For a field to be digital, it could only have two states - on/off. Since most fields can vary or modulate, there must be some other state than on or off.
Um... no. For a field to be digital it must have discrete states. There's no reason it can't have three, or four, or fifteen thousand and twelve states. Take the electrons surrounding an atom. They have discrete states we call orbitals. One glance at a periodic table, which reflects the orbital structure, shows that it's far from a simple on/off system.
But the electrons don't have discrete states. The so called orbitals are just probability where the electron is most likely to be when we look. They are based on schrodinger's wave equations which describe how the state with changes with time. It is anything but digital. To say otherwise is like saying light is digital because it can be measured at specific wavelengths. While that is true, the number of those wavelengths would infinity, which would be anything but digital. Likewise with electrons, they, too, have an infinite number of states, but statistically will most likely be found in such and such area that is referred to as an orbital.
I don't know what definition of "Field" you're using, but I'd stop using that one and find a better one.
Fields are a physical quantity, but not a tangible quantity. For a field to be digital, it could only have two states - on/off. Since most fields can vary or modulate, there must be some other state than on or off.
"Alcoholism is a disease, but it's the only one you can get yelled at for having. Goddamn it Otto, you are an alcoholic! Goddamn it Otto, you have Lupus! One of those two doesn't sound right."
There are a number of STDs that people get yelled at, too. But your point is well taken. Until recently, alcoholics were considered to just have weak character and were very badly mistreated. Recognizing addiction as a disease helped to change that stigma. Like alcoholics, for many, obesity is not a simple matter of mind over matter and a lack of willpower.
Our prejudices are showing. The real question should be can morbidly obese individuals do everything a "normal" (whatever that means) person can. If no, then they have a disability. We seem to be confusing the cause of the disability with the existence of the disability. If I consume more calories than I burn, I may be the cause of the obesity, but that doesn't make anymore difference than if I am thrown from a four-wheeler and break my back. It's not the cause of the disability that determines if it is a disability, it is the result of the disability.
If obese people cannot do everything a non-obese person can, then they have a disability. Luckily, for many, it doesn't have to be a permanent disability. It also doesn't mean they need special accommodations by their employer (anybody with other than 20/20 vision also has a disability, that their employer normally does not accommodate unless very severe). However, by recognizing obesity as disabling, would mean that people could not be discriminated against.
People would fight back if an employer wouldn't hirer people who needed glasses (at least without good cause), why should we tolerate it if they won't hire overweight people? Some airlines want to charge more for overweight people. They say it is because their weight causes them to burn more fuel. That could be true, but if their real concern is about fuel, then they should discount the fee to underweight people because they are burning less fuel.
In the end, if obese individuals in Europe and elsewhere weren't being discriminated in some way, then this bill wouldn't be working it's way through the system.
Why would any employer refuse to hire obese workers as long as they can pull their own weight, so to speak ? They are trying to make obesity a valid form of disablement so obese workers have increased protection and MORE rights compared to their regular weight peers.
For the same reasons they discriminate based on race, gender, religion, etc.
Buy software for $295 and use it for 10 years, company gets $295.
I don't think any software I use is ten years old. I don't feel like I must have the most recent version of everything I use, but ten years is a long time for software. Actually, I do still run nethack, which is more than ten years old.
Maybe not, but a lot of people still use Microsoft Office 2003.
any Web programming language, and its associated ecosystem, must have some way of storing a program for offline use
So what's the point of this being a "Web" language? Why not just keep downloading apps like we always have?
It's harder to monetize that way. Buy software for $295 and use it for 10 years, company gets $295. Buy the web version for only $50/year and the company makes $500 over the same period. From the consumer (whether a business or individual), there is the appearance of a lower cost of entry. For the vendor, there is a steady revenue source and increased profits.
It's like the difference between purchasing a new car and leasing one. If the consumer's goal is to always have a new car, leases work great. If the consumer's goal is to have a low cost of ownership, however, then a lease is definitely not the way to go. Now as related to what this article is about, instead of leases, think of software as a subscription service.
The administrator doing that would be sued into oblivion and never work in education again. Seriously, people love to make up absurd circumstances for why we need strict government control over certain things, yet those things would never happen due to the consequences.
Actually, in some states creationism, or some form of it is required to be taught along with evolution, so the example is not as far fetched as it sounds. However, in general I agree with your sentiment.
