Pangloss

I don't think 'requirement' is the correct word, but it's perfectly reasonable to opine that that's been the effect. I happen to not agree but perhaps that's a subject better suited for the politics board. But the point about technology is interesting, but they don't operate in a vacuum -- they get the best advice of any judges in the world, because it's the top of the pyramid in that department. Clerking for a Supreme Court judge is the top honor for a graduate of the Kennedy School of Government, Harvard Law, and everywhere else of note. Those aren't technogeeks either, but they're young and intelligent, and I expect that if we were to dig into this that they would turn out to be very well advised in this area.

Note also that company managers have a lot of restrictions on when they can sell their stock, and when they do it's a public transaction, so their profit-taking can depress the price. I think stock options are a good idea for companies receiving bailout money. It gives the managers an incentive to get the company back on the right track, which is also what the taxpayer wants. It's a win-win.

I don't wish to beat a dead horse, but now that the stimulus has passed there is already a lot of talk about how budgets for various bureaucratic agencies have been expanded by the stimulus bill. Not "one-time spending". "Budgets." Here's an example from today's New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/14/health/policy/14specter.html?ref=science On a more positive note, at least Arlen Specter hasn't suddenly joined his colleagues in becoming the Little Republicans Who Cried Wolf About Government Spending: (sigh) This will add a whole new opportunity for political spin. This fall we'll have politicians talking about how they're cutting budget spending for half of the programs in the federal government, when what they really mean is that they are only increasing their budgets by less than what they attained as a result of the "one time" stimulus package. And those programs that they want to receive increases will be lamented as under attack from opponents who want to cut a useful and productive program, when in fact those trying to 'cut' those programs may actually be trying to increase them! Ain't politics fun?

Interesting point.

Interesting article in Ars Technica about the arguments taking place between the Electronic Frontier Foundation and Apple Computer as part of the ongoing appeal and request-for-exception process that exists with the government as part of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2009/02/apple-sides-with-mpaa-riaa-against-drm-circumvention.ars Some interesting bits: The article goes on to talk about both sides of the argument. This point from von Lohmann was particularly interesting: Interesting stuff. I didn't realize Apple was attempting to have it held that jailbreaking an iPhone is illegal.

Anendberg FactCheck has some interesting points about the stimulus bill: http://www.factcheck.org/politics/stimulus_bill_bravado.html The article goes on to talk about how many of these projects could indeed create jobs, but there's been a lot of regrettable inaccuracy and misleading of the American people in many of these statements.

The purpose of journals is to pad one's curriculum vitae, expand the professional development section of one's annual review, and make the school look good to alumni and philanthropists. Edit: Almost forgot one: Giving postgrads something to reference!

Sounds good to me. You don't really need the money? Awesome, hand it back.

A compromise was reached on the stimulus package about an hour ago (around 6pm Eastern). I've looked at a couple of articles but I haven't heard yet whether it includes NSF and/or NASA funding. The articles floating around on that subject at the moment are based on the Senate's version of the bill (passed late Tuesday), which is different from what they just agreed on. I believe it'll have to be voted on in both houses (presumably a formality) and then go to the President.

Not sure if this has been mentioned here before, but it's perhaps worth noting that the M-1 Abrams main battle tank is powered by a jet engine. The Wikipedia has some info on it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honeywell_AGT1500 (Not that this is directly related, but the US Navy's cruiser and destroyer fleet (basically anything too small to warrant a nuclear power plant) is also powered by jet engines.)

I agree with this thread entirely. And I for one welcome our new Democratic overlords, the great defenders of fiscal responsibility who will save us from our spendy selves. Oh wait, you say they need to throw another trillion at the economy? Okay! Pfft, fiscal responsibility. So overrated!

You're putting the cart before the horse. The correct question is on what analysis does Congress find NSF/NASA funding to give optimal economic returns. The answer to that question is none, because the funding was not included for the purpose of optimal economic returns. Then you would approve if Republicans were in charge and included Terri Schiavo's life support, and criticize anybody opposed because they have no analysis indicating that it doesn't help the economy. Got it. You can meander your way through all the grey areas of relative measurement you want, but the fact remains that these NSF and NASA inclusions were included to purchase political support, not to help the economy. I agree with the value of science spending, but my point is that it's irrelevant to the purpose of this emergency, unplanned and extreme spending. I say again to you that if Republicans were making these decisions we'd be including another Terri Schiavo, and you would have a problem with that even if the economic benefit were somehow comparable. That makes your support for this NSF funding ideological, not economic. If we start to think the way you suggest, that this is all about funding the right programs and paying for good things, when in fact this spending has no basis in collected or even projected revenue, it will mean the complete and utter end of what tiny vestage of fiscally responsible governance remains in this country. It's amazing to me that people have forgotten the purpose of this bill just because their favorite program suddenly gets an increase. What's going to happen next year when these programs have gone and spent all this money and suddenly have to deal with a massive spending shortfall? Pay them again? And again? And again? Neither is NASA nor the NSF. They're about benefitting mankind through science. Please stick to what I actually write, instead of making up my opinion for me. Thanks.

What I said (in post #6) is that in that case the Court ruled that a school can discipline a student for something that happened off school grounds. They decided in that case that what happened there was sufficiently related to school activities that the school had authority to act. I stated later that this precedent could be extended to Web activities. Whether or not it will be extended in that manner is a matter of opinion, not fact. Certainly the point that this kid's web page wasn't paid for by the school is relevant, but it's not the only relevant factor in the case. It's not very intelligent to factually state what the Supreme Court must do before it actually does it.

