backtop


Print 56 comment(s) - last by Regs.. on Oct 9 at 9:41 AM

The ISRO plans to take the first step towards a possible manned mission to the moon

Indian space officials announced the country will launch its first unmanned mission to the moon on October 22 from southern India.  The India Space Research Organization (ISRO) will use an Indian-built rocket to help carry the Chandrayaan-1 into orbit and towards the moon.

If weather conditions are poor, ISRO is prepared to delay the launch until October 26 or further.

India first hoped to launch Chandrayaan-1 in April, but mechanical problems with the $83 million mission forced the country to push back possible launch dates.  The mission was first publicly announced in 2003, and was described by many as "overambitious" and a "waste of resources."

After making the 240,000-mile journey in eight days, the spacecraft is expected to document the moon's surface and chemical characteristics while creating a three-dimensional topographic map.  Chandrayaan-1 will orbit around 60 miles above the moon's surface.

In addition to using high-resolution remote sensing tools to create the map, it will send a small impact probe into the moon's surface to test surface properties.

The ISRO and China are in an unofficial Asian version of the Cold War space race, with the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) also involved, space observers have said in the past.

Last year, Japan launched the Kaguya lunar orbiter on September 14, then China launched the Chang'e I lunar satellite on October 24.

Along with the United States, Russia, China and Japan, the ISRO also wants to launch a manned mission to the moon, but has a lot of work to be done before being able to do so.  ISRO plans to launch another moon mission in 2012, and will discuss manned mission details before the end of 2008.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Are you kidding me?
By knitecrow on 10/8/2008 9:33:19 AM , Rating: 3
Being of Indian decent and having been to the country, this is a colossal waste of resources. The gap between rich and poor is shocking. It is estimated 8 million people live on the streets or in slums.

Think about it. That is more people than the population of Toronto, Canada.

Truly shocking.




RE: Are you kidding me?
By achintya on 10/8/2008 10:01:31 AM , Rating: 3
Being an Indian and living in India, I would say that a figure of 8 million for slum dwellers is too conservative. Apart from slum dwellers, most of rural India is also dirt poor.

And the problem here is that the political leaders don't WANT to actually try and reduce the gap. Once the poor class is educated and have essential goods, they will not vote for these dirty politicians.
Therefore these resources are better off put to use than in the pockets of corrupt politicians anyways. Whenever a relief package is announced/sent for anything, most of the money is siphoned off and hardly anything actually reaches the needy.


RE: Are you kidding me?
By danrien on 10/8/2008 10:25:38 AM , Rating: 2
yeah but when you have 1 billion people 8 million seems like a kinda small number (less than a percent).


RE: Are you kidding me?
By achintya on 10/8/2008 11:56:32 AM , Rating: 3
The 8 million figure counts for just a small percentage of the urbanized slums, the ones located in major cities. If you were to look at the overall percentage of Indian population who are dirt poor, it would be closer to 30-40%. A majority of the rural Indians are poor. At least according to the urban definition of poor. In their own villages they may be able to do decently well. A comparison of this would be the cost of a small meal:
A poor man's meal in a big city - Rs 30 (~ $0.6)
in a small city - Rs 15-20 (~ $0.3 - $0.4)
in a small village - < Rs 10 (~ $0.2)

It is the political will of these poor people which is harnessed by the politicians. If you look at election figures here, it is mostly the poorer and the uneducated people who vote, not the educated people. The educated class knows that all these politicians are a bunch of thieving a**holes.


RE: Are you kidding me?
By the goat on 10/8/2008 10:30:38 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
And the problem here is that the political leaders don't WANT to actually try and reduce the gap. Once the poor class is educated and have essential goods, they will not vote for these dirty politicians.


For a second I thought you were writing about the Democrat agenda here in the USA. Entitlement programs only serve to keep the poor dependent on government handouts. Self driven education (not money dumped into education) is the only hope the poor have of helping themselves.

Go ahead rate me down, I shall become more powerful then you could possibility imagine. -the goat


RE: Are you kidding me?
By StevoLincolnite on 10/8/2008 10:46:20 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Entitlement programs only serve to keep the poor dependent on government handouts.


