Biden Administration Provides $504 Million To Support 12 Tech Hubs Nationwide (apnews.com) 119
The Biden administration said Tuesday that it was providing $504 million in implementation grants for a dozen technology hubs in Ohio, Montana, Nevada and Florida, among other locations. From a report: The money would support the development of quantum computing, biomanufacturing, lithium batteries, computer chips, personal medicine and other technologies. The Democratic administration is trying to encourage more technological innovation across the country, instead of allowing it be concentrated in a few metro areas such as San Francisco, Seattle, Boston and New York City.
"The reality is there are smart people, great entrepreneurs, and leading-edge research institutions all across the country," Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo said in a call previewing the announcement. "We're leaving so much potential on the table if we don't give them the resources to compete and win in the tech sectors that will define the 21st century global economy."
"The reality is there are smart people, great entrepreneurs, and leading-edge research institutions all across the country," Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo said in a call previewing the announcement. "We're leaving so much potential on the table if we don't give them the resources to compete and win in the tech sectors that will define the 21st century global economy."
Re: (Score:2)
Say that again but slower, please?
Re:Unconstitutional (Score:5, Informative)
Here's one of the next precedent to be overturned then:
United States v. Butler [wikipedia.org]
United States v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1 (1936), is a U.S. Supreme Court case that held that the U.S. Congress has not only the power to lay taxes to the level necessary to carry out its other powers enumerated in Article I of the U.S. Constitution, but also a broad authority to tax and spend for the "general welfare" of the United States.
Not a chance (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Show me where in the Contitution where they call that out please? Or cite the case where it was argued?
You tell me I don't know what it is but you also refuse to state what you think it is? With no even attempt at evidence either? Do better.
Re: (Score:3)
Helvering v. Davis [wikipedia.org]
There have been great statesmen in our history who have stood for other views. We will not resurrect the contest. It is now settled by decision. United States v. Butler, supra. The conception of the spending power advocated by Hamilton and strongly reinforced by Story has prevailed over that of Madison, which has not been lacking in adherents. Yet difficulties are left when the power is conceded. The line must still be drawn between one welfare and another, between particular and general.
Re:Unconstitutional (Score:4, Insightful)
That's why the Constitution of the United States formulates government into three separate and supposedly independent branches. If you read the Federalist Papers the Framers clearly understood the dangers of having a government under the control of a single person or group of people, and were attempting to design a system that prevented that.
Now they failed spectactularly. The Electoral College was intended to discourage the emergence of political parties, but in fact greatly accelerated the process of party formation. But nonetheless the design principles of separation of powers and checks and balances is a sound one.
Re: (Score:3)
That doesn't seem to bother those pseudo-conservatives on the Supreme Court who want to grant Trump the powers of a dictator and to not be held to any legal standard.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you read the Federalist Papers the Framers clearly understood the dangers of having a government under the control of a single person or group of people, and were attempting to design a system that prevented that.
When "power" is accumulated in one area, you can expect corruption to follow. The Executive has been accumulating power in leaps and bounds since my birth. That power has been used to manipulate politics. We ended up with a central power that the Executive, Judicial, and Legislative branches are all submissive to.
Welcome to The End.
Re: (Score:3)
Oh man do I have some new and interesting reading for you.
See there were these guys back about 250 years ago who thought of these problems...
The Constitution of the United States: A Transcription [archives.gov]
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Plenty of case-law is now used and an end-run around the Constitution. There is no doubt of that. The question is "should it have been?" and I think the answer is hell no. I'd much prefer the framer's vision of government than what we have right now.
Sure, it's not that anyone is saying (or should be saying) that everyone agrees with the precedents of the Supreme Court but the fact is it is a process and the Contitution including A1S8 is a process document.
The Founders knew the Constitution could not "be the law" except where specified but they were relying on the system to end up with the results of the process.
The reason they did it that way and the reason it has worked for so long (USC is the oldest active governmental document) is precisely because
Re: (Score:1)
Which Framer is the question? The simple fact that they amongst themselves and the states and people they represented could not agree on everything is why we have the document and systems we do.
