Trump Administration Wants To Fire 248 Forecasters At the National Weather Service (fortune.com) 524
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Fortune: After a year that saw over $300 million in damages from hurricanes, wildfires, and other natural disasters, the Trump administration is proposing significant cuts to the National Weather Service (NWS) and hopes to eliminate the jobs of 248 weather forecasters. The idea, which is part of the 2019 fiscal budget proposal and caught the agency by surprise, is being derided by the NWS's labor union, which says the cuts will impact the reliability of future weather forecasts and warnings. All totaled, the Weather Service faces cuts of $75 million in the initial proposal. Some or all of those cuts could be jettisoned before the bill is voted upon. "We can't take any more cuts and still do the job that the American public needs us to do -- there simply will not be the staff available on duty to issue the forecasts and warnings upon which the country depends," said Dan Sobien, the president of the National Weather Service Employees Organization.
Further reading: The Washington Post
Further reading: The Washington Post
What did you expect? (Score:5, Insightful)
After a bunch of so-called deficit hawks and fiscal conservatives were finished with their 1 trillion dollar giveaway to the rich, they had to do something they could point at in November to reclaim their conservative bona fides. So they're going to attempt gutting every non-military program in the federal budget.
Re:What did you expect? (Score:5, Funny)
Instead of increasing military, it would be cheaper to give every country 250 gold and have 4 turns of peace.
Re:What did you expect? (Score:5, Funny)
That works right up to the point where Gandhi gets nukes.
Re: (Score:3)
That works right up to the point where Gandhi gets nukes.
Yeah, Ghandi has been pretty pissed since he made his comeback in the 80s: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re:What did you expect? (Score:5, Informative)
You would lose that bet. Even if they have additional sources of data, and use their own people (more likely, their own computers) making predictions, both the military and most news organizations use NWS data.
Re: (Score:3)
He is referencing civilisation, where there is a bug where Gandhi's niceness level rolls over and declares war on everyone and tries to nuke them.
I'm starting to worry this may be a feature of reality itself.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:What did you expect? (Score:5, Informative)
lol,when has a Republican administration ever been "deficit hawks"? If there's one pattern in politics it's that deficits shrink under the Dems and blow out under the GOP.
Re:What did you expect? (Score:4, Insightful)
Yup. That's because Democrats are "tax and spend" and Republicans are "don't tax but spend anyway".
Re:What did you expect? (Score:5, Informative)
Here's federal government spending per capita in constant dollars [usgovernmentspending.com]. You'll notice it only levels out or decreases when there is a Republican Congress and a Democratic President [wikipedia.org].
Congress controls the budget. When there is a Republican President and a Democratic Congress, Congress spends more, but they work with the President to fund some of his priorities.
When there is a match between Congress and the President's party, they spend more.
So a more accurate statement would be that Democrats always spend more. Republicans also spend more, except when there is a Democratic Party President.
Oh, and it's completely a spending problem. Revenue (i.e. taxes) per capita in constant dollars has also increased 3x over the last 60 years [usgovernmentrevenue.com] and is at record highs, despite the occasional dip based primarily on how the economy is doing and tax law changes. It's just that as much as the federal government has increased tax revenue over the years, Congress has managed to spend even more. So let's work on cutting the spending, or at least slowing down the growth!
Re:What did you expect? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
1930's responsible government (Score:3, Interesting)
The chart shows that they did the right thing in the 1930s. Did not matter how deep the depression got, they always balanced the books. Worked real good.
Then that evil Rosevelt ran up a huge deficit just because there was a war on. Crippled the country. The depression was over, no more dirt cheap labor.
Moving on, we see the deficit from Obama during the Global Financial Crisis. Weak. He should have been tough like Hover in the depression. When the economy shrinks you tighten your belt. Stands to rea
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
You shouldn't be surprised by that, high marginal tax rates on the highest earning brackets actually helped sustain a growing middle class post war. It was in scaling back those rates and the embrace of trickle down economics that we saw the explosion in wealth inequality that we're now faced with.
Re: What did you expect? (Score:4, Informative)
What? Are you talking about the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 [wikipedia.org]? That's the only recent bank bailout of which I'm aware and it was signed into law by George W. Bush.