That's not always true, Countries like Australia have the "Dole System" - where you are forced to look for work, have "Training" programs to get you qualifications and education to start a job, in return you are given enough money to scrape by, And if you cannot find a job in an allotted time you then begin "Work for the Dole" - where you go around doing gardening, painting, building fences, maintaining government complexes etc for the same Pay-rate as the Dole + 20 dollars on top, not only do these people still have to work for there money but they get work experience while they are at it.

You would be surprised how many kids these days who are in there mid-teen years who get kicked out of home or suffer some other form of abuse where they would rather live under a bush than at home, programs like those stated above can seriously turn someone's life around.


RE: Are you kidding me?
By Tsuwamono on 10/8/2008 11:14:49 AM , Rating: 1
Agreed, great system in Australia. I commented also on the Canadian version which isnt quite as tough but i wish it was. None of the people who actually need welfare would object to the system


RE: Are you kidding me?
By niva on 10/8/08, Rating: -1
RE: Are you kidding me?
By FITCamaro on 10/8/2008 1:27:32 PM , Rating: 5
Are you freakin kidding? The Social Security system has been screwed since the 70s.


RE: Are you kidding me?
By Samus on 10/8/2008 6:50:39 PM , Rating: 1
Social Security was a bad idea from the start. It assumes too much, and "assumption is the mother of all fuckups"


RE: Are you kidding me?
By Screwballl on 10/8/2008 2:55:20 PM , Rating: 2
This is something that the Republicans have been working on (work for welfare) and McCain will still have a chance to put to vote even if he loses. It is not likely to pass due to the Democrat majority but at least it will help get some changes made via influence.

Honestly I am living the work for welfare process. I make $11/hr full time, the wife is a stay at home mom and we use the WIC and EBT for a supplement. Without it, us and our 2 daughters would go hungry and likely lose our house.

We also need a way to allow for a reduction of insurance premiums (for house, car, life, health) for those that are a part of the work for welfare assistance. This should be a requirement forced upon the insurance companies. Who cares if it increases insurance on the higher income brackets, they aren't paying their fair share anyways. According to my calculation, we pay around 38% of our income to taxes (yearly taxes for the house, bi-weekly paycheck, yearly car license plates, etc).. yet the latest calculations show that those making $90K/yr or more pay less than 20%.

I see this is the best way to help the economy, by weaning people off the teet of Mother Government and make them work for their benefits. We need a strict Australian type of program here in the US that benefits ONLY the legal and natural born citizens. these mothers that have 5 kids to live off the system will have to work for the benefits. That is another job area created: day cares to watch the kids of the single moms that have lived off the government for so long.


RE: Are you kidding me?
By FITCamaro on 10/8/2008 3:30:00 PM , Rating: 4
How about instead you just not own a home instead?

I mean seriously. $11/hr? I made more than that in college working for Sprint part time as a cell phone rep. And you think you should be able to own a home with your wife not working at that pay grade? I'm sorry but you deserve no government assistance. You chose to have kids. If you can't survive with kids without government assistance, you shouldn't have kids. If you can't own a home without government assistance, you shouldn't own a home.

I make $60,000 a year and pay 32% of my income just in federal and state income taxes. That doesn't include all the other stuff. My mom makes $120,000 a year and pays 25% of her check in federal taxes (job is in Texas so no state taxes and married filing jointly. single people are raped.) + all the other stuff. The vast majority of people in the $100-250,000 range have a regular job where they pay the regular taxes. I'd really love to know where you see that people making $90,000 a year are paying 20% with all those things you mentioned included. That would imply that they're paying -18% income tax (for the same area as you) since your income tax rate is 15% and you say you pay 38% with all those things combined. A single person making $90,000 a year pays 28% just in federal + any state tax + Social Security + Medicare + Withholding.

All so your wife gets to stay home and not work and you get to keep a house you can't afford. And we don't live off the system at all. You pay practically nothing and benefit from government assistance. We pay into government assistance and will never use it. I want a home but can't afford it due to paying back college loans and other stuff. Can I get $400-500 a month from the government to help pay for my home? No.

Yeah we're not paying our fair share. Who's going to pay for that daycare for moms to work while on welfare (granted I'm for them working)? We are. Why should we have to pay even higher insurance premiums than we already do just so you can have it easier?

What I find really odd is that then you say that people need to be weaned off the teat of the government when you are sucking on that teat and will always be as long as they let you. Just because you work to get said teat doesn't mean you aren't sucking on it. Perhaps your wife needs to get out there and work.