Well, if you make me pick one, I'd pick Jefferson. However, I don't have to pick one. I can say "the framers" and reasonable folks will know I mean the ones with significant input into the framing of our first government. The fact that "things change" and "folks disagree" is what it is. However, it doesn't change the nature of individual rights. I disagree with you and others who seem to believe that government is the only way for individual rights to exist and we'd damn well better shut up and accept it or
Re: (Score:3)
And I might choose Tom Paine or John Adams (who famously had some procedural beefs with Jefferson) that does not mean either of us is totally correct
I can say "the framers" and reasonable folks will know I mean the ones with significant input into the framing of our first government
Yeah and I would say that's a misinformed and even perplexing way to go about this, just Madison versus Hamilton and you could draft two different forms of government just out of those two guys thoughts on the matter. There was famously not a unibody of thought, i mean the Constitution was our second try at forming a government the first try was something of
Re: (Score:1)
Yeah and I would say that's a misinformed and even perplexing way to go about this
I understand that different framers had differing individual opinions. Anyone who has read what the framers wrote outside of the Constitution are going to understand. However, the end result was the Constitution and the entire aim of creating it was to do the best they could, collectively. I think that focusing on the intent in the document yields the best result, not trying to understand each individual who contributed.
These were just men, men with good idea but men nonetheless
I'm not elevating the Constitution to stone tablets passed down by God. However, I'm dis
Re: (Score:3)
yields the best result, not trying to understand each individual who contributed.
To be clear here you were the first to bring up the Founders as a defense.
However, I'm disgusted by the changes we've made in reality.
And there were enough people that were disgusted by Brown vs Board of Education but the courts are supposed to be a disinterested party to the public. Our opinions are supposed to be reflected by our voting patterns. The fac tyou acknowledge mistakes makes my point stronger.
I think you're failing to see the difference between acknowledging rights and defending them.
Oh I acknowledge them. big fan of the Bill of Rights (both the first and the un-enacted Second version) but an un-enforced right is what? Nothing really...
I'd point out that by this same logic that nobody has a right to their life unless a government exists to protect them or they are strong enough to defeat all comers.
You'd
Re: (Score:3)
I mean sure but just like philosophy of mathematics discussions around meta-ethics can be interesting and at some point the rubber meets the road of the idea that we do seem to be physical beings of some sort in some degree of shared reality combined with limited resources and the ability to know eachothers thoughts.
Given the gift of senscience we seem to have found success in bannding together into groups as many other creatures have but we have the ability to define outside raw natural selection what that
Re: (Score:3)
You breathe, you move, you gather food, you trade goods and services or things of value with others, you are free to imagine, create, and invent, you are free to build a belief system and worship how you choose
I was a Libertarian, I get what the NAP is and there are good, epistemic things in there we should take from it, but to me, and history, it's wholly unworkable as sole principle to operate a successful society of human beings.
Me and my 50 buddies have opinions and weapons at our disposal.
We don't like how you breath.
We don't like how you move.
We do like that food and goods you have.
We also don't like these idea's you're thinking of.
We don't agree on a 3rd party with monopoly use of force. What do you do no
Re: (Score:2)
To be clear here you were the first to bring up the Founders as a defense.
I wasn't "defending" anything. I merely stated it's important to know what the founders meant when they wrote the Constitution, not every philosophical musing every member of the Revolution and Constitutional convention ever wrote elsewhere.
What I am saying is such a paradigm of self-defense and only self-defense is not a way to run a nation or a society and that's been known for literally centuries.
Who is advocating for "only self-defense"? I pointed out that self-defense is another mechanism to defend natural rights as evidence that they exist outside of government's ability to protect them. I never said everyone should in anarchy where there can be zero governmen
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, in the end, we might agree that collective action is the best way to protect our rights and then try to work out how to keep our ideas of Justice satisfied. We definitely disagree on is the nature of rights in general. I'm not a Sophist and do not think rights come from the ability to use force. However, I am willing to use force to defend them.
I will end with this, i resent the idea of being accused of sophistry, nothing here either of us has said comes to that level good sir.
Good, if we agree on that then we are just talking degrees and actions here, that's where the argument should be coming from.
Our rights are precious things that deserve protection but we don't value or believe in the institutions we build to protect those rights then how are we ever supposed to have faith we can reform them and at that point, call it sophistry if you want, t
Re: (Score:2)
That's what you described? (Free to do anything so long as you do not aggress on someone else) Call it what you want but that's what you described.
