Why do you consider Base innovative but not Fremont? They're both ripoffs of craigslist.
Very little Google has done has been innovative by those standards. Just like Microsoft or Walmart, their company has built themselves on already existing concepts, but improved on them. In the case of google, these concepts would be online advertising, searching, servers, etc.
How is this causing cable and telecommunications companies to lose money? The cities and states aren't getting free bandwith. It's costing taxpayers money. Where is that money going if it's not to the Qwests and Comcasts who own and maintain the internet infrastructure in cities?
They would do it just like they did on the Moon. They would put a spacecraft in orbit around Mars, and have a martian lander that can manuever between the surface and the spacecraft in orbit.
Regardless, any extra fuel and supplies that are needed could be sent well before any humans arrived.
If this is true, this pretty much gauruntees America's primacy into the 22nd century.
As for all the people comparing Europes gas prices with the US, well, complain to your politicians. The gas prices are pretty much the same before taxes.
The US is not sixth in percentage of wealth spent on R&D, as the article says, when defense and corporations are factored in.
Ironically, many of the things the author listed as examples of US inventions/improvements on inventions, came from defense spending: the jet engine, computer, radar, jumbo jet, internet, lasers, and GPS. None of those things would either exist or be what they are today without US defense spending. You would think giving those examples, he would factor in defense spending into some of his funding stats.
He is also being disingenuous by including complaints about Bush, and then only including statistics from the '06 budget. If you look at the budget from since he took office, both defense and regular R&D have increased absolutely incredible amounts.
Obviously, the second one is what the author was looking at. That tiny little decrease after 5 years, under the Bush administration, of very high increases.
How the hell can someone write an article, much of which blames the president, without even mentioning an approximate 40% increase in federal R&D during his administration?
This was painful to read it's so stupid, and full of misinformation and lies.
First of all, Bush isn't defunding NASA. He is, infact, doing the opposite. He increased NASA's budget 5% last year, and plans 2 more 5% increases in the next 2 years. Far more than Clinton can claim.
Bush's budget request for Project Constellation, the product of his "brave speech," is $6.6 billion over the next 5 years.
The CEV, part of Project Constellation, will have the concepts from the major contractors completed and sent to NASA by the end of this summer.
I would like you see your source on that these men were engineers and that they're being replaced by businessmen. I would find it hard to beleive that a man with a doctorate, 5 masters, and 1 bachelor degree in sciences and engineering would purposely sabotage NASA.
I recommend you get your news from a source other than democraticunderground.
Not all blogs are just spouting of opinions. The blog mentioned was reporting on a new product from Apple. Had a tech section in the LA Times published this exact thing, the author would have been immune from any lawsuits.
I say anything can be journalism because it's an impossible line to define.
What makes a journalist a journalist is the same thing that makes an artist, an artist. Anything can be art. Anyone can be an artist.
Saying that blogs aren't journalism is akin to saying that a twisted chunk of metal isn't art. It's only an opinion and there's no way to prove it either way.
You can read the bill here: http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/dfiles/file_493.pdf
The act doesn't make the source code open.
* It only requires source code be viewable by the commission, which is exactly as it is now. The public are now allowed to view the code, however they are not allowed to receive it over the internet, modify it, or redistribute it to anyone. They are also not allowed to use it to make their own voting machine.
The bill requires background checks on programmers.
* How this affects open source development should be rather obvious. I can't possibly make a voting machine if I have to run background checks on the thousands of people who have contributed to Linux throughout the world. This requirement looks specifically designed to thwart open source development.
The bill prohibits distributing voting machine source code over the internet.
* This is an effective ban on open source software being used for voting machines. I cannot believe how ignorant or corrupt a politician would have to be to support such a travesty.
I knew there was something wrong when Barbara Boxer actually appeared to have done something useful.
As a US citizen, you must follow FAA laws no matter what country you are in. All outsourcing to another country will do for you is possibly put you under two sets of regulations.
Slashdot Mirror
Very little Google has done has been innovative by those standards. Just like Microsoft or Walmart, their company has built themselves on already existing concepts, but improved on them. In the case of google, these concepts would be online advertising, searching, servers, etc.
