if this was applied to American companies and western manufacturing ONLY. Sadly, the neo-cons will push for the to be applied to everybody, esp. China.
Solyndra is mostly a republican project. You will find that the top execs there were republicans, which is part of why they pleaded the 5th. But the real problem is that we subsidized China's dumping on our markets. That makes it impossible for American businesses to compete. Again, that was backed by the republicans
Keystone is not dead. Far from it. Instead, Obama tabled it for a time. He knows that it would be used by either side right in front of the election. He was bright enough to let it go. For now. In light of his SOTU, it should be obvious that he WILL build it. He is going all out on making us not depend on the middle east.
Per the laws in India/Madagascar, the wood must be processed there. Martin does that. Gibson does not. Personally, I do not agree with it, HOWEVER, this is about laws of various nations and respecting them. And I doubt that O had any knowledge about the situation prior to faux and the republicans making an issue of this
Interesting comment about the union. I can not speak about it. However, so far, the rest of your comments were 0 for 0.
Solyndra is a good example of republican company. However, many of the high tech companies ARE dem. Republicans tend to come into the companies after they are established
You COULD go on, but much of what you said, was pure bunk. As such, I suspect that anything else that you come up with would be the same. You republicans come up with all sorts of garbage while missing the real stuff (siga, though I expect that the republicans will bring it up in about 6 months).
This is cheap to do. Basically, get private industry to do this. The problem is that the neo-cons are pushing to waste money on the SLS, rather than allowing private space to do the job. The good news is that O is likely going to be the president next term and I fully expect (hope?) that he will kill off SLS and get CCdev going fully.
Actually, no. Many presidents suggested it. And like W, none of them funded it.
Interestingly, the one who is the closest is O. The reason is that he is pushing private space for getting there. Newt is correct that we can be there within 2 terms if we push private space. The reason is that we have the base itself mostly done (bigelow and IDC Dover). Combine with that the work that has been done on the ISS.
So, what is missing? Heavy launch, transportation to/from lunar surface and a way to fund it. Yet, this is trivial. Multiple companies are now working on VTVL. What is needed is a competition for these to lift 20 tonnes to 100Km or more and land it under power on earth. Then do this 5 x without a re-build.
Hold a COTS-SHLV for 2 vehicles that will take up 125 tonnes to LEO. Each vehicle will be given 5 billion for development, and must costs below.5B to launch. In addition, these companies will be awarded 2 launches a year for 5 years. However, the lower bid will get to launch 3 launches a year (at the same cost / launch).
How much would this cost? A fraction of what SLS will costs to develop. Interestingly, once this is going, it is cheap to go. Why? Because it is private space. They sell trips to the moon for multiple nations, including America.
Actually,OP is 100% CORRECT. It IS very much like a pot of water. Complex water, but water never the less. We have loads of water in the oceans that moderate temps. Likewise, the same with the ice. Finally, there is steam (clouds) that are in the air. While you have localized changes, it is the slowly changing global changes that take place. Once the majority of ice has melted (polar and glacial), assuming that the currents remain the same, then the OP is correct.
Personally, I have been thinking that one of the best thing might be that bulge of fresh water coming. It would stop the currents and freeze the poles some. The north will take a hit, but it can handle it.
In a way, you already have that. Appbrain accepts more risk than does google. As such, once you use appbrain, you have more risk. But the idea of a market with nothing but reviewed apps is a WONDERFUL opportunity for new companies. Right now, it is either all google's market or allows all else. But, if they would allow for other markets to be accepted that are considered more secured than Google's current market, then it would be possible to have multiple companies reviewing these apps. In particular, android should be modified to allow for a more secured market than Google's current (that say google or even android.org has approved).
BTW, Google would do well to set up their reviewed apps market and compete against others.
You miss the point.
He wants to be able to make a simple search based on permissions. That is actually a valid one. For example, the idea that Sony's remote controller for a blu-ray player requires permission to read my personal info and to read-write is a good sign that you do not want it. It is simply a data gathering app. IOW, Sony did not learn their lessons from their last attempt to do this to Windows.
The font is minor, just an annoyance. the permissions based search is ALL about security.
Seriously, this is an opportunity for a company to come up with a new market to compete against Google. Basically, set it up similar to Apples: submit the app, have it tested, etc. and charge a small amount of money. For me, I will stay with google. BUT, for my parents and in-laws, they would go with the secured market.
Seriously, we need to find a small asteroid that comes into orbit and land a small automated craft on it. This would give us practice for doing the real thing with ppl. In addition, if we find a large enough asteroid in our orbit, lets land ppl on it. We had one earlier that was ideal for doing it.
