The "easily disassembled" part is a function of a good design. As such, it falls under high quality. Small is also a function of the design, and as such falls under the high quality.
Not necessarily. Apple's machines are generally very well designed but are generally a pain in the ass to dissemble and service. Similarly, there have been many crap machines that have been really easy to disassemble and service that I've owned with terrible designs.
The two are rarely related in terms of functional design and ease of disassemble when it comes to the average user.
On my laptop's Windows partition (Turion 64 x2, Windows XP pro installed, 2 GB of RAM) iTunes is nearly unusable and no, I don't have a lot of junk installed, the only thing other than essential Windows processes that was running was iTunes and it is close to unusable. VLC runs just fine on there, Foobar 2000 runs just fine on there, heck, Windows Media Player runs just fine on there but iTunes is a bloated piece of crap. The only reason I have it is that when I first bought my iPod touch it was the only way you could sync things to it. When you buy a song it takes longer to "process" the file than it does to download the song. And no, I'm not playing HD videos or anything through it, just syncing and playing some music. There is -no- excuse to why iTunes is such a piece of crap.
Quicktime/iTunes isn't bad when ran on OS X because its pretty much native. Its bloated on Windows because it seems to think that rather than using the things that are already there, you need to install half of OS X to run a program.
...Probably nothing. Chances are, his site would be just like those spammers advertising "fr33 micros0ft p0intz g3n3rat0rz" and would be ignored by everyone.
Considering that most HTML 5 sites are coded to work with Firefox/Chrome/Safari and no one is really developing actively for IE in terms of HTML 5, I'd imagine that for the time being it doesn't really make a bit of difference.
Lulwut? I'm hardly leftist (as seen by my sig) and hardly environmentalist (drive a '97 expedition). I'm simply saying that these people who push for morality being legislated need to stand up and simply forbid the government from interfering in those areas because unless they do that, 25, 50 years down the road when the majority shifts from being a mostly Christian majority to a majority of atheism, agnosticism and non-christian religions, they are going to have their morality forced on them.
The real irony is that despite these clear ratings that have been on the boxes since VHS and in many instances even included prior to the movie's starting, these 12-year olds and younger end up watching them anyway.
Heaven forbid that some people mature faster than others and can easily separate reality from fiction.
it's hard to see how private industry in and of itself would have the where with all to develop it. I know there were other forms of internal networking, but DARPA had fairly specific needs for a routed packet switching network, and not in the sort of fixed networks that corporations were using.
In the late 1960s, name me a company that had a lot of computers that needed to "talk" to one another via large expanses. There wasn't any, the only entity large enough to have that problem was the US government.
Fixed networks worked just fine for the problems that businesses faced and its incorrect to assume that when businesses started to expand and need networks like the US government needed back in the late 60s they wouldn't have created something very similar if not exactly like the ARPANET and eventually expand it to something almost exactly like the internet we have now.
There was nothing "magical" that governments had that created it, it just happened to be that the only entity large enough to have those problems at the time was the US government.
Yes, that is the thing, governments should stay out of morality, its best for everyone. First off, think about your own morals, the Christian right really needs to look at trends in Europe and stand up against government regulation of morality, because, perhaps in 20 years they might not be the majority and another (anti)religious group will take their place.
Free speech should be free speech. So long as it doesn't interfere with your rights and your property rights it should be perfectly allowed no matter what it is.
It shouldn't matter what the game is like. Free speech is free speech. I don't know where people got the illusion that the only thing free speech should be for is saying how great the government is and how great things are now.
Free speech, so long as it doesn't interfere with anyone else and their property rights should be 100% legal.
The ESRB only sees more success because if you want to get a game on the Xbox/Wii/PS3/DS/PSP/etc. you pretty much have to get it rated before they will accept it. Plus, there has been a growth in commercial iPhone games which many of them get certified too.
Plus, most people don't really want porn games compared to things like porn movies and even "indie" games have ESRB ratings and "indie" records usually don't bother to get certified by anyone.
It has nothing to do with the strength of the ESRB and everything to do with the state of gaming in 2010.
But there wasn't anything special about governments that made it possible. It was simply that in the late 60s no one but the US government had enough computers and the like to make it be possible.
If the internet had not been born from the government, I have little doubt I'd still be typing this message on it, it simply would have been born from a corporation, perhaps with better features and the like.