It's just the golden rule put to political terms. A nice sentiment, a good epistemic foundation but unworkable as in crafting laws and society. It's circular and completely subjective around whatever one decides qualifies as "aggression"
What were you talking about then?
Re: (Score:2)
I said "unworkable as sole principle".
It's a good epistemic foundation as laws are just codified morals but laws have to also deal the edge cases and such meta-ethical priciples have lots of those so you can't codify that exactly as law. The laws themselves are going to be specific and as necessary, making laws simply off philsophophy is just dogmatism.
What's unworkable is our current system that tramples all over the rights of individuals in a desperate attempt to do things like redistribute money to Ukraine, punish people for fishing or hunting when the government decides, paperwork crimes like ensuring your property is "registered" with the government and the government has given you permission to use it (after paying "rent" on your own property), etc...
Irrelevant filibustering, all of this is vague and or completely subjective.
- I think funding to Ukraine for their defense is one of the most important thin
Re: (Score:2)
If you think Ukraine should be funded, feel free to cut them a check directly, instead of holding a gun to *everyone's* head and forcing them to pay for "their fair share" (how much of my money is your fair share to steal?).
All but irrelevant argument. I will defend my statement when you give me something besides "Huuurrrr it costs money"
I certainly don't need a piece of paper from the government.
Yes you do, at least to operate a motor vehichle on them. Roads are a public space, public laws apply. Driver's license exist for a reason, your system is pandemonium in practice. You also don't need a license to drive on private roads. Are we still doing this after the meme Gary Johnson clip?
No, all the land does NOT belong to government.
Yes it does. You only own it because the government says you do and the rest of us respect that.
Re: (Score:2)
What if Congress provided for the common defense of a group of technology companies and left everyone else undefended?
Exactly.
Re: (Score:2)
Then take it to court to show it violated the precedent and norms for Congress to use the Spending Clause. There are in fact conditions laid out by the SC on Congress.
Re: (Score:2)
But running your bank and auto industry into the ground and asking for money is still cool, right?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
How about this: End the War on Drugs, which is definitely unconstitutional, causing prisons to be reserved for real criminals, streets become much safer, insurance rates go down, public coffers swell, etc. But no. We have to put school kids in cardboard classrooms because Daddy Warbucks Republican needs another platinum-plated lakeboat funded with the negative tax rates he gave himself.
Re: (Score:2)
No it's not. Any government has the right to determine what comes across its borders. And yes, that includes people as well as substances.
streets become much safer
Crime has been decreasing for decades [cnn.com].
insurance rates go down
Insurance goes up because of the increase in accidents, both driving [carinsurance.com] and at home.
public coffers swell
No [coloradosun.com], they don't [theconversation.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Great, but not relevant. It skyrocketed in the first place due to the War on Drugs.
I'm talking about all forms of insurance. WoD creates general social and economic chaos. We already knew this by the middle of Prohibition. Unfortunately, a certain political cas
Re: (Score:3)
You misunderstand. This is an official act as decided by the latest ruling so it's legal.
Is there a problem?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If by "they" you mean SCOTUS, deciding what the Constitution means is literally their job.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There was a solution to that 'sequestration' It actually worked. Granted it had to be setup as a penalty for failure to come up with an itemized list, and then congress had to go ahead and fail - but we actually managed to at least briefly slow spending growth; if you inflation adjust you might be able to suggest it even went momentarily negative.
Of course Democrats screamed bloody murder and insisted it was cruel, even though it was actually to use their favorite word now - the most "equitable" solution.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh for sure. Both parties dug this hole; and neither has yet shown willing to put down the shovel and stop digging, like I said the nearest thing was the sequestration, which amounted to stopping to wipe the brow for a moment; shovel still in hand.
Still my belief is the GOP is more amicable to doing the things that might possibly lead us out of this mess without completely upending the current structure of our society. Democrats keep trying to suggest we can invest our way out of the problem. We have posted
Re: (Score:2)
back in the early 80's taxes upon the wealthy were indeed much, much, much higher than today. Back then we also had a much lower deficit. Not only has Reagan cut taxes on the wealthy, but also has Bush. Clinton was the last president who seemed focused on cutting the deficit at all... as far as I recall.
Back in the early 90's I was making about $30K/year pre tax. Back then I paid about 20% in federal taxes. right now I make about $120k/year, pre-t
He said it (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing's more honest than a politician showing you he has no brain activity? Sounds legit.
