that "harmful interference doesn't mean total failure! The test should have been whether or not the devices failed completely, not whether their accuracy was degraded! This test was obviously rigged against us OMG!" Only, too bad.

--
ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
Re:Of course it was Bush's fault! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-29 05:37 · Score: 2, Insightful

you're on slashdot. No evidence IS evidence of wrongdoing.
Re:Wow by tomhath · 2012-02-29 05:43 · Score: 1

It doesn't sound like he kept his hands very clean this time.
Re:I knew it was too good to be true. by interval1066 · 2012-02-29 05:48 · Score: 1

I am confusored. Say this guy actually bought Obama, or was some how able to push his technology through, and thier product/service did infact mess up everyone's gps. Did he think the problem would eventually disappear? I mean, wtf kind of long term thinkingis that? There is no way that would have been left alone. I don't see the LT strategy here.

--
Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
Re:The Chicago Way by vlm · 2012-02-29 06:03 · Score: 1

If you're aware of Jefferson's religious belief, or lack thereof, the hilarious part is they put that on his coin but they were not smart enough to remove him from our currency.

--
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
Overdue by ThatsNotPudding · 2012-02-29 06:24 · Score: 1

I was thinking the GOP was way behind in running their now-standard play of starting impeachment proceedings on every sitting Democratic president based on abject bullshit. I guess the primary fight has slowed their plans.
Bribery going on around here? by k6mfw · 2012-02-29 06:47 · Score: 1

Shocked, I tell you, I'm shocked there's bribery going on in this country.

--
mfwright@batnet.com
Re:Sounds toasty by vlm · 2012-02-29 08:14 · Score: 1

Five hundred Kelvin-Hertz, eh? So hams are going straight to hell now?
hell is 75 meter sideband or 20 meter sideband and the bandswitch (and/or tuning dial) is broken

--
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
Re:I knew it was too good to be true. by chihowa · 2012-02-29 09:17 · Score: 2

"intermodulation distortion"
GPS receivers are built too cheap
So? GPS receivers were built under the assumption that no terrestrial signals would exist near them (which was a safe assumption given the frequency allocations). If the choice comes down to 1) keep GPS as it is (receivers are relatively cheap, small, and readily available) or 2) have the service LS was developing at that frequency, then I'd say GPS is the clear winner. Why have to dispose of decades worth of GPS receivers just for yet another LTE network? Why doesn't LS just use a different frequency? There's nothing essential about this particular frequency except that it was (supposed to be) cheap. Fuck 'em.

--
If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
Re:That link is dead. by gl4ss · 2012-02-29 10:07 · Score: 2

the businessweek link is indeed dead.
on top of that, if you search for the article, you can find it on the businessweek site, but that link is a 404 too, and most other sites linked to that.
anyhow. http://www.dot.gov/affairs/2011/dot16411.html should suffice.

--
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
does it matter who is bribed? by lophophore · 2012-02-29 10:55 · Score: 1

Does it really matter who is bribed, which party?
It is offensive enough when politicians of either party get bribed, corporations get special treatment, and the public gets stiffed.
The "surprise" here is that (in this case) the democrats got bribed by big business, who they normally rail against.
Usually they get bribed by big labor.

--
there are 3 kinds of people:
* those who can count
* those who can't
Re:Of course it was Bush's fault! by Shotgun · 2012-02-29 11:05 · Score: 1

And the letters from the the Bush officials saying that Solyndra would go bankrupt? And the "negotiation" that resulted in private investors being put ahead of the government guaranteed loans, against federal law? None of that is fraudulent or a scam?

--
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
Of course it matters. by drainbramage · 2012-02-29 11:16 · Score: 3, Informative

From reading /. I learned that only those morally bankrupt evil conniving lowdown scumbag Republicans take bribes.
Democrats take campaign donations.
Hope that clears things up.

--
No brain, no pain.
1. Re:Of course it matters. by Xeranar · 2012-02-29 17:52 · Score: 1
  
  Just like Republicans want to cut social security, interfere in healthcare on a personal level for women's reproductive rights, and generally force all government expenditures onto the backs of the poor. The democrats want to do....none of that surprisingly. The only think I learn from /. in terms of politics is that it is overwhelming populated with very smart people who have STEM or CS degrees but no nothing of basic politics and seem to follow Ron Paul more often than not. As a whole /. skews south park conservative (i.e. they hate corporations but they also hate hippies, ultimately though their corporate hate is put aside because they're fundamentally greedy and thus want to be rich like said corporations). I think I am one of the only PhD holders who regularly posts that has their doctorate in a social science.
  I repeatedly see the "big government" argument trotted out but most people who use it here don't really understand how bad of a trope it really is. Modern governments are large by definition. They are required to regulate almost all aspects of business to keep the environment safe, workers safe, and produce a living wage. Ricardo over a 200 years ago realized that with surplus labor the value of said labor would collapse and thus the need to rise above subsistence became a job of the government. If these people wish to go back to a provisional government that allowed for market control a fair portion of the US population would die of starvation if not rebel in a civil war against those who still held money and power. This is just a simple example of the stupidity spouted around /. involving politics. It's why I try to not involve myself too often but really the sheer stupidity overwhelms my senses and I have to froth a little at times.
2. Re:Of course it matters. by FishOuttaWater · 2012-03-01 05:13 · Score: 2
  
  So, what you're saying is that America is a socialist state now, and any return to capitalism will result in starvation and civil war? If I understand you correctly, that's a bold statement. Can you point us to something to support that position?
3. Re:Of course it matters. by Xeranar · 2012-03-02 05:50 · Score: 1
  
  Define capitalism before I bother to go further because you're very clearly trying to strawman the argument. I was pointing out the natural institutionalization of government in the 20th and 21st century. You drew on the idea of socialism where I never mention it. If anything I am drawing a comparison to a mixed government versus a hard-core libertarian government.
He wasn't fired for trying to bribe .. by twistofsin · 2012-02-29 14:16 · Score: 1

He was fired because he didn't do a good enough job at it to carry the company.
Re:Wow by GodInHell · 2012-03-01 10:13 · Score: 1

No worries.