Re: (Score:3)
You originally posted "Obama could have chosen not to do the bailout, and just let the big banks fail. He was President." and I showed that in fact, he was not President and he could not have chosen not to do the bailout (although he did vote for it as a Senator). Obama could have pushed for the end of the TARP program after he became president but that's not what you said. I agree that both parties are complicit in the massive handout to banks but quit moving the goalposts and acting like you were right
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
lol,when has a Republican administration ever been "deficit hawks"?
Eisenhower. That was back when the Republicans had principles and the Democrats had vision.
Re:What did you expect? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:What did you expect? (Score:5, Interesting)
The bloated programs that are kept alive by both military bureaucracy and congressional political issues.
And then there's absolute waste. It takes an act of congress for the military to buy almost anything, literally. So, instead of buying, they lease. The leases cost far more. Sometimes far, far more. But, they can schedule the payments so congressional action is not required. The military is a business, and this is no way to run a business. Congress is the board of directors, and they need to be taken out of the day to day decision system. No successful business can run that way.
Re: (Score:3)
And then there's absolute waste. It takes an act of congress for the military to buy almost anything, literally. So, instead of buying, they lease. The leases cost far more. Sometimes far, far more.
In my experience working for the government, most government bloat is caused by all the rules and regulations put in place to try and prevent bloat.
Re:What did you expect? (Score:4, Informative)
This is by design. The Constitution even limits the military budget process to no more than two years, with no similar limit on any other cabinet department. Back in 1789 when the Constitution was drafted, military coups were more common than they are today. Even outside of coups, military leaders were far more influential in governments. Our founders wanted to prevent that and put the military firmly under the control of civilians, to mitigate the risk of a powerful military controlling or even taking over the government.
After WW2, with the Cold War in full swing, the military became a favorite vehicle for delivering pork, as well. That, to me, is the real problem here. Our military is no longer about defense (sorry, "invading Iraq" which is 7,000 miles away is not "defending our country"). It is designed to evoke patriotism and support in the people so the wealthy can funnel lucrative contracts to favored military-industrial complex contractors. Essentially, stealing from the poor (taxpayers) to give to the rich (CEOs of companies like Boeing). Yes, those companies provide some value. However, they do so with gross inefficiency and well beyond the level required to defend U.S. soil. That is the problem that needs solving.
Re: (Score:3)
I think "military good, everything else bad" isn't a Trump thing, it's just a more general Republican thing.
Chop shop government (Score:5, Insightful)
Deficits are a good thing for them, if it helps them loot and destroy the government sooner. It's hard to effectively eliminate the necessary government operations and programs with a wide base of popular support unless you create a crisis first.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:What did you expect? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
The reality being that Trump wants more automation and less people overhead. Thus the 100 million supercomputing deal that was implemented last week per the Wapo.
Re: What did you expect:unions? (Score:3)
That's a nice, and in this case, very accurate addition to the "under the bus" analogy.
Trump isn't going far enough (Score:2, Funny)
Eliminate the NWs entirely, there are numerous private sources of weather forcasters so the government needs to step away from yet another unconstitutional government program.
Re:Trump isn't going far enough (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Trump isn't going far enough (Score:4, Informative)
Poe's Law is a harsh mistress.
Re:Trump isn't going far enough (Score:5, Insightful)
Indeed. People have no clue how extremely difficult some things are. Fire these weather experts and you may just lose forecast accuracy for a few decades. And that may kill a lot of people and destroy a lot of property. Since mostly poor people will be hit, I am not surprises the present administration does not care.
Reminds me of the utter stupidity when some Italian earthquake experts got dragged into court because they were wrong. So not more earthquake forecasts worth a damn in Italy. This is inherently a guessing game, but one worthwhile for society to be done well. Punish the experts when they guess wrong and the result is no more experts. Or rather they just move somewhere where the people actually understand the value they provide.
There is a point in any civilization when it separates itself into those with a clue and those too dumb to survive. The smart ones leave when the morons take over. Come to think of it, I now know several US citizens that moved to Europe and do not want to go back.