It makes no sense for a government which has fixed costs to mandate a variable cost system of theft. There is a fundamental mistake in figuring that someone who makes $15,000 a year uses less government than the person who makes $300,000. Costs are fixed and should be based simply on fixed costs. You should pay for what you use. If you use $3,000 in government programs you should have to pay $3,000 no matter if you make $15,000 a year or $300,000 a year.
Would a roommate who stole $2.50 from you every month out of your wallet bug you? Sure, its not much but you'd sure as hell rather him keep his hands off of your wallet.
There is a huge difference between research and wealth distribution.
There is nothing about research that makes me pay for a non-existent product. If GE wants to research a new refrigeration technology, it doesn't take money out of my paycheck, rather it can use surpluses given to it in a competitive (and the word competitive is important) market to go towards R&D. When I buy a GE fridge, I want a fridge that does what its supposed to do. What GE does with that money is up to them. However, with the government there is no say in it. There is no competitive market and there can not legally be one.
Research can be done ethically, not by stealing my money.
It may not be "a lot" to you, but that equals out to be about $600 per couple, enough to cover a month's rent in many cases. Enough to buy a few months of groceries.
My guess is that its because China feels morally responsible for the welfare of North Korea. Quite honestly, without Chinese aid and trade, the people of North Korea would starve to death.
a) Private, commercial ventures are also always plagued by waste and inefficiencies. Humans are involved. You get what you get.
The difference is, they aren't wasting my money. I don't really care what Coca Cola does with my $.50 for a can of Coke. For all I care the CEO can bathe in that money. I bought Coca Cola because I wanted a drink. If I really was opposed to what Coke did with my money, I could buy Pepsi or any number of colas. On the other hand, if Coke stole $.50 out of my paycheck, I'd care what they did with that money and I wouldn't want them stealing from me.
That is the difference between government and private enterprise. When a government does something, the money comes from the taxpayers, willing or not. When private enterprise does something it is a voluntary exchange.
b) Just because there's waste doesn't mean it's 95% waste. That's like saying that because lightbulbs emit both heat and light, they're incapable of ever illuminating anything.
Sure, it was an exaggeration. But the point still remains, if you are going to take money from me for a certain purpose I want to be damn sure they aren't wasting a cent of it.
The underlying assumption is that you can only trust someone who wants to take your money for his own profit, because anything else is too good to be true. But not too much profit. So you can only trust someone who wants to take your money for his own profit in a suitably competitive market. You only trust greedy people. And then...
But I don't effectively 'donate' money to a company. I buy products. I have competition. I buy products which I think have a low price and high quality. I'm not putting my trust in anything and that is the beauty of corporate R&D. I don't have to have faith in a CEO to buy a product. I buy the product because I trust the -product-. I don't trust Steve Ballmer, but I did buy a copy of Windows 7 to dual-boot in a new desktop I built. Why? Because I trusted that Windows 7 would run a few PC games that I play that didn't run correctly in WINE. I bought Windows 7 for a specific goal and I knew that it would achieve it, that is why I bought it.
d) No. They're not stealing. We're pooling our moneys to achieve a common goal, as we've agreed to do, through the system of laws we've previously agreed to. If you don't like it, go live in France. (I can say this because I got tired of being told to live in France when I bitched about our new motherland security overlords after 9/11.)
When did I agree to these goals? Not through any of the candidates I ever voted for. Certainly not through direct consent. The only argument you can make that these goals were consented upon is the argument that an armed robber was given money as a gift.
The only way that taxation is free of theft is taxation for what you, personally use with an agreement that for things other than defense, you can choose to use a different service provider.
And as for moving to a different country, I can't really find another country quite yet with sane taxation and the like. Europe is mostly socialist as is Australia, Asia is either ruled through dictatorships (China, Korea) or through the same lack of limited government that the US has (Japan), South America is either ruled through dictatorships or through socialism. Etc.
e) That's what it *does*. That is the function of government. All freedoms not taken away, we keep. You're complaining that they're doing their job? If not, we need to know the specific restrictions you disagree with; honestly, I trust them to have a better idea of what restrictions we need than I trust you. They have thousands of people looking at what can go wrong when some private individual decides it's perfectly safe to shoot a rocket off from his back yard to go colonize Mars. And those thousands of people? They're just private citi
Its not that hard to see why Ozzy is alive. One he can get constant medical care if need be. And two, he is rich enough to make sure that his drugs are pure. A lot of drug deaths happen not because of the drugs themselves, but because of additives in the drugs.