Uhhh most states have 'fire at will' laws that mean you can get rid of a person for any reason or no reason whatsoever.
The long history of public employment abuse definitely shows some sort protection is needed.
So tenure is okay in the private schools and universities, just not the public ones? Tenure isn't the problem. Granting tenure to people who probably shouldn't have it is the problem. Obviously granting full tenure after only 2 years is crazy. But so is the judge's reasoning.
If the judge is concerned that students will be stuck with bad teachers, that has nothing to do with tenure. Tenure means the teacher has to be paid, it does not mean they have to put the teacher in front of students. So, if there is evidence that students aren't learning because of bad teachers, that is a management problem not a tenure problem.
Of course school officials would much rather say it's not their fault the teacher has tenure than admitting it is most definitely there fault because they are the ones who put the teacher in front of students. They just hope with the dumbing done of the masses, people won't notice.
If you were to look at education over the past 100 years you would see the same trend. Im not sure where people are getting these "facts" about the dismantled middle class but theyre terribly wrong. All of this talk about class warfare can only be made by one completely oblivious to reality and history.
Maybe the problem is you are looking at the wrong thing. Average income isn't what defines middle class. The change in average CPI from 2004 to 2013 is 23.32% That would mean the 2004 numbers if they kept up with inflation would be white men $38,642, White women $21,764, Black men $28,043 and Black women $22,665. Do you really think somebody making those amounts in 2014 is middle class?
No, to determine what is happening to the middle class you to look at the number of people in lower, middle and upper class income ranges. If you do that, you will find that the middle class has shrunk and the lower class has increased. It's a serious issue because historically, how the middle class went, is how the economy went as most of the purchasing power was concentrated there.
Your question would be valid if the US aid was a significant percentage of the Israeli economy. Google "us aid israel gdp", skim through a couple of articles and realize that while in the past US aid has been invaluable - and Israel is very grateful for it - at present it is a pittance and in the opinion of many experts not worth the costs involved (and one of the costs is having people with opinions such as yours). If Israel lost all US aid overnight and for some reason decided to continue spending that same amount of money on US equipment (rather than, say, switch to Linux, buy lower-cost weaponry from other countries etc.) taxes would rise by about one percent. Yeah, it would make headlines for a few days and people would bicker and complain like they always do and that would be that.
Okay, I concede - Israelis are the brightest, fastest, strongest, most attractive and endowed people on the planet and nobody else comes close. The rest of the world is so very lucky to eat the scraps that fall from their table. Happy, now?
It's bigoted to put other groups down, but it is also bigoted to hold one's group as superior to any other, too.
So what you are effectively saying is "we (foss) did a great job, let's pat each other on the back! Then let's continue our marvellous path of joy and glory".
(translation: we, the cowboy coders, are totally ignoring fatal problems in processes and attitude and won't fix them 'cause we "are better". if the sarcasm was lost in translation, your bad).
Not at all. What I am saying is the OSS provides some advantages over closed software. Both are fraught with bugs. Free as in beer, doesn't mean free from bugs.
So let's just assume for the sake of argument that Israel wasn't surrounded by hostile neighbors and did not require its present defense budget. In that case it would neither require nor receive US aid. The Israeli technology sector would still exist as it is (except perhaps the weapons industry, which is not the subject here), but the US aid is now out of the equation. What would you then claim is the sinister "other factor" fueling Israeli tech?
You sound like you think I am anti-Israel. I am not. But the reality is that because Israel receives a large amount of aid from the US so they don't have raise the money from their own citizens, means that the country has an advantage it would not otherwise have. The reasons the US does this are many and not really the point. The only issue, which you seem to want to ignore is whether or not being free from having to pay the full cost to defend their country gives them an advantage on other spending. As I stated previously, Japan is in a similar situation with the US providing military protection there (since WWII). Like Israel, the dollars that would have been removed from the economy to fund the military have been left intact and are available for all sorts of projects including R&D.
In any country, there is only so much money to be used to pay for everything. If the military takes a big cut, less is left for R&D. If social programs take a big cut, less is left for R&D. On the other hand, the more money poured into R&D, the more innovation occurs, whether in Israel or anywhere else.
Most people are not researchers and furthermore don't have the expertise to even FIND this issue, much less fix it properly.