Re: (Score:2)
Reading your comment honestly makes me sad. I understand American society is polarized right now -- you have to like your guy, and HATE the other. There's no room for common ground. But, re-read what you just wrote. You think Biden sounded intelligent? No, I don't think you really do.
It's sad when people believe it's a win for the other side if you simply
Re:He said it (Score:4, Interesting)
"Today, I approve 504 thousand billion dollars to support 22... or 12, I should say... ... ... tech nubs-hubs nationwide pause."
And SCOTUS just crowned him king! Temporary king, I suppose, though it would apparently be legal for him to issue an EO directing the disbursement of federal funds to bribe election officials all over the country to keep him in office regardless of what voters might think. Or perhaps he should just follow through on Justice Sotomayor's suggestion and have SEAL team 6 take out his opponent. As long as he (or his advisors) can spin it as an official act, it's legal. Now that all legal restraints have been removed, the possibilities are endless!
SCOTUS only handed the Crown to Trump (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
the way their ruling works there's plenty of wiggle room for corrupt justices and their $100k RVs (excuse me, "Luxury Motor Coach") to prosecute Biden while letting Trump string Nancy Pelosi up by her toenails.
There's nothing in the ruling that provides any different immunity for Trump than for Biden. Though that's not to say they couldn't find some if a Biden prosecution case were appealed to them. IMO, Biden should take full advantage of the freedom to crime and use it to keep Trump out of office, and perhaps incidentally force SCOTUS to reverse much of their immunity ruling.
Re: SCOTUS only handed the Crown to Trump (Score:2)
The only thing stopping Biden is that he doesn't want to be King. Florida Felon does.
Re: (Score:2)
Wow - just wow. He does not want to be King? Then why know as he himself claims to know, he aint what he used to be did even run four years ago, let alone for a second term? Even if he really bought his own 'I am the only one who can beat Donald Trump' bs he's had four years to find an appropriate successor.
Biden was/is already so senile he has no idea what the stakes really are or his vanity makes Trump look as humble as monk sworn to poverty..
Re: (Score:1)
If he were rational he should move to to a country like Portugal which has regular been governed by an outright soci
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I am fairly certain rsilvergun is a SVR operator, that is to incompetent to recognize Slashdot isn't an important forum with influence over the American tech sector it once might have been.
Re: (Score:2)
How much of that will go straight to corporations? (Score:3)
How much of that funding will go straight into corporate coffers rather than being used for what it's supposed to be used for? While I'm sure there's some neat cover stories, if it's anything like most government handouts, 99.99% will end up in giant corporations as part of the executive bonus structure, while the rest will trickle out to accidental bystanders. I have zero faith in our government to direct funding where they're saying it's going to go. Some would say that's a me problem. Some, the observant type, will notice it's simply taking a known track record and projecting it forward.
Re: (Score:2)
How much of that funding will go straight into corporate coffers rather than being used for what it's supposed to be used for?
I came here to address this very matter. How about the gov investing that half-a-billion in just two or three "hubs" in which they have a 51% ownership stake?
That will both encourage smaller companies which aren't yet in full-on rape-and-pillage mode, and scare off some of the big corps which are in it ONLY for the money. It could also be used to ensure development of tech that isn't of the bait-and-switch variety. You know, the kind that moves as fast as possible to full-on proprietary, locked-in, throw-aw
Re: (Score:3)
How much of that funding will go straight into corporate coffers rather than being used for what it's supposed to be used for?
I came here to address this very matter. How about the gov investing that half-a-billion in just two or three "hubs" in which they have a 51% ownership stake?
That will both encourage smaller companies which aren't yet in full-on rape-and-pillage mode, and scare off some of the big corps which are in it ONLY for the money. It could also be used to ensure development of tech that isn't of the bait-and-switch variety. You know, the kind that moves as fast as possible to full-on proprietary, locked-in, throw-away, and subscription-only models that are strangling the world just now.
Any fool can promote "innovation" by throwing somebody else's money at it, as the Biden administration is doing here. Only thoughtful, sensible, dedicated people will come up with ways to ensure that the money truly benefits the taxpayers who provide it. And no, I don't count big corporations among 'taxpayers' - their cost externalization results in a net negative balance when it comes to society's bookkeeping.
