Knowledge of program costs give you plenty of knowledge about potential capabilities. As much as I dislike the way Congress does things, I'm very comfortable with them keeping this budget to themselves, as long as they're providing sufficient oversight. Don't like who's holding those pursestrings?...vote them out.
Though drones don't cost that much, there are other billion dollar aircraft.
Depends which you're talking about. From Wikipedia's Global Hawk page: Each aircraft was to cost US$35 million in 2005,[2] but this had risen to $222.7M per aircraft (including development costs) by 2013. That's just the build price, sustainment (think parts replacement, supporting staff, etc.) costs a bunch more.
HAHAHAHA. Everyone on that list did what they did based on government infrastructure and RnD.
Spare me the childish guffaw, and tells us when Edison's work was based on government infrastructure and RnD.
NO one is saying private industry doesn't invent
What does this look like: "Opening new frontiers and basic research is not."
Bell labs started from french government funding, via an award.
And, did he invent the phone before, or after that money? Who did make it possible to lay those phone lines? You could argue that it was the government, but they only provided permission, not funding, nor RnD. I will grant that the phone companies were monopoly utilities, and could charge a virtual tax for their research, so in that way this may not be a good example.
Yes, I totally understand business profit motive, I've managed multi-million dollar budgets at work. And yes, I understand that many of the advances made were the result of military, and aerospace needs. Private industry will do research on their own (we do), but with the intent of finding some gold at the end of that rainbow. The question is will there be enough ROI for Musk and whoever joins him to proceed.
The commentary is written by: Andrew DeWit is a professor in the School of Policy Studies, Rikkyo University. Dr. Christopher Hobson is a research fellow at the Institute for Sustainability and Peace, United Nations University, Tokyo.
Not exactly credentials for someone who should be making the decision on who should do the clean up. Certainly, the government should be monitoring whatever action is taken, and if Tepco is screwing up give them the boot. But, I wouldn't be doing so on the recommendations of these gents.
Maybe Tyson didn't intend his broadcast for the more cerebral audience. Just maybe, he's trying to sway more public support for science, and to do so, you need to aim at the masses.
Private industry is great at lots of things, bringing stuff to the masses is where it really shines. Opening new frontiers and basic research is not.
I've heard this argument before, but wonder what it's based upon? As a counter to it, what about all of these: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_prolific_inventors Were they done with government support? Yeah, I understand that the govt. has done some really big stuff, but so has private industry. One example that immediately comes to mind is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_Labs
The phrase "just saying" is simply a method used to underscore the passive-aggressive nature of one's post. Please stop "just saying" anything, and just fucking well say it.
Your basing your argument on pure fantasy. This conflict has been going on for how long?...two and a half years. Has it spread?...No Has it affected the price of oil in any significant way?...No. Is there a nuclear issue...No. Refugees coming to America...that's laughable.
Yes, inaction has it's own risks. This is what risk analysis is all about, and none of the ones you listed come anywhere near the tipping point for going to war.
If you want to address nukes, let's talk about Iran, I'd seriously consider intervening before they get their hands on one.
One story in 2009 does not equal "Since the beginning of his presidency, people have been asking,". And, it certainly isn't a good reason to enter a conflict. Oh, and the fact that it was the French asking made me laugh.
Since the beginning of his presidency, people have been asking, "Is he weak?" And this would be more confirmation that he is. Maybe Obama doesn't care if people think he is weak, and it's not a reason to start a war IMO, but it reflects poorly on him that he says things he isn't committed to.
Wondering where you get your news. I haven't seen "people...asking". And maybe we should do a little cost/benefit analysis before risking more American troops lives to prove he's not weak. If you want to go get a coalition, and execute a humanitarian mission, I'm game. But, if you want the US to put boots on the ground solo in the middle of this, you're either a warmonger, or just an idiot, as we have nothing to gain, and plenty to lose.
When you can put forth some evidence of defense contractors pushing this, then you'll have something other than a straw man. I started working in the industry back in the Cold War, and these kind of comments are nothing but bullshit.
There are greater downsides to us not intervening, which are the spreading of chemical weapons.