But for those who do have the skill and expertise, they can't do it without the source code. Think of it like this. You can tune all the settings on a network by the book, but if there is a problem, having a packet sniffer sure makes it easier to correct. Source code is like a packet sniffer. There is a lot of corrective steps you can take without it, but to ultimately fix the problem, whether closed or open source, one needs access to the source code. That doesn't mean each individual is going to fix their own, but only that whomever is working on it needs the access.
I keep hearing this argument. It's annoying. The US gives Israel billions of dollars' worth in equipment for the military, not money. So the Israeli army uses American jets, ammunition and Microsoft software (yay for the NSA) on its computers. If you think this somehow translates to other money being freed to be invested in high tech, well, if that were the case we wouldn't have companies preferring to set up shop in Cyprus (such as Viber) due to better economic incentives. Finally if American dollars translate into technology development you'd expect the Egyptians to have flying cars by now, which isn't quite the case.
Why is it so hard for some people to accept that there are a lot of smart, creative, entrepreneurial, out-of-the-box thinking people in Israel?
It makes no difference if the US gives Israel cash or hardware. Either way, Israel is not spending $X on jets, munitions, etc., which means that money they would spend on their defense is on other things, like research. It's not just Israel, Japan is similar. When countries don't have to pay the full cost of their defense, the funds that would have been used for that defense can be used for other expenditures or the taxes that would have needed to have been collected to pay for their defense don't have to be collected (which is a big boon to their economies).
I don't find it hard to accept that there are a lot of smart, creative, entrepreneurial out-of-the-box thinking people in Israel. However, I also think they are in the US and most other places. Israel doesn't have a lock on that talent. As such, there must be some other factor involved and if Israel had to collect billions more in taxes to cover their own defense, it is likely that those smart, creative entrepreneurials would move their businesses somewhere else.
Neither this bug or heartbleed were found by looking at the source code. They were found through binary analysis.
Analyzing the binary indicated their was a bug. Analyzing the source code identified exactly what that bug was. I may know something isn't working, but until I know why it isn't working, I can't fix it.
So the real question is, how many people really ARE affected?
That would depend on how much, if any, of OpenSSL code was incorporated into Microsoft and Apple products regardless of the GPL. After all, 1998, was a long time ago.
I agree that 16 years for a fundamental flaw like this is bad, but how can you possibly know that closed source is no worse (or no better) than this? Closed-source software vendors are usually not very open about these problems.
I agree 100%. The only reason this flaw is known is because the source code was available to review. Obviously, it would have been better if this were reviewed and caught sooner, but that ignores the fact that it was only caught because the source code was available. That seems to be a big plus.
Also what is interesting is that even though the flaw has been there for 16 years, there are no known exploits of it. That would seem to dismiss the notion that open source security software is problematic because bad people can find exploits.
Of course another explanation is that the flaw isn't any such thing and was intentional and because it was open source, certain government agencies will now lose the ability to exploit it.
Regardless of how you look at it, it seems to be an advantage to open source.
When I worked in one inner suburb of a medium-sized city, and lived in another, I commuted about 50km each way, 100km in total, and hence 3000km over the course of a little over a month. Commutes 3-4 times that long are not unheard of in larger cities. But for me, would have meant a battery swap about 10 times a year. I don't know how long the swap should take, but I do know I would not have time to visit a dealer - the closest being about a half hour away - anywhere near that frequently, even if it were a short and painless process.
They aren't talking about this battery being the primary power source, but supplementing the lithium batteries to extend the range. While the lithium batteries can be recharged, these batteries are consumed in the process and have to be reprocessed. So, If your lithium batteries get you 95km each day, then you would only use 5km from the aluminum battery.
Well, the technology is getting better, but it's still not there. And why does tiny little war torn israel always seem to have cutting edge technology but we can't make OR EVEN BUY the technology here in the U.S.?
Maybe the billions of dollars that the US gives them has something to do with it?
Slashdot Mirror
For a field to be digital, it could only have two states - on/off. Since most fields can vary or modulate, there must be some other state than on or off.
Um... no. For a field to be digital it must have discrete states. There's no reason it can't have three, or four, or fifteen thousand and twelve states. Take the electrons surrounding an atom. They have discrete states we call orbitals. One glance at a periodic table, which reflects the orbital structure, shows that it's far from a simple on/off system.