Good luck convincing any modern administration that the government / taxpayer get something for investing in private business. They've lived too long with the idea of all tax money belonging to corporations outright, and the government itself is simply the deciding agent on how to best throw taxpayer money into corporate accounts. I would love for the billions or trillions we throw at these behemoths year after year to result in some return, but that doesn't appear to be the way things are set up, and it do
Somebody tell Mr. Biden this is a horrible idea. (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
If I may slightly modify Cat's misstatement above, the US government has no business granting large sums of money to private business entities. While not unconstitutional, it does present the appearance of a cash grab, something more appropriate to a tax-and-spend MAGA socialist. This has boondoggle written all over it.
Unfortunately, ever since the whole bugaboo of trickle-down economics, our government has been slinging cash as hard as it can at corporations. Not that they didn't before then, but there's some mystical, magical thinking surrounding such handouts since Reagan that really, REALLY sends those numbers soaring. Because if anybody dares to say anything negative about it, they can be met with, "But that money will ultimately be used to pay the American People" and then you can get all shuddering lips and quaking
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately, ever since the whole bugaboo of trickle-down economics, our government has been slinging cash as hard as it can at corporations. Not that they didn't before then, but there's some mystical, magical thinking surrounding such handouts since Reagan that really, REALLY sends those numbers soaring. Because if anybody dares to say anything negative about it, they can be met with, "But that money will ultimately be used to pay the American People" and then you can get all shuddering lips and quaking breaths while declaring the sanctity of the glorious corporations and they generous spirits of cooperation in helping keep people taken care of, housed, clothed, fed.
The simple response to that argument is to point out that in such schemes the money "used to pay the American People" came from those same people in the first place. Then point out that friction in that transaction has worn an original taxpayer's dollar down to a significantly smaller sum. Next, give beyond-government-handout examples of corporate cost externalization - global warming, pollution, increased deaths, various forms of addiction, bringing in people from other companies to take American jobs, etc
Re: (Score:2)
If you can get other countries to not aid their own companies and industries, I'd tend to agree. China and computer/switch help, battery help, you name it help, Airbus vs Boeing, et cetera.
Meanwhile, why not spread the tech hubs around a bit. Why should we concentrate everything in fire, earthquake, volcano, tsunami, or hurricane prone areas of the country? Yes some of those risks (or alternative tornado) exist in other places. But tech is really centralized in just a few spots. With high speed internet an
Re: (Score:2)
This isn't a bad thing. In previous years, this was called "investment", and paid off greatly. This was done in Texas, and paid off in spades for the state.
This is a tiny portion of the budget, and has a chance of making new things. Yes, new things... like stuff other than analytics, sling ads, and telemetry. Stuff that will help the economy, maybe even be what causes the next big boom?
With this type of thinking of no investing, we would have never had the Internet.
Fundamentally I agree. My problem here is that corporations are taking more and more, and giving less and less back. The "new things" you talk about used to suffice as paying back both that investment and some ongoing dividends as well. But the degree of externalization being practised today - along with increasing corporate control of the government - tends to turn this kind of 'investment' into a hand-out given by the have-nots to the already-haves.
Also, your argument sounds a lot like the bleatings of 't
Re: (Score:2)
If I may slightly modify Cat's misstatement above, the US government has no business granting large sums of money to private business entities. While not unconstitutional, it does present the appearance of a cash grab, something more appropriate to a tax-and-spend MAGA socialist. This has boondoggle written all over it.
You don't say. https://www.forbes.com/sites/s... [forbes.com]
Re: (Score:2)
If I may slightly modify Cat's misstatement above, the US government has no business granting large sums of money to private business entities.
Says the individual posting a comment on the Internet.
Supporting links (Score:3)
The US Federal Government is funding Research & Development for various technologies across the country. It's an investment in the US' global economic and technological competitiveness. Such investments are best spent by our government than haphazardly by billionaires when/if they feel personally motivated.
— $41 million for the Elevate Quantum Tech Hub [eda.gov] in Colorado and New Mexico. They have a website. [elevatequantum.org]
— $41 million for the Headwaters Hub [eda.gov] in Montana. They have a website. [headwaterstechhub.com]
— $51 million for Heartland BioWorks [eda.gov] in Indiana
— $51 million for the iFAB Tech Hub [eda.gov] in Illinois
— $21 million for the Nevada Tech Hub [eda.gov]
— $40 million for the NY SMART I-Corridor Tech Hub [eda.gov] in New York
— $44 million for ReGen Valley Tech Hub [eda.gov] in New Hampshire
— $45 million for the SC Nexus for Advanced Resilient Energy [eda.gov] in South Carolina and Georgia.