Re: (Score:3)
"As of July, the NWS, which has a workforce of about 4,300, had 668 vacant positions, according to the National Weather Service Employees Organization (NWSEO), the union representing NWS employees. Overtime is common in many local offices since positions have gone unfilled for months and sometimes years. According to the GAO, about 5 percent of the agency's total positions were unfilled in 2006. That figure rose to about 11 percent in 2016"
So they are already operating with many more vacancies than this cut
Re: (Score:3)
Someone needs to mod the parent as funny. I assume it has to be a joke
That's a bad assumption to make... much as many Americans believe that milk comes from a supermarket many believe that weather is forecast by the TV channels and apps they use. Never underestimate the power of stupidity.
Re: (Score:3)
And why 248, anyway? It doesn't make any sense whatsoever. Now, needing 128 or 256 forecasters, I can understand.
Re:Trump isn't going far enough (Score:5, Insightful)
And then you talk to an actual expert and find out that technology only provides input for the forecasters. They then take their experience and knowledge of local peculiarities a create an actual forecast from that. In the case of natural disasters, that may be the difference of a few more hours to evacuate, for example. So no, technology is (once again) not nearly as advanced as some people like to think.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah yes, separation of clue and state. I forgot about that one!
That one also has the effect of the clue just leaving when the state goes down the drains. Because while the clue is mobile, the state (and its payload of morons) is not.
Why do I get the horrifying feeling... (Score:3, Funny)
... that Trump wants to fire them in order to hold them responsible for the bad weather?
Re: (Score:2)
TDS [steemit.com] is a real thing, get it checked out while you still can.
Fastest transition to 3rd world nation? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Fastest transition to 3rd world nation? (Score:4, Insightful)
have any other countries/societies/cultures fallen so far, so quickly, due to their own stupidity, as suddenly as the US?
Na, our slide has been going on for quite a while now. See my sig.
Yes, that far ago.
Basically, after Apollo, it's been one long slide, only in the past 20 years has it been really accelerating and becoming quite apparent. And this guy now? The \ has turned into a |
And it ain't just us, bub. It's the UK, too. And Japan had their moment of "oh... shit.." what.. 20 years ago and are *still* recovering?
Re:Fastest transition to 3rd world nation? (Score:5, Insightful)
I quite agree. Trump is a symptom, not the cause. When an obvious moron gets voted in to run the show, then the problem is the voters. The voters cannot be fixed, unfortunately. They will sink the ship now, evermore trying to vote themselves bread and games and glory ("Make America great again!"), unless nothing is left anymore and everything collapses.
Re:Fastest transition to 3rd world nation? (Score:4, Insightful)
The voters thought Trump was better than the establishment politicians. How much of that is on the voters, and how much of that is on the establishment?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
100% on the voters, since it is them that have shaped this political landscape. This is just the last stage if their dysfunctionality.
Re: Fastest transition to 3rd world nation? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually I truly believe Trump will #MAGA, in the same way that a good Alcoholic blackout can be transformative.
You'd just better hope you can find a good Claudius to undo all the damage done by your current Caligula.
Re: (Score:2)
Does not look like that to me. Does more look like people stubbornly voting for the one that promises the most, no matter how little gets delivered. They then will claim that they actually got what they wanted (despite strong evidence to the contrary) and continue with the self-destruction. It is called confirmation bias and it destroys societies. History is full of examples.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I guess those who believe one Bitcoin will be worth one million U.S. dollars will see their dream come true after all, but not exactly as they thought it would.
Re:Fastest transition to 3rd world nation? (Score:5, Funny)
US is nowhere near a 3rd world nation, and a proposed plan (that will probably not pass) to fire a bunch of weathermen doesn't portend its slide into 3rd world status.
US has the world's largest economy, 9 out of the 10 best universities in the world, the world's largest entertainment & cultural industry, the world's largest companies, half the world's Nobel Prizes last year, we've won the World Series for like 23 years straight....
Do you find yourself watching Rocky 4 and rooting for Ivan Drago?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm curious what you think the 10 best universities in the world are.
And the World Series line was a joke, right?