But the electrons don't have discrete states. The so called orbitals are just probability where the electron is most likely to be when we look. They are based on schrodinger's wave equations which describe how the state with changes with time. It is anything but digital. To say otherwise is like saying light is digital because it can be measured at specific wavelengths. While that is true, the number of those wavelengths would infinity, which would be anything but digital. Likewise with electrons, they, too, have an infinite number of states, but statistically will most likely be found in such and such area that is referred to as an orbital.
Fields by definition would be analog.
I don't know what definition of "Field" you're using, but I'd stop using that one and find a better one.
Fields are a physical quantity, but not a tangible quantity. For a field to be digital, it could only have two states - on/off. Since most fields can vary or modulate, there must be some other state than on or off.
When being fat has become a protected disability, it is time to start removing people from this world.
We should start with anonymous cowards, first.
"Alcoholism is a disease, but it's the only one you can get yelled at for having. Goddamn it Otto, you are an alcoholic! Goddamn it Otto, you have Lupus! One of those two doesn't sound right."
There are a number of STDs that people get yelled at, too. But your point is well taken. Until recently, alcoholics were considered to just have weak character and were very badly mistreated. Recognizing addiction as a disease helped to change that stigma. Like alcoholics, for many, obesity is not a simple matter of mind over matter and a lack of willpower.
Our prejudices are showing. The real question should be can morbidly obese individuals do everything a "normal" (whatever that means) person can. If no, then they have a disability. We seem to be confusing the cause of the disability with the existence of the disability. If I consume more calories than I burn, I may be the cause of the obesity, but that doesn't make anymore difference than if I am thrown from a four-wheeler and break my back. It's not the cause of the disability that determines if it is a disability, it is the result of the disability.
If obese people cannot do everything a non-obese person can, then they have a disability. Luckily, for many, it doesn't have to be a permanent disability. It also doesn't mean they need special accommodations by their employer (anybody with other than 20/20 vision also has a disability, that their employer normally does not accommodate unless very severe). However, by recognizing obesity as disabling, would mean that people could not be discriminated against.
People would fight back if an employer wouldn't hirer people who needed glasses (at least without good cause), why should we tolerate it if they won't hire overweight people? Some airlines want to charge more for overweight people. They say it is because their weight causes them to burn more fuel. That could be true, but if their real concern is about fuel, then they should discount the fee to underweight people because they are burning less fuel.
In the end, if obese individuals in Europe and elsewhere weren't being discriminated in some way, then this bill wouldn't be working it's way through the system.
Why would any employer refuse to hire obese workers as long as they can pull their own weight, so to speak ? They are trying to make obesity a valid form of disablement so obese workers have increased protection and MORE rights compared to their regular weight peers.
For the same reasons they discriminate based on race, gender, religion, etc.
Fields by definition would be analog.
It doesn't matter what the quanta are made of. Once an all encompassing component is present in discrete amounts, the total cannot be analogue.
It would posit that if Heisenberg were still alive, he would disagree with you.
Buy software for $295 and use it for 10 years, company gets $295.
I don't think any software I use is ten years old. I don't feel like I must have the most recent version of everything I use, but ten years is a long time for software. Actually, I do still run nethack, which is more than ten years old.
Maybe not, but a lot of people still use Microsoft Office 2003.
any Web programming language, and its associated ecosystem, must have some way of storing a program for offline use
So what's the point of this being a "Web" language? Why not just keep downloading apps like we always have?
It's harder to monetize that way. Buy software for $295 and use it for 10 years, company gets $295. Buy the web version for only $50/year and the company makes $500 over the same period. From the consumer (whether a business or individual), there is the appearance of a lower cost of entry. For the vendor, there is a steady revenue source and increased profits.
It's like the difference between purchasing a new car and leasing one. If the consumer's goal is to always have a new car, leases work great. If the consumer's goal is to have a low cost of ownership, however, then a lease is definitely not the way to go. Now as related to what this article is about, instead of leases, think of software as a subscription service.
as someone who has worked extensively with HP-UX:
No its not good enough.
As for other Unixes well HP likes to sing their own song even if its off key and makes no sense
Well, they could always port WebOS to it!
The administrator doing that would be sued into oblivion and never work in education again. Seriously, people love to make up absurd circumstances for why we need strict government control over certain things, yet those things would never happen due to the consequences.