Governments DO NOT have infinite money. They have a lot, but it is certianly not infinite.
Tell me this then, what is the US dollar backed up by? Gold? Nope. Silver? Nope. Copper? Nope. Hell, our coins have been simple tokens for almost the past 50 years. The US dollar is backed up by nothing. Yes, they don't have "infinite" money because every time they create money they lose some of the purchasing power. But for all practical intents and purposes they have infinite money on whatever they need to spend it on.
And, while the government is usually inefficient, it is not always so.
[citation needed]
Likewise, businesses can be inefficient and still stay in business, depending on the competitive situation.
To a point, but its future ultimately depends on efficiency at some point. If Microsoft doesn't make another version of Windows for 20 years and fails to maintain Windows 7, do you think they will stay in business? When a company doesn't innovate or has wasteful bureaucracy it dies and a company that does the same task better rises up. It has happened all through history.
As far as A goes - it wouldn't stop corporate America or any other first world countries corporations, they could do the research on their own. Or are you suggesting there is something useful that the US government/NASA did, that corporate America can't? Maybe you are a fan of corporate welfare - lots of giving to those poor starving CEOs who can't afford to have caviar for more than two meals and a snack a day?
So you see nothing wrong in not giving people what they fucking paid for? Its our tax dollars that went into that R&D, as such it should be available for all taxpayers. We didn't get the choice not to pay for it so at the very least the thieves in Washington could do would be let the people use the stuff they paid for.
Of course corporations can do the same R&D, and can do it for less money and better results in most cases, but the fact is, they paid for NASA to do that, the very least they could do is let them have what they paid for.
For B... Capital is NOT a problem with corporate America, demonstration of profit is. They won't get that demonstration unless things here on the earth are seriously in the shitter (and it is too late), or the government finds the evidence first. Once something has a reasonable chance of profit, it will get investments.
Yes it is a problem because you need a lot of capital to even go to the moon, let alone beyond it. It doesn't matter if people think you are going to make a profit, most people don't sink a ton of capital into projects that would be sufficient to launch something (manned) beyond the moon.
For C... That's actually a good point. Corporate America is superb at getting past inconvenient government restrictions... However it would be hard to hide anything space related, I suspect.
The problem isn't them getting around it, it is the fact that the restrictions exist in the first place. Government restrictions other than preventing force (for example, preventing murder, theft, etc.) and fraud (such as portraying something as edible when it would make you sick), always serve to hinder progress.
However, the argument against saving -everything- is that space costs a significant amount of money. Think about how much storage space has changed. A 1.4 MB floppy disk used to be considered adequate for storing files. A 5 GB iPod was considered to be a technological marvel. We used to be impressed by 64 MB flash drives, 2 GB of flash memory used to cost a lot of money. Etc.
Hard drive space is only getting cheaper. 900 GB isn't all that much anymore.
...Except for the fact that A) It can be helpful and B) It will increasingly be easier.
I think everyone can think of a webpage (might not be Geocites) that has valuable information that has since closed. Plus, Geocites was a publishing service, these weren't like grocery lists but rather like little novels. Yeah, the content might be crap but it contains valuable information which shouldn't simply be deleted.
Plus, its becoming increasingly easier to store information. 10 years ago everyone would have laughed at you if you wanted to store this much information. Today, 1 TB drives are common and cheap.
Saving Geocites preserves "web 1.0" the time when anyone could make a webpage for the first time. While it might seem like trash to us, it might later provide valuable insight into cultures of the late 20th and early 21st century.
They may "really want to go to the stars" but it isn't going to happen with a government program. Government programs are/always/ plagued by waste and inefficiencies. The only reason why they can sometimes get things done is because they have infinite money from stealing from taxpayers. I guarantee you if you gave private spaceflight the information and the like that NASA has and a budget that they could get stuff done faster and more efficiently than NASA could. The only reasons why we don't have private spaceflight to the moon is because A) The taxpayer-funded R&D from various missions is not available to them B) Lack of initial capital C) Government restrictions.
Slashdot Mirror
The "easily disassembled" part is a function of a good design. As such, it falls under high quality. Small is also a function of the design, and as such falls under the high quality.