The part that specifies NSF (or NASA in my example) and rationalizes that spending on the basis of whether or not it's a good idea to fund science, instead of whether or not it helps to bail out the economy. I'm using the word for the sake of convenience, here, just to point out that it's not a decision based on economics, but rather on science. Of course, bailing out the economy is also an ideological decision, so perhaps a better way to phrase it would be "other ideological spending". But the point remains that this if this spending is not the most efficient way to boost economy then its inclusion in this bill represents a lie. Boy you just soaked that right up as if it actually made sense, didn't you? Did you stop to realize that he's talking about two completely different things there? He's not talking about NASA layoffs -- NASA's budget hasn't been cut -- this would be NEW spending on NASA. He's actually drawing some kind of vague reference to corporate layoffs which may or may not happen, for reasons that have nothing to do with this spending bill even if we were to throw in billions more for NASA. Simply put, NASA has a budget. It has a plan to use existing infrastructure and personnel to build a new launch system after the shuttle retires next year. It doesn't need thousands of new workers -- they would have nothing to do. So for him to suggest that we throw a ton of additional money at NASA makes no sense whatsoever. What would a former Boeing factory worker do after moving his family to Florida? Clean the launch pad? So yes, this is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. Bill Nelson represents the "space coast" -- of COURSE he wants more money thrown at NASA. Sure! Why, surely they'll find something to do with it! And if the economy benefits, great, if not, whatever -- at least I get re-elected! Oh, you wanted efficiency? Well, why didn't you say so? Oh, you did? Oh well, too bad for you! Answer my question about whether you'd like it if Republicans used stimulus money to keep a Terri Schiavo alive. It answers all of your questions perfectly.

A better question might be how we can measure and rate the most efficient ways to boost the economy. But we can rely on this information from objective sources instead of ideologically-minded politicians (i.e. all of them). When we do that we establish that we are at least making the effort to objectively attack the economic problem and not some other goal. Let me share with you a portion of an email letter I just received from my Senator, Bill Nelson of Florida (a Democrat). He starts out talking about the government "has to do something to get out of the economic tailspin". Then he goes right into a justification for spending based on an argument that has nothing to do with the economy. Clearly he's justifying the inclusion of an ideological preference in spending for reasons that have nothing to do with economics. He actually comes right out and says it! Am I really the only one who sees the pitfall here? Terri Schiavo! Terri Schiavo! Terri Schiavo! Terri Schiavo! Terri Schiavo! Hello!

I reject the characterization that anything removed from the bill is "pork". And my post above directly responds to swansont's question on point. The NSF funding is an example of what needs to be removed, for the reasons I described above.

Preserving Terri Schiavo's life would have arguably "benefited the economy" too, by furthering the employment of doctors and nurses and selling more medical supplies and food. Does anyone here feel that that would have been a good thing to include in a stimulus bill? Might we not be debating that very question, had this economy only faltered a couple of years earlier, while Republicans were still in charge? So isn't it pretty hypocritical to debate the inclusion of ideological preferences in a stimulus package? You have to take ideological inclusions out of this -- they simply have no part in this kind of bill. The correct reason for removing the NSF funding from the stimulus package is that it's not what the package is for. All taxpayer-derived spending in a democracy should be debated on its own merits, not ensconced behind the scenes in a bill designed to solve a different problem. Remember: That's also why we hate earmarks.

I for one welcome our Asgardian overlords.

Now if we can just get Barney Frank to stop threatening salary caps on all US businesses top to bottom, he may actually start to sound like a pro-business Democrat. Almost.

(Edit: I re-wrote this post completely, in simpler form.) Please forgive this if it's way off -- I'm hoping our resident experts can straighten this out more fully. The OP also seems to be asking whether we can send someone back in time by simply having them move really, really slowly with regard to an observer. The answer to that question would seem to be "no", because (a) these are observed effects, not causal relationships, and (b) in order to observe a "backward" direction you'd have to have a differential greater than the speed of light, which is impossible. Also, I may be wildly off base here, but this would seem to be related to the old question of what happens when a fast-moving observer turns on a flashlight pointed forward -- does the beam of light travel faster than normal lightspeed? The answer being no, because light always travels at light speed. This seems related to the above question in the sense that it underscores the point about the range of motion really is limited to the set of zero to 186,000 miles per second, no more, no less.

Or it may be the other way around. Economics doesn't have to be a zero-sum game with some people winning and others losing. Everyone can win. That's not "discipline", it's a greater awareness of potential. We're talking about variables here, not certainties -- there's nothing certain about market economics, or any other form of economics. So why assume that the variables are all on your side? Isn't that... faith?

I agree. And I don't see any sign of that anywhere in any of the stimulus proposals. Yes there is a lot of that going around, but that doesn't mean there isn't any legitimate analysis and criticism taking place. You just need to look more closely, IMO. This is one of the reasons I follow politics in the first place, so I can better separate the signal from the noise.

Interesting points. I can see where you're going with that, but I generally disagree with the idea of having the Supreme Court take a position, even on a subtle point of law, before passing new legislation.

I do think it's a stupid thing for them to be obsessing over, btw. Who cares if you're being criticized by your students? Maybe you should analyze what they're saying and see if it's legitimate criticism, and if it is, take it to heart. If it isn't, ponder some ways to better motivate and less alienate your students. Sometimes kids don't understand how to criticize while being constructive. As educators and adults, it's our responsibility to do better. That having been said, Oprah and her over-obsessed mom need to take a valium and STFU.