Re:Fastest transition to 3rd world nation? (Score:4, Insightful)
I know right. We're number 1 in many things that people just don't appreciate.
Number 1 in debt, Number 1 in citizen incarceration rate, number 1 in mass shootings, number 1 in climate change denial, number 1 in letting our infrastructure collapse under our feet, number 1 in letting poor people die due to lack of medical insurance, number 1 in bankrupting people who go to our universities.
USA! USA! USA!
Re: (Score:3)
To be fair, the US was 2rd world in many regards (infrastructure, medical insurance, education system, legal system, ...) before. So the distance is not that big.
However, look to the Brits for an example of how to ruin a country fast because of a small set of huge egos and a general inability to recognize an existential threat when it stares you in the face.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, the Soviet Union of course. But they seem to be on their way back.
Re: (Score:3)
Key take away: the budget for "ANALYZE, FORECAST, AND SUPPORT" services was $492,014,000 but now it's $471,792,000. Will that reduction break forecasting? Perhaps, but I strongly doubt it. More likely, it'll result in cuts to people who have been there for a while, but hardly do anything (legacy folks), yet cost a lot, and/or cuts to open recs that have yet to be filled, or were just recently filled
Based on this article from September 2017 I think it's just a reduction in open head count
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/n... [cbsnews.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Well I can see that the moderators didn't like actual direct sources. Surprise, surprise.
In any event, you seemed to gloss over a key portion which contradicts, well, basically your entire dismissal (so easily predicted, by the way), which I'll quote:
Oh, and just so you don't dismiss me as a Trumpkin (even though you or someone else probably will), I'm not a supporter, and there's a lot to despise in Trump's budgetary plans. Calling for more military bloat for an already bloated military, for example, is pretty cringe-worthy to me. Still, even if substantial budgetary increases to the military are the wrong call, minor decreases to the weather service may in fact be the correct call to make. It's a major, really unsupportable, leap to suggest that the weather service decrease is a shortcut to 3rd world status, and it just makes you look, well, childish.
Really, great job illustrating my point. It's almost as if you're a stimulus-response engine.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You're right! All forecasters at the NWS are absolutely essential to accurate, timely forecasting. Why even a random bus crash may be enough to send the US hurdling headlong into 3rd world status.
Oh, and I have a tiger-repelling rock [youtube.com] I'd like to sell you.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm with you brother. The National Weather Service only reports the liberal weather anyway. What was the last time you heard a weather report for Norman, Oklahoma or Elkins, West Virginia? They're covering up conservative weather, I tell you!
LOL (Score:2, Funny)
I can hear it already...
"There is no global warming! You people must be wrong. Fake weather news!!!!!!"
Re: (Score:3)
"The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive." [twitter.com]
-- from the twitter feed of @realDonaldTrump
Nah (Score:5, Insightful)
Over 5000 employees, and over a billion dollar annual budget.
248 jobs is a 5% reduction in staffing overall. $75 million is less that 7.5% of their budget. And these numbers were bandied about with the expectation that they'd be lowered after push back.
When most of the work in forecasting is increasingly automated and computerized, it makes sense to trim the fat.
But of course the labor union is going to get upset. That's what labor unions do when told the truth.
Re:Nah (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I do agree we need to scale our military way back, but people will find it just as easy to complain about any other cuts. Maybe even easier. "We're already saving $X from the military cuts, why can't we use that for this program I like???"
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Nah (Score:4, Insightful)
Trimming the fat would be getting rid of the janitors. Getting rid of forecasters is fucking moronic. The real fat we need to get rid of is surrounding Trump's body like seal blubber.
Re: Nah (Score:2)
Lay off the crack, man. 5,000 - 248 != 0
Re: Nah (Score:4, Funny)
5000 - 248 = 19896.
Calculated on my Intel Pentium processor.
Story of King Canute needs up update (Score:2, Interesting)
Perhaps in the future, the parable of futility will be President Trump, holding back climate change.
What could go wrong? (Score:5, Insightful)
Cause he didn't like their predictions? (Score:4, Funny)
the Trump administration is proposing significant cuts to the National Weather Service (NWS) and hopes to eliminate the jobs of 248 weather forecasters
Geez, who rained on his parade?