Not necessarily. Apple's machines are generally very well designed but are generally a pain in the ass to dissemble and service. Similarly, there have been many crap machines that have been really easy to disassemble and service that I've owned with terrible designs.
The two are rarely related in terms of functional design and ease of disassemble when it comes to the average user.
On my laptop's Windows partition (Turion 64 x2, Windows XP pro installed, 2 GB of RAM) iTunes is nearly unusable and no, I don't have a lot of junk installed, the only thing other than essential Windows processes that was running was iTunes and it is close to unusable. VLC runs just fine on there, Foobar 2000 runs just fine on there, heck, Windows Media Player runs just fine on there but iTunes is a bloated piece of crap. The only reason I have it is that when I first bought my iPod touch it was the only way you could sync things to it. When you buy a song it takes longer to "process" the file than it does to download the song. And no, I'm not playing HD videos or anything through it, just syncing and playing some music. There is -no- excuse to why iTunes is such a piece of crap.
Quicktime/iTunes isn't bad when ran on OS X because its pretty much native. Its bloated on Windows because it seems to think that rather than using the things that are already there, you need to install half of OS X to run a program.
...Probably nothing. Chances are, his site would be just like those spammers advertising "fr33 micros0ft p0intz g3n3rat0rz" and would be ignored by everyone.
Considering that most HTML 5 sites are coded to work with Firefox/Chrome/Safari and no one is really developing actively for IE in terms of HTML 5, I'd imagine that for the time being it doesn't really make a bit of difference.
Lulwut? I'm hardly leftist (as seen by my sig) and hardly environmentalist (drive a '97 expedition). I'm simply saying that these people who push for morality being legislated need to stand up and simply forbid the government from interfering in those areas because unless they do that, 25, 50 years down the road when the majority shifts from being a mostly Christian majority to a majority of atheism, agnosticism and non-christian religions, they are going to have their morality forced on them.
The real irony is that despite these clear ratings that have been on the boxes since VHS and in many instances even included prior to the movie's starting, these 12-year olds and younger end up watching them anyway.
Heaven forbid that some people mature faster than others and can easily separate reality from fiction.
it's hard to see how private industry in and of itself would have the where with all to develop it. I know there were other forms of internal networking, but DARPA had fairly specific needs for a routed packet switching network, and not in the sort of fixed networks that corporations were using.
In the late 1960s, name me a company that had a lot of computers that needed to "talk" to one another via large expanses. There wasn't any, the only entity large enough to have that problem was the US government.
Fixed networks worked just fine for the problems that businesses faced and its incorrect to assume that when businesses started to expand and need networks like the US government needed back in the late 60s they wouldn't have created something very similar if not exactly like the ARPANET and eventually expand it to something almost exactly like the internet we have now.
There was nothing "magical" that governments had that created it, it just happened to be that the only entity large enough to have those problems at the time was the US government.
Yes, that is the thing, governments should stay out of morality, its best for everyone. First off, think about your own morals, the Christian right really needs to look at trends in Europe and stand up against government regulation of morality, because, perhaps in 20 years they might not be the majority and another (anti)religious group will take their place.
Free speech should be free speech. So long as it doesn't interfere with your rights and your property rights it should be perfectly allowed no matter what it is.
It shouldn't matter what the game is like. Free speech is free speech. I don't know where people got the illusion that the only thing free speech should be for is saying how great the government is and how great things are now.
Free speech, so long as it doesn't interfere with anyone else and their property rights should be 100% legal.
The ESRB only sees more success because if you want to get a game on the Xbox/Wii/PS3/DS/PSP/etc. you pretty much have to get it rated before they will accept it. Plus, there has been a growth in commercial iPhone games which many of them get certified too.
Plus, most people don't really want porn games compared to things like porn movies and even "indie" games have ESRB ratings and "indie" records usually don't bother to get certified by anyone.
It has nothing to do with the strength of the ESRB and everything to do with the state of gaming in 2010.
But there wasn't anything special about governments that made it possible. It was simply that in the late 60s no one but the US government had enough computers and the like to make it be possible.
If the internet had not been born from the government, I have little doubt I'd still be typing this message on it, it simply would have been born from a corporation, perhaps with better features and the like.
Yes it is.