Boeing is still well in the game. http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,15 18,360417,00.html
How is this causing cable and telecommunications companies to lose money? The cities and states aren't getting free bandwith. It's costing taxpayers money. Where is that money going if it's not to the Qwests and Comcasts who own and maintain the internet infrastructure in cities?
They would do it just like they did on the Moon. They would put a spacecraft in orbit around Mars, and have a martian lander that can manuever between the surface and the spacecraft in orbit. Regardless, any extra fuel and supplies that are needed could be sent well before any humans arrived.
If this is true, this pretty much gauruntees America's primacy into the 22nd century. As for all the people comparing Europes gas prices with the US, well, complain to your politicians. The gas prices are pretty much the same before taxes.
What an incredibly misleading article.
a l%20R&D%20Spending%20Chart.pdf
a l%20Non-Defense%20R&D%20Spending%20Chart.pdf
The US is not sixth in percentage of wealth spent on R&D, as the article says, when defense and corporations are factored in.
Ironically, many of the things the author listed as examples of US inventions/improvements on inventions, came from defense spending: the jet engine, computer, radar, jumbo jet, internet, lasers, and GPS. None of those things would either exist or be what they are today without US defense spending. You would think giving those examples, he would factor in defense spending into some of his funding stats.
He is also being disingenuous by including complaints about Bush, and then only including statistics from the '06 budget. If you look at the budget from since he took office, both defense and regular R&D have increased absolutely incredible amounts.
Here is Federal R&D Spending with defense included:
http://www.ostp.gov/html/budget/2006/Charts/Feder
Non-Defense Federal R&D Spending:
http://www.ostp.gov/html/budget/2006/Charts/Feder
Obviously, the second one is what the author was looking at. That tiny little decrease after 5 years, under the Bush administration, of very high increases.
How the hell can someone write an article, much of which blames the president, without even mentioning an approximate 40% increase in federal R&D during his administration?
First of all, Bush isn't defunding NASA. He is, infact, doing the opposite. He increased NASA's budget 5% last year, and plans 2 more 5% increases in the next 2 years. Far more than Clinton can claim.
Bush's budget request for Project Constellation, the product of his "brave speech," is $6.6 billion over the next 5 years.
The CEV, part of Project Constellation, will have the concepts from the major contractors completed and sent to NASA by the end of this summer.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-01-13 -bush-nasa_x.htm
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/14/tech/mai n593063.shtml
I would like you see your source on that these men were engineers and that they're being replaced by businessmen. I would find it hard to beleive that a man with a doctorate, 5 masters, and 1 bachelor degree in sciences and engineering would purposely sabotage NASA.
I recommend you get your news from a source other than democraticunderground.
They have to play the game by the rules. Just because they're good at the game doesn't mean they like the rules.
Why does slashdot report progress on linux when microsoft has already done the same sort of thing for years?
Not all blogs are just spouting of opinions. The blog mentioned was reporting on a new product from Apple. Had a tech section in the LA Times published this exact thing, the author would have been immune from any lawsuits. I say anything can be journalism because it's an impossible line to define.
What makes a journalist a journalist is the same thing that makes an artist, an artist. Anything can be art. Anyone can be an artist.
Saying that blogs aren't journalism is akin to saying that a twisted chunk of metal isn't art. It's only an opinion and there's no way to prove it either way.
You can read the bill here: http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/dfiles/file_493.pdf The act doesn't make the source code open. * It only requires source code be viewable by the commission, which is exactly as it is now. The public are now allowed to view the code, however they are not allowed to receive it over the internet, modify it, or redistribute it to anyone. They are also not allowed to use it to make their own voting machine. The bill requires background checks on programmers. * How this affects open source development should be rather obvious. I can't possibly make a voting machine if I have to run background checks on the thousands of people who have contributed to Linux throughout the world. This requirement looks specifically designed to thwart open source development. The bill prohibits distributing voting machine source code over the internet. * This is an effective ban on open source software being used for voting machines. I cannot believe how ignorant or corrupt a politician would have to be to support such a travesty. I knew there was something wrong when Barbara Boxer actually appeared to have done something useful.
As a US citizen, you must follow FAA laws no matter what country you are in. All outsourcing to another country will do for you is possibly put you under two sets of regulations.