When Ryan was at the DOT, he sold commercial licenses to ppl (esp. illegals) without even testing them. Several of them barely had the ability to drive a car, let alone a rig. Several of these ppl with ryan issued licenses killed others on the road. That is how they traced it back to him in the first place.
I have not looked over what he said, but he would be wrong to say that we will have a base in 4. However, in less than 2 terms, it is VERY doable.
The man is surrounded by loads of rocket ppl. In particular, he has SpaceX, Bigelow, ULA, L-Mart's, Boeings, etc. ppl talking to him constantly.
Not even close to trustworthy. He disavows the current Obamacare, even though it is the same program that he implemented. He was moderate, except for the fact that he has surrounded himself by advisers to reagan and W.
How did those kinds of ppl do when it comes to dealing with taxes and spending? That is the last kind of ppl that we need. The man constantly flip-flops on every issue. If he is the republican nod, no doubt, he will try to present himself as a moderate, in spite of these ppl who actually make the bulk of the choices.
Building a moon base would involved other countries.
Not necessarily. If we get multiple companies going with human launches AND multiple companies doing space stations, they will want to go to the moon quickly. The reason is that there would be multiple competition in LEO for space stations. So, companies like IDC and Bigelow will want to go to the moon and be able to sell services to other nations. How many smaller nations would kill to be on the moon with their own crew? In light of Antarctica as well as Arctic region, and the jockying for those, as well as China now saying that they want to go there, I think that MANY small nations want in on the resource grab that WILL happen on the moon.
What was amazing is that ryan got a short sentence even though corruption and murder were involved, while blago gets much longer for corruption. Just amazing to me.
First off, what is blocking all that, is mostly his party. They are pushing to continue wasting 10's of billions on the SLS. Yet, what is needed is multiple private launch systems.
The best and cheapest solution is to get Bigelow and ideally IDC, going with a unit or two to the ISS. By doing that, it enables the companies to get their stations going so that they can build full-out private stations. Once you have private stations going, it makes it possible for multiple private launch companies. At the same time, we need to restore the cuts to CCDEV that the neo-cons put on them. We NEED multiple human launch vehicles to space. It is killing us that we do not have that.
Finally, once this is going, then we simply recreate a new COTS-SHLV. Again, offer up money for up to 2 SHLVs of 140 tonnes. Say 5 billion each, with under.5B / launch. In addition, guarantee that one will have 3 launches a year for 4 years, while the other will have 2 launches a year for the 4 years. This approach will keep the bids low so that they get the 3rd launch.
By doing this, it would enable private space to go to the moon. And they WANT to go.
They raised tariffs on just about everything, except where they were the lowest (sugar). One area is aviation. You will find that Brazil has a thriving aviation industry.
As to computers, you will find that PRIOR to their tariffs, they had not real hardware or software industry. However, with the tariffs, it has created loads ot new industries there. Now, are tablets more expensive? Yup. But those tariffs are coming down. And then prices will drop.
Brazil's situation improved because they put up tariffs. They have no intention to keep them up there, but they are using it to protect markets while building. the same is done in China, India, South Africa, etc. The difference is that what is suggested with the SCALED tariffs is that whereever we have massive trade deficits, we do a scale on it. As the deficits drop, then so do the tariffs. And yes, it DOES work.
That is correct on BOTH OF THESE. The problem is when you put on tariffs on PRODUCTS. That is what many nations do to protect industry. To balance the trade deficit, instead, you put tariff on regions esp. those that are manipulating (overtly or covertly).
And yet, that is not the case in nations that implement them. In particular, China, Brazil, South Africa, and India have had them in place for quit some time. However, the nation with the MOST tariffs is China. I would say that a scaled tariff in which we only raise them against nations with large surpluses against the US would be the way to go, rather than go with product lines (which is about protecting industries).
Actually, back in the 80's, blood was not allowed to be dumped like this (look at your peers comment where I replied). I suspect that it still is not, but companies simply ignore the law.
I worked at Monfort's beet in the 80's, and at Northern Pumps hereford farms in the 70's (contrary to some opinions, Americans LIKE to work). What do you want to know about slaughter houses? Allowing the blood to run like this is NOT normal. In fact, even back then, the companies were not allowed to simply drain this off. And in Monforts, we found numerous uses for it, including blutworst, BAPs, etc.
So, what part of my comment was wrong? America is increasingly becoming like a 3rd world nation. We HAD the PREMIER food inspection system in the world. Then in the mid-80's, it was gutted by reagan. Now, have citizens dying because of that decisions by the American neo-cons.