RE: Are you kidding me?
By FITCamaro on 10/8/2008 3:33:02 PM , Rating: 2
Let me also add that me making more than you does not mean I think I am better than you. I just don't like it when I see someone say that others who make more money than them are not paying their fair share when it is those people who actually pay the majority of the taxes which enable other said people to get the government assistance checks they get.


RE: Are you kidding me?
By Spuke on 10/8/2008 4:50:20 PM , Rating: 2
I think it's funny how some believe that the poor are the one's to pay all of the taxes and the rich well off don't pay jack. My wife and I make $130k combined and are the only people we know that still get refunds from federal taxes. And that's only because we've both been in school and we have NO deductions. We've been paying state taxes for a few years now. Everyone we know in our income bracket pays both fed and state. How many refunds has Screwball received from the fed and state?

I was raised poor myself and have to admit that I had that silly belief also until I read the US Census reports for myself and saw that was NOT the case at all.


RE: Are you kidding me?
By StevoLincolnite on 10/8/2008 5:26:02 PM , Rating: 2
Honestly though, it's nice to make 100 grand a year, which I don't but know of some people that do, and financially they are worst off than I am when I earn 40 grand a year, I always have money on hand, and they live from a week to week basis, sometimes earning "Allot" isn't the only important factor, it's how well you budget and handle your money that can help significantly also.


RE: Are you kidding me?
By Tsuwamono on 10/8/2008 11:11:38 AM , Rating: 5
Thats incredibly wrong. My uncle has worked his whole life and just recently went from 300 000$ a year to nothing because his plant closed down and because of the economy nobody in his industry is hiring plant managers. So now he is on welfare trying to stay afloat while digging into his savings.

My father was on welfare when i was born so he could go to school and now hes 120 000$ a year.

My mother was on welfare while she went to school and raised me. Once she was done she got a good job, not high paying but she was a hard worker and hated hand outs.

All 3 cases ended up being very successful.

What you guys need in the USA is better restrictions on who gets it and how they manage the people who have it. Sorry to say it but USA is terrible at socialist programs, you just dont understand how to manage them. Not saying in Canada we are much better, there will always be leaches on the system but throwing someone under the train because of a stroke of bad luck is not an option in my book.

Just my 2 cents.


RE: Are you kidding me?
By SoCalBoomer on 10/8/2008 11:43:42 AM , Rating: 1
Don't be sorry to say it - we don't LIKE socialist programs, we don't WANT socialist programs.

I've never been on welfare, and for most of my life worked for minimum wage (or less, in many cases) and for most of my life lived below the poverty line. I put myself through college, twice. I've lived in Canada and seen what the socialist health program does (if you are unlucky enough to live in a rural area instead of in a nice big city where money is concentrated, how anti-socialist) and was unimpressed.

No - you keep your socialist programs. Personally, I'm not interested.


RE: Are you kidding me?
By Spuke on 10/8/2008 4:54:57 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
My father was on welfare when i was born so he could go to school and now hes 120 000$ a year.
I actually agree with the concept of welfare but we implement it all wrong here. It shouldn't be something that EVERYONE gets and it's not difficult to figure out who gets it. It's also not difficult to figure out when one needs to be off of it either.

Our problem is we have politicians that think EVERYONE that's poor, regardless of the reasons, should get it and get it forever. And the people that work for a living should be paying for it because it's somehow or duty to do it.

One day, we'll get tired of the BS.


RE: Are you kidding me?
By Regs on 10/9/2008 9:40:15 AM , Rating: 2
Tell me about it. The media decides who gets them more so than the actual agency.


RE: Are you kidding me?
By elessar1 on 10/8/2008 11:17:39 AM , Rating: 1
there, i rate you down...

are you glowing now???, or did you develop wings??? ;)

now...i agree with you: people need to educate themselfs...having government help for everything only make them dependant.

I say this as the son of a poor family that work their as$%·%"· out to give me and my sisters an education.

cheers


RE: Are you kidding me?
By winterspan on 10/8/2008 7:30:21 PM , Rating: 2
oh dear, another confused soul.. Why does it seem like dailytech has become a cesspool of self-centered anti-government conservatism? I may have to take this site off my RSS reader, my blood pressure is already high enough...