It makes no sense for a government which has fixed costs to mandate a variable cost system of theft. There is a fundamental mistake in figuring that someone who makes $15,000 a year uses less government than the person who makes $300,000. Costs are fixed and should be based simply on fixed costs. You should pay for what you use. If you use $3,000 in government programs you should have to pay $3,000 no matter if you make $15,000 a year or $300,000 a year.
Would a roommate who stole $2.50 from you every month out of your wallet bug you? Sure, its not much but you'd sure as hell rather him keep his hands off of your wallet.
There is a huge difference between research and wealth distribution.
There is nothing about research that makes me pay for a non-existent product. If GE wants to research a new refrigeration technology, it doesn't take money out of my paycheck, rather it can use surpluses given to it in a competitive (and the word competitive is important) market to go towards R&D. When I buy a GE fridge, I want a fridge that does what its supposed to do. What GE does with that money is up to them. However, with the government there is no say in it. There is no competitive market and there can not legally be one.
Research can be done ethically, not by stealing my money.
It may not be "a lot" to you, but that equals out to be about $600 per couple, enough to cover a month's rent in many cases. Enough to buy a few months of groceries.
Um, you mean the technologies that were basically all figured out with MIR?
How about 100 billion that could still be in the pocketbooks of millions?
There is a third choice, letting the people keep the money they earn.
My guess is that its because China feels morally responsible for the welfare of North Korea. Quite honestly, without Chinese aid and trade, the people of North Korea would starve to death.
a) Private, commercial ventures are also always plagued by waste and inefficiencies. Humans are involved. You get what you get.
The difference is, they aren't wasting my money. I don't really care what Coca Cola does with my $.50 for a can of Coke. For all I care the CEO can bathe in that money. I bought Coca Cola because I wanted a drink. If I really was opposed to what Coke did with my money, I could buy Pepsi or any number of colas. On the other hand, if Coke stole $.50 out of my paycheck, I'd care what they did with that money and I wouldn't want them stealing from me.
That is the difference between government and private enterprise. When a government does something, the money comes from the taxpayers, willing or not. When private enterprise does something it is a voluntary exchange.
b) Just because there's waste doesn't mean it's 95% waste. That's like saying that because lightbulbs emit both heat and light, they're incapable of ever illuminating anything.
Sure, it was an exaggeration. But the point still remains, if you are going to take money from me for a certain purpose I want to be damn sure they aren't wasting a cent of it.
The underlying assumption is that you can only trust someone who wants to take your money for his own profit, because anything else is too good to be true. But not too much profit. So you can only trust someone who wants to take your money for his own profit in a suitably competitive market. You only trust greedy people. And then ...
But I don't effectively 'donate' money to a company. I buy products. I have competition. I buy products which I think have a low price and high quality. I'm not putting my trust in anything and that is the beauty of corporate R&D. I don't have to have faith in a CEO to buy a product. I buy the product because I trust the -product-. I don't trust Steve Ballmer, but I did buy a copy of Windows 7 to dual-boot in a new desktop I built. Why? Because I trusted that Windows 7 would run a few PC games that I play that didn't run correctly in WINE. I bought Windows 7 for a specific goal and I knew that it would achieve it, that is why I bought it.
d) No. They're not stealing. We're pooling our moneys to achieve a common goal, as we've agreed to do, through the system of laws we've previously agreed to. If you don't like it, go live in France. (I can say this because I got tired of being told to live in France when I bitched about our new motherland security overlords after 9/11.)
When did I agree to these goals? Not through any of the candidates I ever voted for. Certainly not through direct consent. The only argument you can make that these goals were consented upon is the argument that an armed robber was given money as a gift.
The only way that taxation is free of theft is taxation for what you, personally use with an agreement that for things other than defense, you can choose to use a different service provider.
And as for moving to a different country, I can't really find another country quite yet with sane taxation and the like. Europe is mostly socialist as is Australia, Asia is either ruled through dictatorships (China, Korea) or through the same lack of limited government that the US has (Japan), South America is either ruled through dictatorships or through socialism. Etc.
e) That's what it *does*. That is the function of government. All freedoms not taken away, we keep. You're complaining that they're doing their job? If not, we need to know the specific restrictions you disagree with; honestly, I trust them to have a better idea of what restrictions we need than I trust you. They have thousands of people looking at what can go wrong when some private individual decides it's perfectly safe to shoot a rocket off from his back yard to go colonize Mars. And those thousands of people? They're just private citi
Its not that hard to see why Ozzy is alive. One he can get constant medical care if need be. And two, he is rich enough to make sure that his drugs are pure. A lot of drug deaths happen not because of the drugs themselves, but because of additives in the drugs.