Interesting. So, why do you buy a gas car? They have engines that are actually more closed then electric cars. With an electric car like Tesla (who will be around for at least 30 or more years), you can replace the motor, the electronics, or the batteries. In fact, UQM is looking at upgrading the motor in the Model S to give it better performance. Of course, it will cost you, but it is STILL cheaper than an engine for a comparable gas car. Heck, you can even manufacture your OWN motor. Not that hard. Electronics are all over the place. And part of the reason why I have suggested to several of my friends to NOT buy the future batteries with tesla, is because battery prices are dropping quickly, AND new tech is coming. In 10 years, the tech will likely include Lithium-air.
Slashdot Mirror
if this was applied to American companies and western manufacturing ONLY. Sadly, the neo-cons will push for the to be applied to everybody, esp. China.
You COULD go on, but much of what you said, was pure bunk. As such, I suspect that anything else that you come up with would be the same. You republicans come up with all sorts of garbage while missing the real stuff (siga, though I expect that the republicans will bring it up in about 6 months).
This is cheap to do. Basically, get private industry to do this. The problem is that the neo-cons are pushing to waste money on the SLS, rather than allowing private space to do the job. The good news is that O is likely going to be the president next term and I fully expect (hope?) that he will kill off SLS and get CCdev going fully.
Actually, no. Many presidents suggested it. And like W, none of them funded it.
.5B to launch. In addition, these companies will be awarded 2 launches a year for 5 years. However, the lower bid will get to launch 3 launches a year (at the same cost / launch).
Interestingly, the one who is the closest is O. The reason is that he is pushing private space for getting there. Newt is correct that we can be there within 2 terms if we push private space. The reason is that we have the base itself mostly done (bigelow and IDC Dover). Combine with that the work that has been done on the ISS.
So, what is missing? Heavy launch, transportation to/from lunar surface and a way to fund it. Yet, this is trivial.
Multiple companies are now working on VTVL. What is needed is a competition for these to lift 20 tonnes to 100Km or more and land it under power on earth. Then do this 5 x without a re-build.
Hold a COTS-SHLV for 2 vehicles that will take up 125 tonnes to LEO. Each vehicle will be given 5 billion for development, and must costs below
How much would this cost? A fraction of what SLS will costs to develop. Interestingly, once this is going, it is cheap to go. Why? Because it is private space. They sell trips to the moon for multiple nations, including America.
Actually,OP is 100% CORRECT. It IS very much like a pot of water. Complex water, but water never the less. We have loads of water in the oceans that moderate temps. Likewise, the same with the ice. Finally, there is steam (clouds) that are in the air. While you have localized changes, it is the slowly changing global changes that take place. Once the majority of ice has melted (polar and glacial), assuming that the currents remain the same, then the OP is correct.
Personally, I have been thinking that one of the best thing might be that bulge of fresh water coming. It would stop the currents and freeze the poles some. The north will take a hit, but it can handle it.
In a way, you already have that. Appbrain accepts more risk than does google. As such, once you use appbrain, you have more risk. But the idea of a market with nothing but reviewed apps is a WONDERFUL opportunity for new companies. Right now, it is either all google's market or allows all else. But, if they would allow for other markets to be accepted that are considered more secured than Google's current market, then it would be possible to have multiple companies reviewing these apps. In particular, android should be modified to allow for a more secured market than Google's current (that say google or even android.org has approved).
BTW, Google would do well to set up their reviewed apps market and compete against others.
You miss the point.
He wants to be able to make a simple search based on permissions. That is actually a valid one. For example, the idea that Sony's remote controller for a blu-ray player requires permission to read my personal info and to read-write is a good sign that you do not want it. It is simply a data gathering app. IOW, Sony did not learn their lessons from their last attempt to do this to Windows.
The font is minor, just an annoyance. the permissions based search is ALL about security.
And he is right.
Seriously, this is an opportunity for a company to come up with a new market to compete against Google. Basically, set it up similar to Apples: submit the app, have it tested, etc. and charge a small amount of money. For me, I will stay with google. BUT, for my parents and in-laws, they would go with the secured market.
Seriously, we need to find a small asteroid that comes into orbit and land a small automated craft on it. This would give us practice for doing the real thing with ppl. In addition, if we find a large enough asteroid in our orbit, lets land ppl on it. We had one earlier that was ideal for doing it.
When Ryan was at the DOT, he sold commercial licenses to ppl (esp. illegals) without even testing them. Several of them barely had the ability to drive a car, let alone a rig. Several of these ppl with ryan issued licenses killed others on the road. That is how they traced it back to him in the first place.
I have not looked over what he said, but he would be wrong to say that we will have a base in 4. However, in less than 2 terms, it is VERY doable. The man is surrounded by loads of rocket ppl. In particular, he has SpaceX, Bigelow, ULA, L-Mart's, Boeings, etc. ppl talking to him constantly.
