I hope universities will get a part of that action as well. I know many universities do research for NASA; my university does. The MARS rovers, Spirit and Opportunity, were designed with collaboration with CMU and other universities.
My advisor graduated from UofArizona and they did quite a bit of the hydrogeology research for the Mars landers.
I believe partnerships with private companies and universities will save a great deal of money and time. NASA has always subcontracted a lot of services to the private sector.
Which is where my question was directed and I'm glad you have highlighted. Government research has few customers: the angencies coordinated within their departments, military, legislative, and administrative groups. Scientific research (or more precisely, basic research) is nearly always a government-university-private industry collaboration. The end-users of the data include all of the various universities who have departments that benefit from the research (including yours and UofA with respect to Mars). If the goverment cuts itself out of the equation (except for some funding), then universities and private companies will have to find low-cost systems to move payloads into space.
Using a federal agency to fund, direct, and perform engineering for space launches may be ending.
The cynical people (like me) know that the best way to kill an agency is to starve it to death slowly. The Mars mission is a classic example of this process. First you cut back on all smaller missions to consolidate spending under one gigantic program. Then you allow the costs for the gigantic mission to ballon until their is no public support for it any longer. At that point you can kill the agency without political damage.
Fortunately there are newer, less expensive methods for delivering payloads into LEO and with this vehicle it will be possible to perform much of what NASA proposed doing with the ISS with a fraction of the cost.
Universities would be a good customer for this type of launch/service space company because the payloads launched by NASA come with significant strings attached to them and they do not get to control the vehicle once launched.
How much do you think a partnership between a university and a private company could save by doing their own space probes?
Using state power to push a social agenda that limits freedom is a socialist impulse. It doesn't matter whether it comes from the right (fascism) or left (communism), both rely on the state to push their own view of what is "for the common good".
So you make this comment "fucking socialists" and guys and gals like me think, "What? Must be a troll."
The comment is my opinion. I've seen plenty of references to people who support 'evolution' as 'godless' but have refrained from taking offense because they are expressing their views. If they go further and suggest replacing biology and geology texts with the Bible, now they have moved from personal opinion into the realm of public policy. At that point, I take exception and speak out against their views.
Take a look at the posts of my critics. Not a single one provided a postive defense of socialism. Instead they spent a great deal of time and energy attacking me personally (which is hilarious due to the fact they do not *know* me personally), and attempting to redefine what *I* think.
WTF? You're not even reading the posts here. Were you talking to yourself just now?
Yes, I read the whole post. It was based on the premise that I agree with his definition.
I don't. So to continue the discussion on a premise I do not accept is a waste of the gp and my time.
I believe these policies are carried out by people who *love* to use state control to push their views. They are socialists, in my opinion.
If you don't *like* my opinion, so be it. I'm not asking you to agree with me. But to start a post with the idea that I "must" agree with the premise is a rejection free speech principles.
Now are you just going to jump all over me or discuss the validity of the gp's premise?
Feudalism is not free market... therefore, it must be socialist? Oligarchy isn't free market... therefore, it must be socialism?
You missed a few, but the most notable is theocracy.
And feudal states have employ free market principles when it served them: Denmark.
Oligarchs also rely on state control to perpetuate their control over pet industries: Russia.
I like free markets. I dislike state interference in free markets. No purely Laissez-faire system exists anywhere (such a shame). But the encroachment of state control in areas of personal and economic freedom are commonly done "for the common good", a stated goal of socialists everywhere.
You keep using the word socialist, but I don't think that word means what you think it means.
"Depending on the context, the term socialism may refer either to these ideologies or any of their many lineal descendants. While these cover a very broad range of views, they have in common a belief that feudal and capitalist societies are run for the benefit of a small economic elite and that society should be run for the common good. "Socialist" ideologies tend to emphasize economic cooperation over economic competition; virtually all envision some sort of economic planning (many, but by no means all, favor central planning). All advocate placing at least some of the means of production -- and at least some of the distribution of goods and services -- into collective or cooperative ownership."