That's a ridiculous reason to insert ourselves into this conflict. Nearly every third world nation has the ability to create chemical weapons. This isn't advanced technology anymore.
So, other than the humanitarian aspect, what is the purpose of U.S. involvement? What if any upside is there? What downside are we avoiding?
If you want to go for humanitarian reasons, then there should be a coalition involved. It's not our job to solve the worlds problems, but I'm fine with us being a participant.
I can't foresee any upside (can anyone?), with the minor exception pointed to by some here who claim that it's to benefit the military industrial complex, and as someone who's spent my 35+ working years in the industry, I'll just say bullshit. Nobody I know pushes for these conflicts.
There's also plenty of downside risk. Financial, loss of more troops, additional retaliation, just to name a few. Just wait for the first collateral damage video to hit the web...it happens in every armed conflict, but it will most certainly be used to stir up more hatred toward us.
Richest nation on Earth? Did someone just pay off the national debt?
If we wish to take on a humanitarian role, I'm fine with that, as long as we're not doing it solo. Otherwise, stop trying to be the world's cop. There's no upside for the U.S. by intervening, and certainly will be downside, financially, and with the loss of additional troops.
Since statements by a single individual, absent other evidence, are unlikely to even get you into a courtroom. And, since the value of eyewitness testimony has been proven to be shaky at best... google: value of eyewitness testimony.
I have not read TFA, but if all we have is this person's statement, no other witnesses, physical evidence, or even a basic attempt to obtain a comment from the TSA, then we have nothing.
Slashdot Mirror
You didn't have top secret, then.
You don't know wtf you're talking about. Period, end of story.
I have to give them my name, home address ...
And since they have to ask for all that data, that tells you they know nothing about you and your online presence.
Really? What makes you think they're not just trying to confirm what they already have, or who you are?
Worst BLAH, BLAH, BLAH ever.
Most exaggerated phrase ever
Kids these days. No respect for your elders. Now, get the hell off his lawn.
Your response once again is childish, and with that I'm done with you. Grow up, and come back when you learn to act and think like an adult.
Knowledge of program costs give you plenty of knowledge about potential capabilities. As much as I dislike the way Congress does things, I'm very comfortable with them keeping this budget to themselves, as long as they're providing sufficient oversight. Don't like who's holding those pursestrings?...vote them out.
Though drones don't cost that much, there are other billion dollar aircraft.
Depends which you're talking about. From Wikipedia's Global Hawk page:
Each aircraft was to cost US$35 million in 2005,[2] but this had risen to $222.7M per aircraft (including development costs) by 2013.
That's just the build price, sustainment (think parts replacement, supporting staff, etc.) costs a bunch more.
HAHAHAHA. Everyone on that list did what they did based on government infrastructure and RnD.
Spare me the childish guffaw, and tells us when Edison's work was based on government infrastructure and RnD.
NO one is saying private industry doesn't invent
What does this look like: "Opening new frontiers and basic research is not."
Bell labs started from french government funding, via an award.
And, did he invent the phone before, or after that money? Who did make it possible to lay those phone lines? You could argue that it was the government, but they only provided permission, not funding, nor RnD. I will grant that the phone companies were monopoly utilities, and could charge a virtual tax for their research, so in that way this may not be a good example.
Yes, I totally understand business profit motive, I've managed multi-million dollar budgets at work. And yes, I understand that many of the advances made were the result of military, and aerospace needs. Private industry will do research on their own (we do), but with the intent of finding some gold at the end of that rainbow. The question is will there be enough ROI for Musk and whoever joins him to proceed.
The commentary is written by:
Andrew DeWit is a professor in the School of Policy Studies, Rikkyo University. Dr. Christopher Hobson is a research fellow at the Institute for Sustainability and Peace, United Nations University, Tokyo.
Not exactly credentials for someone who should be making the decision on who should do the clean up. Certainly, the government should be monitoring whatever action is taken, and if Tepco is screwing up give them the boot. But, I wouldn't be doing so on the recommendations of these gents.