— $19 million for the South Florida ClimateReady Tech Hub [eda.gov].
— $51 million for the Sustainable Polymers Tech Hub [eda.gov] in Ohio.
— $51 million for the Tulsa Hub for Equitable & Trustworthy Autonomy [eda.gov] in Oklahoma. They have a website. [tulsainnovationlabs.com]
— $51 million for the Wisconsin Biohealth Teach Hub. [eda.gov] They have a website. [bioforward.org]
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The Trump Administration's science policies are horrible anti-science and 'investment' must come with a bribe. And heaven forbid you live in a blue state.
USDA Research Agencies 'Decimated' By Forced Move [npr.org]
Trump famously chose not to support this critical piece of 'blue state' infrastructure [crainsnewyork.com] out of spite.
'windmills are killing the whales' [youtube.com]
'electric boats vs sharks' [youtube.com], (wouldn't the boat electrocute the shark first?!)
Trump's $1bn pitch to oil bosses 'the definition of corruption'. [theguardian.com]
Re: (Score:2)
The US government has no legal authority to fund research and development. They have no legal authority to invest or otherwise acquire ownership of any private or publicly traded company.
They are barred by the Ninth and Tenth Amendments from doing those things because it is anti-competitive, unfair, illegal and unconstitutional.
The US government taxes its citizens, then turns around and uses that revenue to compete with its citizens for loans, securities, education, land, medical care, raw materials, food,
Re: (Score:2)
The US government has no legal authority to fund research and development. They have no legal authority to invest or otherwise acquire ownership of any private or publicly traded company.
How do you feel about funding universities? In the links I provided I mostly saw regional university projects. What's wrong with government funding local economic development through universities, (as opposed to no funding of local economic development and no science research)?
Should we wait for Trump to "bring back coal" [nytimes.com] somehow while otherwise allowing such regions to wither away, while people can't afford to live in Los Angeles, San Francisco, etc.?
Re: (Score:2)
I bet the stock on these places goes up.
Boondongle (Score:2, Informative)
"boondongle", noun. An unnecessary or wasteful project or activity.
- $43.2 Billion to bring broadband Internet to rural homes. Number of people actually connected after two years: ZERO.
- $7.5 Billion to install EV superchargers nationwide. Number of charging stations actually built after two years: SEVEN.
The federal government can't even spend your money well.
Re: (Score:1)
Yes... more of this... (Score:4, Insightful)
In previous times, this was called "investment", and got us stuff like the Internet. General R&D can pay off with some advance that nobody has ever thought of. For example, who would have thought that a bare bones network to communicate between sites, should nukes go off, would become the foundation of our society today?
One thing I'd consider doing is not just tech hubs in existing places, but perhaps creating tech hubs where population is low and moving people there would take pressure off other places. This not just helps with distributing population into areas where there are ample resources, but also creates more geographic regions for things like data centers, and if done right, can have transportation designed from scratch to be useful, like rail being one of the main ways to ship cargo and people in and out, as well as multiple highways. If housing was purchased and price ceilings enacted to deter home flippers and company monopolists wanting to buy real estate just to drive prices up, people would flock to an area like that.
R&D is what we need. We don't need another iPhone every year. We need advances all across the board, and not just immediately profitable things. Stuff like battery tech comes to mind, but other stuff like room temperature superconductivity, wire arrangement to lower voltage loss, cooling of electrical components, or other basic advances can greatly improve quality of life. For example, if we can get something like a Peltier, but a lot more efficient and solid based that has no moving parts, this would revolutionize air conditioning. If we can get neighborhoods to have redundant cooling towers, we could lesson the need for tons of A/C units. Having roof tiles that can do some solar capability, but yet reflect most of the light back can reduce the urban heat island effect.
There are a ton of small advances, and a ton of things we use that can be improved which are "good enough". R&D can greatly improve things, and bring an overall quality of life improvement.
Of course, this can reek of "socialism"... but all our enemies have government-supplied R&D which are having massive payoffs. Even Saudi Arabia is becoming a place known for scientific advances because of this. Long term, R&D is what makes countries rich 20 years from now.