No word games, mate.
Definintions.
Hitler was a socialist in his domestic politics but not his economic policies.
I guess according to you holland is ultra-right then?
Socialism is not the privileged domain of the right.
Anyone who takes my money to pay for programs that would be better performed by charities (i.e., welfare) is also a socialist, despite their left-leaning politics.
Slashdot Mirror
I hope universities will get a part of that action as well. I know many universities do research for NASA; my university does. The MARS rovers, Spirit and Opportunity, were designed with collaboration with CMU and other universities.
My advisor graduated from UofArizona and they did quite a bit of the hydrogeology research for the Mars landers.
I believe partnerships with private companies and universities will save a great deal of money and time. NASA has always subcontracted a lot of services to the private sector.
Which is where my question was directed and I'm glad you have highlighted. Government research has few customers: the angencies coordinated within their departments, military, legislative, and administrative groups. Scientific research (or more precisely, basic research) is nearly always a government-university-private industry collaboration. The end-users of the data include all of the various universities who have departments that benefit from the research (including yours and UofA with respect to Mars). If the goverment cuts itself out of the equation (except for some funding), then universities and private companies will have to find low-cost systems to move payloads into space.
Using a federal agency to fund, direct, and perform engineering for space launches may be ending.
As is usual for geomon,
I've got a FAN!!!
Goody!
There are NOT newer and less expensive methods..
Really?
Ask the folks over at DirecTV.
If you read the press release it said nothing about using NASA for the launch.
The cynical people (like me) know that the best way to kill an agency is to starve it to death slowly. The Mars mission is a classic example of this process. First you cut back on all smaller missions to consolidate spending under one gigantic program. Then you allow the costs for the gigantic mission to ballon until their is no public support for it any longer. At that point you can kill the agency without political damage.
Fortunately there are newer, less expensive methods for delivering payloads into LEO and with this vehicle it will be possible to perform much of what NASA proposed doing with the ISS with a fraction of the cost.
Universities would be a good customer for this type of launch/service space company because the payloads launched by NASA come with significant strings attached to them and they do not get to control the vehicle once launched.
How much do you think a partnership between a university and a private company could save by doing their own space probes?
Besides you're on a old OS anyways
By what standard?
Win98 is older and there are still quite a few people using it.
and haven't given them new business so I'd go so far as to say you're not even an MS customer anymore.
Okay.
I'll let Microsoft know you think so.
Dang, whats my upgrade path from Mac OS X 10.4?
:)
Silly Mac user. None of these problems affect you.
Its a struggle, isn't it?
My choice is to upgrade from Win2K to WinXP for IE?
Hah! I'll keep Win2K and Firefox, thanks.
How does that make them socialist at all?
Using state power to push a social agenda that limits freedom is a socialist impulse. It doesn't matter whether it comes from the right (fascism) or left (communism), both rely on the state to push their own view of what is "for the common good".
So you make this comment "fucking socialists" and guys and gals like me think, "What? Must be a troll."
The comment is my opinion. I've seen plenty of references to people who support 'evolution' as 'godless' but have refrained from taking offense because they are expressing their views. If they go further and suggest replacing biology and geology texts with the Bible, now they have moved from personal opinion into the realm of public policy. At that point, I take exception and speak out against their views.
Take a look at the posts of my critics. Not a single one provided a postive defense of socialism. Instead they spent a great deal of time and energy attacking me personally (which is hilarious due to the fact they do not *know* me personally), and attempting to redefine what *I* think.
WTF? You're not even reading the posts here. Were you talking to yourself just now?
Yes, I read the whole post. It was based on the premise that I agree with his definition.
I don't. So to continue the discussion on a premise I do not accept is a waste of the gp and my time.
I believe these policies are carried out by people who *love* to use state control to push their views. They are socialists, in my opinion.
If you don't *like* my opinion, so be it. I'm not asking you to agree with me. But to start a post with the idea that I "must" agree with the premise is a rejection free speech principles.
