|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
 Posted: Sat Mar 04, 2006 12:43 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Quote: |
you had a little trouble comprehending what efl trainer wrote back there and still seem to be lagging joo....
money in defense doesn't GROW: it doesn't make more money. R&D into defense and weapon production has no lasting affect on society at large. |
How do you spell Gooboldeeguk?
that is not true . Fiber optics . the 747 was based on military aircraft.
Tell us where Boeing got the expertese to build a plane out of composites? From military.
Every heard of the Global positioning system?
| Quote: |
A Brief History of GPS
For centuries people have been developing techniques to figure out their position on Earth. We have come from using the stars, all the way to sending satellites into orbit. GPS has ��evolved�� from the forerunners with the United States Navy to the twenty four-satellite constellation that it is now. Following the launching of Sputnik in the 1960��s the Navy ran two programs that were predecessors to GPS. The first operational satellite based navigation system was called Transit. Developed by Richard Kirschner in 1964, it consisted of seven satellites and used radio signals.
The NAVSTAR GPS logo
The second satellite navigation system built in 1967 was called Timation. This system improved upon the Transit system by using an atomic clock. The drawbacks for the Transit system were its accuracy and its inefficiency. (GPS History) In 1973, the Navy and Air Force teamed up and formed the Navigation Technology Program, which became Navigation System and Ranging or NAVSTAR. (Meyers, et al. 2003) The first four satellites were launched in 1978. It currently contains twenty-four satellites that circle the Earth every twelve hours. Availability is increased and mobile vehicles do not have to wait for readings, as with previous systems.
Although GPS's use was at first strictly military, it has since moved to the private sector; although, for national security reasons, the public's system is not as accurate as the military system. The military system allows an accuracy of 10m while the public's system may only be accurate up to 100m. Within four to ten years the more precise system will be released to the public. The lag time is purposely built in to allow our military to prepare for potential enemies to receive the system. (Rosenberg 1997) |
http://www.emporia.edu/earthsci/student/aber1/
Where did radar come from ( and for that matter microwave ovens) Helicopters where they civilian or military first?
Doesn't the EU complain that Boeing benefits from military R&D in their civilian programs?
You said
| Quote: |
| R&D into defense and weapon production has no lasting affect on society at large |
| Quote: |
This isn't to say that the technology moves only in one direction. Integrated circuits emerged from aerospace programs in the 1960s; gallium arsenide semiconductor amplifiers that make possible the compact, cheap cell phone were pioneered by TRW for defense purposes a decade ago. The indium phosphide, gallium nitride and silicon carbide power chips that will land in consumer electronics a decade hence are being developed today in R&D programs funded by the military.
As a part-time partner in a small venture capital firm, I have visited dozens of innovative startups that have developed new semiconductors, lasers, sensors and power-control systems under Department of Defense auspices and are now ready to begin moving their products into civilian markets. These technologies invariably started out too difficult, esoteric and expensive to be of interest to anyone but the military. The military couldn't afford them, either, but for the fact that successful information and power technologies invariably make the transition into the civilian sector, where mass production leads down the cost curve. |
http://www.forbes.com/global/2003/0512/019.html
| Quote: |
What about the internet? Did the US military not help bring that along?
Late in 1978 or so, the operational military started to get
interested in Internet technology. In 1979 we deployed packet
radio systems at Fort Bragg, and they were used in field
exercises. The satellite systems were further extended to
include ground stations in Italy and Germany. Internet work
continued in building more implementations of TCP/IP for systems
that weren't covered. While still at DARPA, I formed an Internet
Configuration Control Board chaired by David Clark from MIT to
assist DARPA in the planning and execution of the evolution of
the TCP/IP protocol suite. This group included many of the
leading researchers who contributed to the TCP/IP development
and was later transformed by my successor at DARPA, Barry
Leiner, into the Internet Activities Board (and is now the
Internet Architecture Board of the Internet Society). In 1980,
it was decided that TCP/IP would be the preferred military
protocols. |
http://www.internetvalley.com/archives/mirrors/cerf-how-inet.txt
anyway thanks for telling us all that military R&D has no lasting effect on society. 
Of course lets just not even count the benefit of security to the economy.
| Quote: |
| finally. it's time to throw those food produce, life sustaining freeloading howzamadoos out on their ear |
.
No but if the US is threatened than that will damage the economy and that will lead to lower tax revenues and in turn less money for social programs. Sad reality.
| Quote: |
As a sidenote: If whatever it is (400billion or so$) is spent on defense/war on terror, is that portion attributed to GDP? And if so, doesn't it seem kinda disingenuous to claim that the GDP is SO great when 300bill is a relatively significant portion of the budget? |
US has a 13 trillion dollar GDP w/o military spending that is a 12. 5 trillion economy.
On this you are playing a losing hand.
| Quote: |
| Like last year, the US took second place, thanks to its general technological superiority combined with an equally strong culture of innovation [congradulations...that's great!]. However, its technological strength is set against the backdrop of poorer performance in other areas. For instance, the US only achieved 20th place in terms of the contractual and legal indicator. Companies expressed particular concern about excessive government intervention in the private sector and about the political agenda in general. |
Ok the US isn't perfect . Still not doing so bad.
| Quote: |
and it appears your unemployment IS lower. But our labour force participation rate is SLIGHTLY higher than yours (66% to 67.1). And since bush has taken office, there has been a steady decline of about 1%.
It seems, in terms of statistical analysis, having a job is a better indicator than NOT having a job (or activity, better than inacitivity) |
Fair enough lets just call it even on the issue of employment . And the US suffered a stock market meltdown and a terror war as well. so there is reason to believe things will get better.
Last edited by Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee on Sat Mar 04, 2006 2:35 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Mills
Joined: 07 Jan 2006
Location: Incheon
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 04, 2006 11:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
| sundubuman wrote: |
what a load o' crap-
America is booming.
|
That's the sound of an IED ringing in your head... What? There's a war on? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