Re: (Score:3)
It was his inauguration that got rained on. And then the stupid weathermen didn't back him up when he claimed he was so divinely blessed that the rain itself stood still until he took the oath of office [independent.co.uk].
Well... (Score:2)
Shouldn't they have seen it coming if they were any good at their jobs?
Because... (Score:3)
I've got an idea (Score:5, Insightful)
Oops, I forgot the #1 rule of cutting government spending. You don't cut the waste where it's painless, you cut the meat where it hurts like hell. Then the politicians say "See! they don't like it when we cut spending!".
Re:I've got an idea (Score:4, Informative)
The NWS currently has 500 unfilled positions - eliminating 248 of those unfilled positions would be "painless" for most Americans.
Seems all fake to me (Score:2)
I've never witnessed a hurricane.
A few tropical cyclones maybe, but never a hurricane.
Somebody really has no clue (Score:2)
Obviously these cuts were selected by who is expected to fight back the least, not how critical the work done there is. A sure way into disaster and one prepared by utter incompetents.
Re: (Score:2)
Who knew that the revolution would be lead by park rangers and weather forecasters?
Has there ever been an actual year on year cut? (Score:2)
To government bureaucrats a decrease in their next years budget increase is a hideous cut that will kill millions.
I say we compromise with a 10% across the board real cut to all non-defense, discretionary
Re: (Score:3)
The NWS has nearly 5,000 employees, the 248 cuts proposed in the budget document represent less than 5% of the current NWS staff level. With 122 forecasting office across the nation, that works out to two fewer forecasters per office, and the NWS is currently 10% under-staffed (10% of staff positions open/in-filled at present time).
What's missing from the article (Score:5, Insightful)
If "Trump" is proposing eliminating 248 NWS Forecasters, exactly how many are there currently?
Apparently there are 122 NWS forecasting offices [wikipedia.org]
So "Trump" is proposing the elimination of, on average, 2 forecasters per office - that doesn't seem so bad - but how many are there in those 122 forecasting offices?
It seems the NWS may already have over 248 "vacancies" currently in it's organization [washingtonpost.com], so this may be nothing more than "Trump" adopting current staffing levels, rather than actually cutting people from eliminating positions.
For what it's worth, it seems the NWS has nearly five thousand employees [washingtonpost.com], cutting 248 forecasters represents a 5% cut in staffing.
You may have noticed I put the name Trump in quotes - that's because only a fool would imagine that a sitting President has anything to do with actual staffing levels in an organization, but in today's hyper-political environment, many tend to refer to any action undertaken by anyone in an administration to be the responsibility of the sitting President - oddly, just a few years ago no one said things like "Obama illegally blocked tax-exempt applications by conservative groups" or "Obama illegally encouraged/facilitated running guns into Mexico in a program called "Fast n' Furious"" and so on - I wonder why that is?
Selective memory (Score:5, Interesting)
no one said things like "Obama [**inser crazy thing**]"
Sure they did, they said that quite a lot actually, there was a complete news network dedicated to come up with new crazy things to insert there. Sometimes it's correct that the administration of the current president is the instigator of some crazy things, but motsly it's as you say just things that comes with governing. In this case, I don't know, but budget cuts of $75 million is nothing to scoff at.
I agree that we need to get away from this black and white kind of reporting it doesn't help either side in the long run. I do not know if you are a Trump supporter, but if you are then you better concentrate on the reporting in your own camp, it's better to discuss these things with people that trust your intentions. If you are not a Trump supporter then yey for you.
250 / 5000 is 5% of the unfireable employees (Score:3)
It's not like it is going to be doom and gloom for weather prediction. Most of those cuts should be in management, even though they have a $1B budget and the meteorologists are coming in at $28k/year salary, they're not exactly attracting talent.
How about we start with the union reps, they are collecting $50/pay period and couldn't even negotiate a deal to prevent this or keep the service from becoming top-heavy. Then remove every manager that is not directly managing 15 or more employees.