Not even close to trustworthy. He disavows the current Obamacare, even though it is the same program that he implemented. He was moderate, except for the fact that he has surrounded himself by advisers to reagan and W. How did those kinds of ppl do when it comes to dealing with taxes and spending? That is the last kind of ppl that we need. The man constantly flip-flops on every issue. If he is the republican nod, no doubt, he will try to present himself as a moderate, in spite of these ppl who actually make the bulk of the choices.
Building a moon base would involved other countries.
Not necessarily. If we get multiple companies going with human launches AND multiple companies doing space stations, they will want to go to the moon quickly. The reason is that there would be multiple competition in LEO for space stations. So, companies like IDC and Bigelow will want to go to the moon and be able to sell services to other nations. How many smaller nations would kill to be on the moon with their own crew? In light of Antarctica as well as Arctic region, and the jockying for those, as well as China now saying that they want to go there, I think that MANY small nations want in on the resource grab that WILL happen on the moon.
What was amazing is that ryan got a short sentence even though corruption and murder were involved, while blago gets much longer for corruption. Just amazing to me.
100% correct. I am hoping that he lets the whole thing expire in 2013 while pushing for a decent re-write of taxes.
Its both. The neo-cons screwed America in the 80s and again in the 00's.
First off, what is blocking all that, is mostly his party. They are pushing to continue wasting 10's of billions on the SLS. Yet, what is needed is multiple private launch systems.
.5B / launch. In addition, guarantee that one will have 3 launches a year for 4 years, while the other will have 2 launches a year for the 4 years. This approach will keep the bids low so that they get the 3rd launch.
The best and cheapest solution is to get Bigelow and ideally IDC, going with a unit or two to the ISS. By doing that, it enables the companies to get their stations going so that they can build full-out private stations. Once you have private stations going, it makes it possible for multiple private launch companies. At the same time, we need to restore the cuts to CCDEV that the neo-cons put on them. We NEED multiple human launch vehicles to space. It is killing us that we do not have that.
Finally, once this is going, then we simply recreate a new COTS-SHLV. Again, offer up money for up to 2 SHLVs of 140 tonnes. Say 5 billion each, with under
By doing this, it would enable private space to go to the moon. And they WANT to go.
They raised tariffs on just about everything, except where they were the lowest (sugar). One area is aviation. You will find that Brazil has a thriving aviation industry.
As to computers, you will find that PRIOR to their tariffs, they had not real hardware or software industry. However, with the tariffs, it has created loads ot new industries there. Now, are tablets more expensive? Yup. But those tariffs are coming down. And then prices will drop.
Brazil's situation improved because they put up tariffs. They have no intention to keep them up there, but they are using it to protect markets while building. the same is done in China, India, South Africa, etc. The difference is that what is suggested with the SCALED tariffs is that whereever we have massive trade deficits, we do a scale on it. As the deficits drop, then so do the tariffs. And yes, it DOES work.
That is correct on BOTH OF THESE. The problem is when you put on tariffs on PRODUCTS. That is what many nations do to protect industry. To balance the trade deficit, instead, you put tariff on regions esp. those that are manipulating (overtly or covertly).
And yet, that is not the case in nations that implement them. In particular, China, Brazil, South Africa, and India have had them in place for quit some time. However, the nation with the MOST tariffs is China. I would say that a scaled tariff in which we only raise them against nations with large surpluses against the US would be the way to go, rather than go with product lines (which is about protecting industries).
Actually, back in the 80's, blood was not allowed to be dumped like this (look at your peers comment where I replied). I suspect that it still is not, but companies simply ignore the law.
I worked at Monfort's beet in the 80's, and at Northern Pumps hereford farms in the 70's (contrary to some opinions, Americans LIKE to work). What do you want to know about slaughter houses? Allowing the blood to run like this is NOT normal. In fact, even back then, the companies were not allowed to simply drain this off. And in Monforts, we found numerous uses for it, including blutworst, BAPs, etc.
So, what part of my comment was wrong? America is increasingly becoming like a 3rd world nation. We HAD the PREMIER food inspection system in the world. Then in the mid-80's, it was gutted by reagan. Now, have citizens dying because of that decisions by the American neo-cons.
Why is America becoming more and more like a 3rd world nation?
Interesting. So, why do you buy a gas car? They have engines that are actually more closed then electric cars. With an electric car like Tesla (who will be around for at least 30 or more years), you can replace the motor, the electronics, or the batteries. In fact, UQM is looking at upgrading the motor in the Model S to give it better performance. Of course, it will cost you, but it is STILL cheaper than an engine for a comparable gas car. Heck, you can even manufacture your OWN motor. Not that hard. Electronics are all over the place. And part of the reason why I have suggested to several of my friends to NOT buy the future batteries with tesla, is because battery prices are dropping quickly, AND new tech is coming. In 10 years, the tech will likely include Lithium-air.
No, we are not. Not even close to that.