Actually, in some states creationism, or some form of it is required to be taught along with evolution, so the example is not as far fetched as it sounds. However, in general I agree with your sentiment.
Uhhh most states have 'fire at will' laws that mean you can get rid of a person for any reason or no reason whatsoever.
The long history of public employment abuse definitely shows some sort protection is needed.
So tenure is okay in the private schools and universities, just not the public ones? Tenure isn't the problem. Granting tenure to people who probably shouldn't have it is the problem. Obviously granting full tenure after only 2 years is crazy. But so is the judge's reasoning.
If the judge is concerned that students will be stuck with bad teachers, that has nothing to do with tenure. Tenure means the teacher has to be paid, it does not mean they have to put the teacher in front of students. So, if there is evidence that students aren't learning because of bad teachers, that is a management problem not a tenure problem.
Of course school officials would much rather say it's not their fault the teacher has tenure than admitting it is most definitely there fault because they are the ones who put the teacher in front of students. They just hope with the dumbing done of the masses, people won't notice.
If you were to look at education over the past 100 years you would see the same trend. Im not sure where people are getting these "facts" about the dismantled middle class but theyre terribly wrong. All of this talk about class warfare can only be made by one completely oblivious to reality and history.
Maybe the problem is you are looking at the wrong thing. Average income isn't what defines middle class. The change in average CPI from 2004 to 2013 is 23.32% That would mean the 2004 numbers if they kept up with inflation would be white men $38,642, White women $21,764, Black men $28,043 and Black women $22,665. Do you really think somebody making those amounts in 2014 is middle class?
No, to determine what is happening to the middle class you to look at the number of people in lower, middle and upper class income ranges. If you do that, you will find that the middle class has shrunk and the lower class has increased. It's a serious issue because historically, how the middle class went, is how the economy went as most of the purchasing power was concentrated there.
Your question would be valid if the US aid was a significant percentage of the Israeli economy. Google "us aid israel gdp", skim through a couple of articles and realize that while in the past US aid has been invaluable - and Israel is very grateful for it - at present it is a pittance and in the opinion of many experts not worth the costs involved (and one of the costs is having people with opinions such as yours). If Israel lost all US aid overnight and for some reason decided to continue spending that same amount of money on US equipment (rather than, say, switch to Linux, buy lower-cost weaponry from other countries etc.) taxes would rise by about one percent. Yeah, it would make headlines for a few days and people would bicker and complain like they always do and that would be that.
Okay, I concede - Israelis are the brightest, fastest, strongest, most attractive and endowed people on the planet and nobody else comes close. The rest of the world is so very lucky to eat the scraps that fall from their table. Happy, now?
It's bigoted to put other groups down, but it is also bigoted to hold one's group as superior to any other, too.
So what you are effectively saying is "we (foss) did a great job, let's pat each other on the back! Then let's continue our marvellous path of joy and glory".
(translation: we, the cowboy coders, are totally ignoring fatal problems in processes and attitude and won't fix them 'cause we "are better". if the sarcasm was lost in translation, your bad).
Not at all. What I am saying is the OSS provides some advantages over closed software. Both are fraught with bugs. Free as in beer, doesn't mean free from bugs.
So let's just assume for the sake of argument that Israel wasn't surrounded by hostile neighbors and did not require its present defense budget. In that case it would neither require nor receive US aid. The Israeli technology sector would still exist as it is (except perhaps the weapons industry, which is not the subject here), but the US aid is now out of the equation. What would you then claim is the sinister "other factor" fueling Israeli tech?
You sound like you think I am anti-Israel. I am not. But the reality is that because Israel receives a large amount of aid from the US so they don't have raise the money from their own citizens, means that the country has an advantage it would not otherwise have. The reasons the US does this are many and not really the point. The only issue, which you seem to want to ignore is whether or not being free from having to pay the full cost to defend their country gives them an advantage on other spending. As I stated previously, Japan is in a similar situation with the US providing military protection there (since WWII). Like Israel, the dollars that would have been removed from the economy to fund the military have been left intact and are available for all sorts of projects including R&D.
In any country, there is only so much money to be used to pay for everything. If the military takes a big cut, less is left for R&D. If social programs take a big cut, less is left for R&D. On the other hand, the more money poured into R&D, the more innovation occurs, whether in Israel or anywhere else.