I'm a professional pilot and this idea scares me (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm a professional pilot and this is a very bad idea for the safety of air travel. We rely on weather forecasting to make decisions about how much fuel to carry, what diverts to plan, and to make decisions if the flight can be safely conducted or not. The public benefits in many not so obvious ways from weather forecasting. Getting on an airplane with a good expectation that you will safely reach your destination, or not run out of fuel going to a weather divert is just one of them. The President should think of that next time he gets on Air Force One, or in his private 757. Making weather information freely and publicly available increases the safety for everyone in the air and on the ground.
My political rant for today: I suspect there's a lobbying bonanza going on in the background and all of these privatization initiatives coming out of this administration and this congress have more to do with cronyism than the common good. When a Republic stops representing the common good, it is no longer a Republic, but a Plutocracy or an oligarchy. This is the bigger issue of our time, not collusion, not Trump, and not any of the other issues being touted in the media. Having an NWS is in the public's best interest.
Re: (Score:2)
In other words, Trump is pushing against the water for three years, [...]
He could always just declare war on Neptune.
(Yes, I know Caligula didn't really do that. Don't care, it's a good story.)
Re: Quality control (Score:2, Insightful)
You obviously know absolutely nothing about how weather forecasting works.
Re: Adios, bureaucrats! There's an app for your jo (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Adios, bureaucrats! There's an app for your job (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't need 248 to tell me what a single app can do in real time with better accuracy.
Lol, right.
You don't need weather forecasters.
You don't need weather satellites.
You don't need weather stations.
You don't need weather-forecasting models.
You don't need supercomputers to run the models.
You don't need a communication infrastructure to deliver the results.
You just need an app. Wow, the savings.
Re: (Score:3)
You do realize that if the Trump administration gets everything it wants at NWS, they will STILL have a $1BN+ annual budget. He's not shuttering the agency, he's taking funding from $1.114BN to $1.024BN - oh, the horror!
Re:Adios, bureaucrats! There's an app for your job (Score:5, Informative)
The point is not by how much the Trump administration is cutting the budget, it's where.
Links in TFA indicate that an RIF in the forecaster staff was contemplated before Trump's residency. Fine. No union can expect to get a no-layoffs clause in its contract.
The point here is that it's the Trump administration, not the NWS, that is indicating where the cuts need to be applied. That's micromanaging.
And per TFA, the cuts "caught the agency by surprise" as well, not just the union.
Re:Adios, bureaucrats! There's an app for your job (Score:5, Insightful)
The headline is a lie. The Trump Administration hasn't proposed firing anyone. If you look at the story this story is based on, it says "248 forecasting positions". Reading further, the agency currently has more open forecasting positions than that. So basically, if this 5% cut to their budget was fully implemented, they simply wouldn't get to hire as many new people. Oh, the drama!!!
You're worried about where the cuts will happen? Let's read the underlying WP article some more [washingtonpost.com] and see if we can figure out how they decided that:
Oh, you mean they did a study back when Obama was President and looked at where stuff could get streamlined and realigned and are basing this budget proposal on that? How sinister!!!
This is much ado about nothing. The only travesty here is that they aren't proposing to cut more. Why, this proposal will take the NWS almost back down to the budget level they had in 2015, when they couldn't get anything at all done!!!
Re: (Score:2)
A government agency screaming disaster if they take any cuts is nothing you do not hear from every single agency.
True, but sometimes their screaming is justified. You'd have to look into it beyond the assumption that government == bad.
Re:Union presidents aren't credible sources (Score:4, Insightful)
Further, the union president is the last credible source. His primary job is to extract money from the treasury to line pockets.
No, his job is to protect the jobs of union-members. That makes him a biased source, but not necessarily a dishonest one.
Re: (Score:2)
Yea, the app downloads the reports from NWS and delivers them to your phone combined with ads and market research trackers. It's almost pure profit and they'll have to raise the price to $10 if we eliminate free NWS access for parasitic app businesses.
Re: (Score:2)
Because it would take every single adult in USA paying $5 a year to make up the billion dollars it costs to run NWS
I suppose they could add a levy on everything that depends on it
Like flying, fishing, farming, construction, anything involving satellites...
Re: (Score:2)
It's not a lie if you believe in it?