An a related note, why does the comment section on every technology post devolve into frivolous political debate?


RE: Are you kidding me?
By Regs on 10/9/2008 8:37:43 AM , Rating: 2
Well maybe if you "poor" people stop taking out loans you can't afford and inflating house prices, us "working class" people wouldn't have to spend 300k on a townhouse (NJ).


RE: Are you kidding me?
By FITCamaro on 10/8/08, Rating: -1
RE: Are you kidding me?
By omnicronx on 10/8/2008 10:45:16 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
To say only 8 million people are poor and live on the streets is just the start. That might be just for Dubai.
Since when was Dubai in India? (although most of the population is India)


RE: Are you kidding me?
By FITCamaro on 10/8/2008 1:34:14 PM , Rating: 2
I'm sorry. I meant New Delhi. Yes a stupid statement.


RE: Are you kidding me?
By subhajit on 10/8/2008 10:37:04 AM , Rating: 3
Again with the communist logic. These kind of investments are huge opportunity for technical breakthroughs. A country like India needs these kind of investment to uplift the moral and enthusiasm of the young people.
    A huge no. of young Indian scientists from various fields leave the country for better opportunities elsewhere. These kind of investments keep those talents in the country.
    How are you going to close the gap between rich and poor? By taking from rich and giving it away to the poor? This is not possible in any democratic country. Huge private and public investments are the only way.
    You don't stay in India and that's why you probably don't know the kind of revolution the space program has brought in. From the field of communication, mining, disaster forecast to fishing - the impact can be seen very easily.
    The biggest problem for India is not the lack of resources, it is the lack of efficient utilization of resources (due to corruption and red tapeism). ISRO is one of the few institutes in India whose progress - despite all the hurdles - never fails to surprise me.


RE: Are you kidding me?
By jithvk on 10/8/2008 10:44:47 AM , Rating: 2
if you are thinking about eradicating all the poverty and then developing technology, it will never happen. Both has to be done in parallel. 20 years ago, almost 50% of the population of India was living in slums or unbelievable conditions. Now they are reduced to nearly 10% of the population. (yea i know. the population has grown up. but what i mean is the population of people living under poverty line has come down significantly)

I think its a great thing that India is trying to do this now. Makes me so happy. Earlier India didn't had the technology or the money. After India developed the technology, it still lacked the the money. Now we have both.. So we will do this this time.


RE: Are you kidding me?
By slayerized on 10/8/2008 11:37:25 AM , Rating: 2
The high-profile of space programs make it seem more expensive that it already is. What this article doesn't mention, but previous DT articles mention, is the fact that ISRO makes up some of the money they put into this mission by carrying payloads for France, Russia and a couple of other countries. The real magnitude of social needs in a heavily populated country like India far outweigh the money spent in space exploratory research.

Unfortunately, it is not evident at the offset what the benefits of the space program are, no matter how significant they are. If India or if any developing country needs to be on the right track towards progress, in my opinion they should tackle progress at all fronts, be it poverty, science and technology, space exploration, etc.


RE: Are you kidding me?
By JediJeb on 10/8/2008 3:10:51 PM , Rating: 2
If you really look back just how many in the US were at the poverty level when we first started a space program? Where I grew up you still drove 20 miles on gravel roads to get to town, it we were only 50 miles from a major city( this was around 1970). In the 1960's anyone outside major cities in the US lived in what would be called substandard housing today.


Very exciting
By InvertMe on 10/8/2008 9:00:13 AM , Rating: 2
With all these countries investing into space exploration maybe some huge leaps will be made in most of our lifetimes. I would like to see resources being pulled from other planets and some sort of space colonization before I kick off.




RE: Very exciting
By Bateluer on 10/8/2008 9:03:51 AM , Rating: 2
Seconded. I would love to see permanent human settlements on other planets. And I'd settle for our local solar system.


RE: Very exciting
By sabrewulf on 10/8/2008 9:06:09 AM , Rating: 2
Would you settle for a 7-11?


RE: Very exciting
By FITCamaro on 10/8/08, Rating: 0
RE: Very exciting
By FITCamaro on 10/8/2008 10:29:48 AM , Rating: 1
What no love for the Simpsons?