Governments DO NOT have infinite money. They have a lot, but it is certianly not infinite.
Tell me this then, what is the US dollar backed up by? Gold? Nope. Silver? Nope. Copper? Nope. Hell, our coins have been simple tokens for almost the past 50 years. The US dollar is backed up by nothing. Yes, they don't have "infinite" money because every time they create money they lose some of the purchasing power. But for all practical intents and purposes they have infinite money on whatever they need to spend it on.
And, while the government is usually inefficient, it is not always so.
[citation needed]
Likewise, businesses can be inefficient and still stay in business, depending on the competitive situation.
To a point, but its future ultimately depends on efficiency at some point. If Microsoft doesn't make another version of Windows for 20 years and fails to maintain Windows 7, do you think they will stay in business? When a company doesn't innovate or has wasteful bureaucracy it dies and a company that does the same task better rises up. It has happened all through history.
As far as A goes - it wouldn't stop corporate America or any other first world countries corporations, they could do the research on their own. Or are you suggesting there is something useful that the US government/NASA did, that corporate America can't? Maybe you are a fan of corporate welfare - lots of giving to those poor starving CEOs who can't afford to have caviar for more than two meals and a snack a day?
So you see nothing wrong in not giving people what they fucking paid for? Its our tax dollars that went into that R&D, as such it should be available for all taxpayers. We didn't get the choice not to pay for it so at the very least the thieves in Washington could do would be let the people use the stuff they paid for.
Of course corporations can do the same R&D, and can do it for less money and better results in most cases, but the fact is, they paid for NASA to do that, the very least they could do is let them have what they paid for.
For B... Capital is NOT a problem with corporate America, demonstration of profit is. They won't get that demonstration unless things here on the earth are seriously in the shitter (and it is too late), or the government finds the evidence first. Once something has a reasonable chance of profit, it will get investments.
Yes it is a problem because you need a lot of capital to even go to the moon, let alone beyond it. It doesn't matter if people think you are going to make a profit, most people don't sink a ton of capital into projects that would be sufficient to launch something (manned) beyond the moon.
For C... That's actually a good point. Corporate America is superb at getting past inconvenient government restrictions... However it would be hard to hide anything space related, I suspect.
The problem isn't them getting around it, it is the fact that the restrictions exist in the first place. Government restrictions other than preventing force (for example, preventing murder, theft, etc.) and fraud (such as portraying something as edible when it would make you sick), always serve to hinder progress.
However, the argument against saving -everything- is that space costs a significant amount of money. Think about how much storage space has changed. A 1.4 MB floppy disk used to be considered adequate for storing files. A 5 GB iPod was considered to be a technological marvel. We used to be impressed by 64 MB flash drives, 2 GB of flash memory used to cost a lot of money. Etc.
Hard drive space is only getting cheaper. 900 GB isn't all that much anymore.
...Except for the fact that A) It can be helpful and B) It will increasingly be easier.
I think everyone can think of a webpage (might not be Geocites) that has valuable information that has since closed. Plus, Geocites was a publishing service, these weren't like grocery lists but rather like little novels. Yeah, the content might be crap but it contains valuable information which shouldn't simply be deleted.
Plus, its becoming increasingly easier to store information. 10 years ago everyone would have laughed at you if you wanted to store this much information. Today, 1 TB drives are common and cheap.
Saving Geocites preserves "web 1.0" the time when anyone could make a webpage for the first time. While it might seem like trash to us, it might later provide valuable insight into cultures of the late 20th and early 21st century.
They may "really want to go to the stars" but it isn't going to happen with a government program. Government programs are /always/ plagued by waste and inefficiencies. The only reason why they can sometimes get things done is because they have infinite money from stealing from taxpayers. I guarantee you if you gave private spaceflight the information and the like that NASA has and a budget that they could get stuff done faster and more efficiently than NASA could. The only reasons why we don't have private spaceflight to the moon is because A) The taxpayer-funded R&D from various missions is not available to them B) Lack of initial capital C) Government restrictions.