Now are you just going to jump all over me or discuss the validity of the gp's premise?
Feudalism is not free market... therefore, it must be socialist? Oligarchy isn't free market... therefore, it must be socialism?
You missed a few, but the most notable is theocracy.
And feudal states have employ free market principles when it served them: Denmark.
Oligarchs also rely on state control to perpetuate their control over pet industries: Russia.
I like free markets. I dislike state interference in free markets. No purely Laissez-faire system exists anywhere (such a shame). But the encroachment of state control in areas of personal and economic freedom are commonly done "for the common good", a stated goal of socialists everywhere.
"Socialist" is not the word you are looking for.
So you only like free speech when it agrees with you?
You keep saying "Fucking socialists", obviously to get a rise out of people..
No, I keep saying it because it is what I believe.
I suspect that the phrase: "Fucking totalitarianism, right or left." would be more accurate terminology.
So my choice is to accept *your* definition to be right (in your opinion), or hold to my own beliefs even if you don't agree?
What part of free speech do you support?
If you aren't going to answer any of the questions...
Ask me a question that doesn't require that I accept every premise you state.
How good for you. I never claimed you did.
I know you didn't.
My comment was in regard to the following:
"USA = fascist plutocraty = freedom for the rich."
If you read through the Libertarian Party's website you will see that we do not support corporate welfare either.
I do not equate freedom with money. I equate freedom with absence of government control.
If you think money is freedom,
I don't.
But I dismiss the conclusion that because I don't like supporting social programs administered by the state that I reject freedom.
Perhaps you should read some Marx (not because you'd agree with the conculusions, but it might give you add some insight to your simpleton worldview.
I read both Marx and his philosophical predecessor, Hegel.
I do Dialectics.
Sweden = socialist = freedom for everyone.
40% of your income is spent on your behalf by the State.
That isn't freedom.
You're confusing economic and political systems.
No, my critics are.
Hitler was a socialist when it came to poltical control - just like China.
Stalin was a political and economic socialist, just like North Korea.
You keep using the word socialist, but I don't think that word means what you think it means.
"Depending on the context, the term socialism may refer either to these ideologies or any of their many lineal descendants. While these cover a very broad range of views, they have in common a belief that feudal and capitalist societies are run for the benefit of a small economic elite and that society should be run for the common good. "Socialist" ideologies tend to emphasize economic cooperation over economic competition; virtually all envision some sort of economic planning (many, but by no means all, favor central planning). All advocate placing at least some of the means of production -- and at least some of the distribution of goods and services -- into collective or cooperative ownership."
No word games, mate.
Definintions.
Hitler was a socialist in his domestic politics but not his economic policies.
Suck up 40% of my earnings to pay for social programs that *you* consider progressive and I consider you a socialist.
As a matter of fact, most political science texts agree with my interpretation.
I guess according to you holland is ultra-right then?
Socialism is not the privileged domain of the right.
Anyone who takes my money to pay for programs that would be better performed by charities (i.e., welfare) is also a socialist, despite their left-leaning politics.
I say each to their own, but what does that have to do with the topic?
Socialists *love* to control as much of people's lives as possible using State power.
This is just one more example.
Hey, Mr Cato linker, your group of purportedly small government thinkers has been supporting Republicans for the past decade.
I'm a Libertarian.
I don't support Republicans.
Does the fact that Democrats voted for the Patriot Act and for extending copyright coverage mean you support these legislative actions?
You're funny but you definitely need to read more books. Your lack of culture is appaling.
So which of those two statements was untrue?
Was Hitler a socialist?
Was Stalin a socialist?
If not, then correct my understanding of their advocacy of State control.
Yup. Except it's not just the left wing. BOTH parties are authoritarian.
Too true. How many bills had Bush vetoed?
I'm old enough to remember when the Republicans wanted to "get government out of our lives."
Yeah, they certainly enjoyed the Libertarian line until it came to their term in power.
Do you remember Reagan's acceptance speech?
"...Government *is* the problem"
How soon they forget.