RE: Very exciting
By Tsuwamono on 10/8/2008 11:17:44 AM , Rating: 3
Why was this rated down? Simpsons FTW


RE: Very exciting
By mmntech on 10/8/2008 9:35:22 AM , Rating: 2
In related news, Dell has announced they're moving their tech support offices to the Moon.

This is good news for space enthusiasts. How long has it been since we've landed on the Moon? A good 35 years at least. Most of us on here were probably too young to remember or not even born yet in July 1969. Hopefully these missions will finally pave the way to another proper moon landing.


RE: Very exciting
By othercents on 10/8/2008 10:47:33 AM , Rating: 2
Yes it is very exciting, but wouldn't it be better to just pool our resources together and do joint missions instead of everyone designing and developing their own equipment to do the same job? Doing it this way we could run multiple launches of one craft for way less than designing and building multiple different launch vehicles.

Other


RE: Very exciting
By InvertMe on 10/8/2008 11:27:18 AM , Rating: 3
I completely agree - a multi-national space research organization would probably be the best use of monetary and human resources. However at this point in time space race is all ego driven (it seems) and that does not let itself to playing will with others.

Just imagine the results that could be obtained if the top 5 nations merged all their funds, technology and mind power into one organization.

I bet we would have permanent colonies on several planets within 50 years and travel within our solar system would become common place within 100 years.


RE: Very exciting
By JediJeb on 10/8/2008 3:17:16 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe the technology will advance faster if they are not working together, but instead competing against each other. Think about it, what spured our fastest developments in technology? Our competing against Russia in the race to the moon. Without the competition driving our space program now, we have become laid back and take our time doing everything, and time is money, so everything costs much more now also. Put a seven year limit on getting back to the moon, as it was the first time when President Kennedy got things started, and see if our program can get kicked into high gear again. If people can once again become driven to accomplish something instead of just looking at the money, I think much more can be done.


RE: Very exciting
By mindless1 on 10/8/2008 5:51:15 PM , Rating: 2
Think about it, competing against Russia in the race to the moon might've took longer than working WITH them to get to the moon.

You wrote "time is money" but rushing means mistakes which cost money, working on redundant tech (compared to other countries) costs money, and all these countries pooling their space program budget saves money.

Competition may be necessary and useful in the corporate world but not so much when it comes to government agencies doing something for the benefit of mankind.

Putting a rush on things like a 7 year limit, means we spend more money to achieve the goal within this timeframe, then the next 7 years comes along when they're still working on projects which cost money, and again with increased spending if it's another accelerated program. If and when there is a time critical goal that could be important but in the grand scheme of things how many times or what year the first trip to the moon was is not all that important.

In fact, simply waiting for further technological development outside of the space program might allow the program to reach it's goals more inexpensively. Why? Because it's the same as with cooperation of other nations, you have a larger pool of people working collaboratively.

Main reason why countries don't do this? Probably the fear that crucial technology applicable to warfare might be withheld giving the most sharing country the most disadvantage.


RE: Very exciting
By boredg on 10/8/2008 4:32:04 PM , Rating: 2
Its the next logical step for a civilization. To reach out to the stars. We may still be far away from being able to cross the vast distances of space, but we are starting with baby steps. I recall a couple of weeks ago there was an article on DT about a scientists microwave powered space drive :
http://www.dailytech.com/Rejected+By+World+Rogue+I...

And also the plasma engine from a few months ago:
http://www.dailytech.com/Commercially+Developed+Pl...
Furthermore, a year ago Dr. Young Bae's laser engine:
http://www.dailytech.com/Scientists+Laser+Engine+M...
I could go on, but my point is that we may not see much in our lifetimes, but our children; oh the wonders they will see!
my 2c, and dream for the future.


Oh no!
By sabrewulf on 10/8/2008 9:01:29 AM , Rating: 2
Now the Indians are in on the hoax too! :(




RE: Oh no!
By chick0n on 10/8/2008 9:23:03 AM , Rating: 1
what makes u say that ?


RE: Oh no!
By FITCamaro on 10/8/2008 10:30:14 AM , Rating: 2
It was a joke.


RE: Oh no!
By AntiM on 10/8/2008 9:38:31 AM , Rating: 3
I would think that orbiting only 60 miles above the surface, they should be able to photograph the current left over debris from the previous Apollo missions and finally lay the hoax theory to rest. Whether their optical equipment is sensitive enough to pick up such detail, I don't know. I'm sure it's possible.

http://www.unexplainable.net/artman/publish/articl...