Most people are not researchers and furthermore don't have the expertise to even FIND this issue, much less fix it properly.
But for those who do have the skill and expertise, they can't do it without the source code. Think of it like this. You can tune all the settings on a network by the book, but if there is a problem, having a packet sniffer sure makes it easier to correct. Source code is like a packet sniffer. There is a lot of corrective steps you can take without it, but to ultimately fix the problem, whether closed or open source, one needs access to the source code. That doesn't mean each individual is going to fix their own, but only that whomever is working on it needs the access.
I keep hearing this argument. It's annoying. The US gives Israel billions of dollars' worth in equipment for the military, not money. So the Israeli army uses American jets, ammunition and Microsoft software (yay for the NSA) on its computers. If you think this somehow translates to other money being freed to be invested in high tech, well, if that were the case we wouldn't have companies preferring to set up shop in Cyprus (such as Viber) due to better economic incentives. Finally if American dollars translate into technology development you'd expect the Egyptians to have flying cars by now, which isn't quite the case.
Why is it so hard for some people to accept that there are a lot of smart, creative, entrepreneurial, out-of-the-box thinking people in Israel?
It makes no difference if the US gives Israel cash or hardware. Either way, Israel is not spending $X on jets, munitions, etc., which means that money they would spend on their defense is on other things, like research. It's not just Israel, Japan is similar. When countries don't have to pay the full cost of their defense, the funds that would have been used for that defense can be used for other expenditures or the taxes that would have needed to have been collected to pay for their defense don't have to be collected (which is a big boon to their economies).
I don't find it hard to accept that there are a lot of smart, creative, entrepreneurial out-of-the-box thinking people in Israel. However, I also think they are in the US and most other places. Israel doesn't have a lock on that talent. As such, there must be some other factor involved and if Israel had to collect billions more in taxes to cover their own defense, it is likely that those smart, creative entrepreneurials would move their businesses somewhere else.
Neither this bug or heartbleed were found by looking at the source code. They were found through binary analysis.
Analyzing the binary indicated their was a bug. Analyzing the source code identified exactly what that bug was. I may know something isn't working, but until I know why it isn't working, I can't fix it.
So the real question is, how many people really ARE affected?
That would depend on how much, if any, of OpenSSL code was incorporated into Microsoft and Apple products regardless of the GPL. After all, 1998, was a long time ago.
it can be tested and fixed far more quickly than a corporation with limited resources and only paid developers can do the same sort of debugging work.
Open Source does not guarantee unlimited resources. Case in point: TrueCrypt.
Paid developers can work full time on debugging and may have a much deeper understanding of the code and how it is used.
Wasn't the TrueCrypt announcement a form of warrant canary?
I agree that 16 years for a fundamental flaw like this is bad, but how can you possibly know that closed source is no worse (or no better) than this? Closed-source software vendors are usually not very open about these problems.
I agree 100%. The only reason this flaw is known is because the source code was available to review. Obviously, it would have been better if this were reviewed and caught sooner, but that ignores the fact that it was only caught because the source code was available. That seems to be a big plus.
Also what is interesting is that even though the flaw has been there for 16 years, there are no known exploits of it. That would seem to dismiss the notion that open source security software is problematic because bad people can find exploits.
Of course another explanation is that the flaw isn't any such thing and was intentional and because it was open source, certain government agencies will now lose the ability to exploit it.
Regardless of how you look at it, it seems to be an advantage to open source.
When I worked in one inner suburb of a medium-sized city, and lived in another, I commuted about 50km each way, 100km in total, and hence 3000km over the course of a little over a month. Commutes 3-4 times that long are not unheard of in larger cities. But for me, would have meant a battery swap about 10 times a year. I don't know how long the swap should take, but I do know I would not have time to visit a dealer - the closest being about a half hour away - anywhere near that frequently, even if it were a short and painless process.
They aren't talking about this battery being the primary power source, but supplementing the lithium batteries to extend the range. While the lithium batteries can be recharged, these batteries are consumed in the process and have to be reprocessed. So, If your lithium batteries get you 95km each day, then you would only use 5km from the aluminum battery.
Well, the technology is getting better, but it's still not there. And why does tiny little war torn israel always seem to have cutting edge technology but we can't make OR EVEN BUY the technology here in the U.S.?
Maybe the billions of dollars that the US gives them has something to do with it?