Maybe Tyson didn't intend his broadcast for the more cerebral audience. Just maybe, he's trying to sway more public support for science, and to do so, you need to aim at the masses.
Private industry is great at lots of things, bringing stuff to the masses is where it really shines. Opening new frontiers and basic research is not.
I've heard this argument before, but wonder what it's based upon? As a counter to it, what about all of these:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_prolific_inventors
Were they done with government support? Yeah, I understand that the govt. has done some really big stuff, but so has private industry. One example that immediately comes to mind is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_Labs
Haven't watched the video, but who was in charge of congress during these times...you know, the ones who actually control the budget?
The phrase "just saying" is simply a method used to underscore the passive-aggressive nature of one's post. Please stop "just saying" anything, and just fucking well say it.
How's this?
Stop being a jackass AC.
BWAAAAHAHAHAHAHA.
No, apparently you're just a whiny child, because Google doesn't come up with more.
Ignorant? Now you're just being a dick, because I pointed out that none of your arguments are valid. Grow up.
I've done 4.9 in my stock 2012 SRT8 Charger, and I'm sure it's capable of doing better than that.
Your basing your argument on pure fantasy. This conflict has been going on for how long?...two and a half years. Has it spread?...No Has it affected the price of oil in any significant way?...No. Is there a nuclear issue...No. Refugees coming to America...that's laughable.
Yes, inaction has it's own risks. This is what risk analysis is all about, and none of the ones you listed come anywhere near the tipping point for going to war.
If you want to address nukes, let's talk about Iran, I'd seriously consider intervening before they get their hands on one.
One story in 2009 does not equal "Since the beginning of his presidency, people have been asking,". And, it certainly isn't a good reason to enter a conflict. Oh, and the fact that it was the French asking made me laugh.
Since the beginning of his presidency, people have been asking, "Is he weak?" And this would be more confirmation that he is. Maybe Obama doesn't care if people think he is weak, and it's not a reason to start a war IMO, but it reflects poorly on him that he says things he isn't committed to.
Wondering where you get your news. I haven't seen "people...asking". And maybe we should do a little cost/benefit analysis before risking more American troops lives to prove he's not weak. If you want to go get a coalition, and execute a humanitarian mission, I'm game. But, if you want the US to put boots on the ground solo in the middle of this, you're either a warmonger, or just an idiot, as we have nothing to gain, and plenty to lose.
When you can put forth some evidence of defense contractors pushing this, then you'll have something other than a straw man. I started working in the industry back in the Cold War, and these kind of comments are nothing but bullshit.
There are greater downsides to us not intervening, which are the spreading of chemical weapons.
That's a ridiculous reason to insert ourselves into this conflict. Nearly every third world nation has the ability to create chemical weapons. This isn't advanced technology anymore.
So, other than the humanitarian aspect, what is the purpose of U.S. involvement? What if any upside is there? What downside are we avoiding?
If you want to go for humanitarian reasons, then there should be a coalition involved. It's not our job to solve the worlds problems, but I'm fine with us being a participant.
I can't foresee any upside (can anyone?), with the minor exception pointed to by some here who claim that it's to benefit the military industrial complex, and as someone who's spent my 35+ working years in the industry, I'll just say bullshit. Nobody I know pushes for these conflicts.
There's also plenty of downside risk. Financial, loss of more troops, additional retaliation, just to name a few. Just wait for the first collateral damage video to hit the web...it happens in every armed conflict, but it will most certainly be used to stir up more hatred toward us.
Richest nation on Earth? Did someone just pay off the national debt?
If we wish to take on a humanitarian role, I'm fine with that, as long as we're not doing it solo. Otherwise, stop trying to be the world's cop. There's no upside for the U.S. by intervening, and certainly will be downside, financially, and with the loss of additional troops.
Since statements by a single individual, absent other evidence, are unlikely to even get you into a courtroom. And, since the value of eyewitness testimony has been proven to be shaky at best... google: value of eyewitness testimony.
I have not read TFA, but if all we have is this person's statement, no other witnesses, physical evidence, or even a basic attempt to obtain a comment from the TSA, then we have nothing.
And Mountain View is on a different source of power?