Re: (Score:3)
You're implying a false dilemma. We can have R&D without government interference.
This is nothing more than taking money from one group of people and giving it to another, the implication being the government knows best how money should be spent.
Well, they don't.
Re: (Score:2)
You still need the government to prop up necessary yet unprofitable industries to keep those people trained and ready for times of war. Amtrak, nuclear power, tanks, missiles/missile defense etc. Do we NEED 2000 missiles a year in peacetime? No but spinning up a factory takes months to years, and nuclear engineers take up to a decade or more (phd) to train, and they need to be paid well enough to not go into software development. We make like 20 tanks a year and have ~800+ tanks in storage, why keep buying
Re: (Score:2)
Amtrak?
WTF do we need Amtrak for? Freight rail sure but we hardly need Amtrak. We can transport troops in boxcar, if we need to move a ton of people from A -> B.
Amtrak is a is just a massive subsidy for wealthy commuters. It should be shuttered out of public interest if anything.
Re: (Score:2)
The interstate system (championed by then general eisenhower, after seeing how the germans could move their armies around their country on high quality roads) also lies in military need. Tell me the last time you paid a toll on the interstate highway system. Most airports are run at a loss as well. My sewer pipe doesn't pay for itself either, but if it clogs or breaks I will fix it because it is necessary.
Re: (Score:2)
Tell me the last time you paid a toll on the interstate highway system.
Last night when I bought gas.
Re: (Score:2)
Tell me the last time you paid a toll on the interstate highway system.
Last week when I took I-70 through eastern Kansas. I've also paid tolls on I-90 through New York and Massachusetts, I-40 though Oklahoma and either I-90 or I39 through Illinois.
Re: (Score:2)
I have nothing against trains; I have everything against Amtrak which is a massively subsidized boondoggle that primarily benefits a certain group of very well to do commuters.
The public purse has to dump billions a year into what is a mostly private corporation; that offers service that is ONLY actually useful along a narrow stretch of the eastern seaboard, at drastically discounted rates. Going anywhere its to slow and costly compared to any other method of transit available. Yet only manged to take in
Re: (Score:2)
The internet came out of the military and had nothing to do with Congress or the President.
Re: (Score:2)
No, we really don't need "more of this."
Since I've worked in tech, the would-be assassins of Silicon Valley that various people have claimed would bring it low and take its place has included: Seattle, Vancouver, Hell's Kitchen and the Garment District in New York, some neighborhood in Chicago, Miami, Atlanta, Los Angeles, Tustin (Orange County), San Diego, some neighborhood south of the Thames in London, Austin, Boston, some town in North Carolina, and Portland. You know what else, besides being the doom
Re: (Score:2)
Come on people, it's just a complete coincidence that these tech hubs are in four very important swing states.
You're either ignorant, lying, or you can't read TFA and count. [slashdot.org] Fourteen is not to be confused with four.
Colorado
New Mexico
Montana
Indiana
Illinois
Nevada
New York
New Hampshire
South Carolina
Georgia
Florida
Ohio
Oklahoma
Wisconsin
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
H1-B fraud? (Score:3)
Why bother, unless you are going to hire some Americans.
Personally, I don't have an issue with immigration, as a whole, but H1-B was NEVER meant to take American's jobs. It was meant for "highly skilled" jobs that we didn't have the people for. It had a minimum pay set at 60K set in 1989 that has never been raised. Every bi-partisan attempt has been buried in subcommittee never to be voted on.
It wasn't meant to be all Indian, in IT either. Years ago, it was more diverse, but now, it's almost all Indian workers and companies. Fraud is prevalent. (I think you can find the latest administrations findings in Slashdot).
It needs to be stopped, and completely overhauled. I would love to see what percentage of IT workers in each company has of their current IT staff are Indian. From my experience many companies would be 90%+ in the U.S. Notice I didn't say employees, because, I believe, H1-B has helped move IT to lead in professional gig work. When president and before, Trump had talked about doing something, but had a meeting with CEO's and basically dropped it, after a lot of talk to the contrary. I don't know if Bidden has done anything. Let me know what, if anything has been done under either. I know the minimum remains unchanged now for ~ 35 years
voters (Score:2)
Turns out there are voters all across the country that we can try to bribe.
Biden Administration (Score:1)