"...Apollos 11, 12 and 14 through 17 each landed successfully in a different region of the Moon, and evidence of our visit remains at each landing site. There are portions of six spindly Lunar Modules, three electric Lunar Roving Vehicles and an array of scientific instruments...."


RE: Oh no!
By omnicronx on 10/8/2008 10:16:59 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
http://www.space.com/php/multimedia/imagedisplay/i...
You mean this is not enough proof?

Just so people know, if hubble were to take a picture of a landing spot on the moon, one pixel would be the size of around a football field. This is the reason we have yet to get any pictures of the apollos landing gear and as the poster above said, a 60mile orbit of the moon should reveal detailed pictures for the first time.


RE: Oh no!
By AntiM on 10/8/2008 2:59:18 PM , Rating: 2
The Hubble can focus on a dime from 500 KM (~310 miles). If it were in orbit 60 miles above the moon, it would be able to obtain a detailed image of Neil Armstrong's first footprint. That would be interesting.


RE: Oh no!
By kattanna on 10/8/2008 11:00:51 AM , Rating: 2
it wouldnt matter. even if you took them there all they would say back to you is that you just brought all that stuff with you now.

or.. when they got back say that they were brainwashed by the government to make them think they had gone there, but in "reality" they had not. NEVER under estimate the power of fools to fool themselves.


RE: Oh no!
By omnicronx on 10/8/2008 12:56:40 PM , Rating: 2
Yes.. they packed equipment for 6 different landing sites into one satellite and precisely dropped them into place from orbit, and while they were at it, they dropped a rover on each landing site with a giant shoe imprint stamp to mimic footprints left by the astronauts that were never there.. The robots then proceed to bury themselves under ground as to not be found in the future.

If we finally do get pictures of the landing site, its going to be pretty definitive, especially if it is done by another country, as what incentive would they have to lie.


RE: Oh no!
By mindless1 on 10/8/2008 5:55:19 PM , Rating: 2
Might've been definitive 100 years ago, but today we have Photoshop.


???
By awer26 on 10/8/2008 9:30:22 AM , Rating: 3
Who will they call for mission tech support?




RE: ???
By killerroach on 10/8/2008 9:47:32 AM , Rating: 3
Americans, naturally. And they won't be able to understand us, either.


RE: ???
By FITCamaro on 10/8/2008 10:34:26 AM , Rating: 2
Zing!


Take that Columbus!
By stryfe on 10/8/2008 11:56:22 AM , Rating: 2
Here's hoping they get to the moon, find it's actually inhabitted after all and decide to call the inhabitants Americans.




RE: Take that Columbus!
By Regs on 10/9/2008 9:41:55 AM , Rating: 2
Maybe they still think it's made out of cheese?


By rasmith260 on 10/9/2008 8:28:03 AM , Rating: 2
Anyone who’s ever accomplished anything in life got help from someone at some point. You people act like you got what you got simply by your own hard work, well only a very foolish person would believe that. Whether the help came from your parents or in this argument the government, you still got help. Even the richest man in the world got a loan from his father at the start. What if his father had told no, get a job, then he wasn’t able to find one, where would he be now.

America is the greatest country in the world and guarantees you a lot of rights, but the one right it doesn’t guarantee is the right to a JOB. You can be the most educated person in the world with three or four degrees and still not be able to find one, as a lot of very well educated people in this country are about to find out.

There’s nothing wrong with social programs and they’ve helped far more people over the years than the ones they’ve hurt. The GI Bill was technically a social program and that one created the middle class. Our whole system of credit is nothing but a social program entitling people without enough funds to purchase things they really can’t afford. If you can’t buy a $350,000 home in cash and need any kind of mortgage (i.e. getting money/help from someone else) to do it, that’s a social program. The only difference is it benefits you so you think you deserve it.

Here’s an idea, instead of whining about how much you hate social programs or advancing ideas on who should be able to receive them, how about coming up with some concrete ideas that could actually receive bipartisan support and thereby accomplish something other than showing how out of touch and arrogant you are.




"This is from the DailyTech.com. It's a science website." -- Rush Limbaugh











botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki