1. acadia11's Avatar
    Not only that the advent of electric card has increased the number of charge stations for them. They are available in a lot of gas stations in Metro Atlanta for example.

    He has had a more green focused view than past presidents. Which is sad because if past presidents were aware of the future.implications of what was going on, we wouldn't have our work cut out for us now.

    Posted via the iMore App for Android
    Jimmy carter if we had followed through with his plans we'd be oil independent today.
    12-15-2014 05:46 PM
  2. SeanHRCC's Avatar
    Again, there seems to be a lot of "props" given to a guy who's simply taking advantage of movements in technology that would exist regardless of which president was in office. Truly, the only thing that would stunt the involvement of any president in his position would be a major conflict or war, but thankfully right now that isn't the case (for everyone's sake).

    I mean you kind of HAVE to understand technology these days to be in the position like "president"...otherwise other countries and leaders would view you as archaic and would probably view it as a weakness.
    12-15-2014 05:49 PM
  3. kilofoxtrot's Avatar
    Since you can only have one president in a given term... its hard to compare the tech "savvyness" of one versus another.

    You could compare senator "A" with senator "B" in the same time period... but that is a different debate.
    12-15-2014 06:17 PM
  4. acadia11's Avatar
    Again, there seems to be a lot of "props" given to a guy who's simply taking advantage of movements in technology that would exist regardless of which president was in office. Truly, the only thing that would stunt the involvement of any president in his position would be a major conflict or war, but thankfully right now that isn't the case (for everyone's sake).

    I mean you kind of HAVE to understand technology these days to be in the position like "president"...otherwise other countries and leaders would view you as archaic and would probably view it as a weakness.
    Gore did more than just get props , people joked about this internet creation but anybody who writes scientific books on the topic, and actually coins lingo "information superhighway" was actually Gore term, is doing a lot more than just taking advantage its a shame he was ripped about his place in history here.

    But like the driving there are levels, there are president arhat understand technology and can drive initiative in these direction and there are presidents who's interest or expertise is else where. There is a difference in understanding and pushing for development.
    12-15-2014 06:19 PM
  5. acadia11's Avatar
    Since you can only have one president in a given term... its hard to compare the tech "savvyness" of one versus another.

    You could compare senator "A" with senator "B" in the same time period... but that is a different debate.
    Of course you can. It's not like baseball. Some presidents drive technology. That's there initiative some people are say good administrators but of course you can compare presidents based on how they influenced or legislated the drive for tech in their times.
    12-15-2014 06:21 PM
  6. kilofoxtrot's Avatar
    Of course you can. It's not like baseball. Some presidents drive technology. That's there initiative some people are say good administrators but of course you can compare presidents based on how they influenced or legislated the drive for tech in their times.
    I am refering to tech savvy on a personal use level... which is what I thought the sub topic was all about.
    12-15-2014 06:26 PM
  7. acadia11's Avatar
    I am refering to tech savvy on a personal use level... which is what I thought the sub topic was all about.
    Ah ok but even then i mean it would be simply using the technology of your day
    12-15-2014 06:27 PM
  8. SeanHRCC's Avatar
    But like the driving there are levels, there are president arhat understand technology and can drive initiative in these direction and there are presidents who's interest or expertise is else where. There is a difference in understanding and pushing for development.
    There's also a difference between development that would have been pushed for, regardless of which president was in office at the time...and actual interests/identified needs said president pushes for personally. A lot of people like to generalize these two things though and attribute them to something the president (regardless of which one) represented personally.
    12-15-2014 06:27 PM
  9. hydrogen3's Avatar
    Gore did more than just get props , people joked about this internet creation but anybody who writes scientific books on the topic, and actually coins lingo "information superhighway" was actually Gore term, is doing a lot more than just taking advantage its a shame he was ripped about his place in history here.

    But like the driving there are levels, there are president arhat understand technology and can drive initiative in these direction and there are presidents who's interest or expertise is else where. There is a difference in understanding and pushing for development.
    So Al Gore created the internet?

    Several hardy chuckles.


    Sent from my iPhone 5s using 100% recycled electrons and of course Tapatalk
    12-15-2014 06:34 PM
  10. acadia11's Avatar
    There's also a difference between development that would have been pushed for, regardless of which president was in office at the time...and actual interests/identified needs said president pushes for personally. A lot of people like to generalize these two things though and attribute them to something the president (regardless of which one) represented personally.
    Technology will move regardless but if there is president that will drive to have an Internet built in 10 years versus 50 years, the president who can make happen in 10 is better. We will get to Mars eventually but the president who can pull it off or reduce the time because right now there is no business incentive gets credit. Specifically to the Net there were some decisions and drive from the 70s that allowed the net to be created. Remember arpanet was a Darpa project, and the protocols that made the net came from it, and who was the man that got the technology into private sectors hand. Al Gore

    We will eventually do just about anything but the guy who can get it done , fulfill vision is a good executive, this is what executives like the president are paid. Get if done. Get it done sooner. Get it done cheaper
    12-15-2014 06:36 PM
  11. SeanHRCC's Avatar
    Again...just because something is getting done and happens to catch it's foot hold during one presidents term doesn't mean said president "made it happen". Sure, Obama has provided backing for a lot of initiatives...but my point is, you can't just attribute everything that happens during an administration as something said administration was responsible for (which is why I responded to A895 the way I did initially which sparked this entire subject in this thread).

    For instance...NASA is getting back on it's feet during Obama's 2nd term, and will be in full fledged GO mode in the next presidents term. The next president will probably get the credit for getting NASA back on the horse, but the truth is, Bush was a HUGE leader in the push for NASA development and even set several goals for space travel (including trips to Mars).

    And even that kind of shows my point...Bush wasn't responsible for the push to go to Mars, that happened long before he was president.

    It's all about perception.
    12-15-2014 06:46 PM
  12. hydrogen3's Avatar
    Jimmy carter if we had followed through with his plans we'd be oil independent today.
    Remember the oil crises. Who was President then?
    12-15-2014 06:56 PM
  13. acadia11's Avatar
    Again...just because something is getting done and happens to catch it's foot hold during one presidents term doesn't mean said president "made it happen". Sure, Obama has provided backing for a lot of initiatives...but my point is, you can't just attribute everything that happens during an administration as something said administration was responsible for (which is why I responded to A895 the way I did initially which sparked this entire subject in this thread).

    For instance...NASA is getting back on it's feet during Obama's 2nd term, and will be in full fledged GO mode in the next presidents term. The next president will probably get the credit for getting NASA back on the horse, but the truth is, Bush was a HUGE leader in the push for NASA development and even set several goals for space travel (including trips to Mars).

    And even that kind of shows my point...Bush wasn't responsible for the push to go to Mars, that happened long before he was president.

    It's all about perception.
    By your logic things just happen without vision. And I don't see it this way. Did bush ever even talk about going to Mars or a push in science. Obama has , and has in his platform tried to get money allocated to that ends. So of course Obama would get some credit. I don't even remember the discussion happen during Bushs time.

    Obama could have been silent on Net Neutrality he wasn't.

    Presidents do provide vision , look at FDR and the new deal, which basically set American policy until Reagan. nASA is getting back in Board because we have a president who thinks science and Math is important enough to fight for it from a budget standpoint. If the next president. Doesn't then it will ever something that can be pushed to the side.

    While I don't believe presidents are that important to the country running, I do believe they can dictate policy that can have ramifications over time.
    Scatabrain and A895 like this.
    12-15-2014 07:56 PM
  14. SeanHRCC's Avatar
    Bush absolutely addressed going to mars, even laying out a time table and pushing for funding increases to NASA.

    And no, my logic isn't "things just happen without vision"...my logic is that not all things that happen reflect the vision of the president, or his interests. Sometimes things happen because society, private industry or other people push for them to be done. I think space travel is an excellent example of this...almost SPARKING renewed interest by the white house, where as NASA was all but dead and gone before the private developers were legitimately getting things into space.
    12-15-2014 08:04 PM
  15. acadia11's Avatar
    Bush absolutely addressed going to mars, even laying out a time table and pushing for funding increases to NASA.

    And no, my logic isn't "things just happen without vision"...my logic is that not all things that happen reflect the vision of the president, or his interests. Sometimes things happen because society, private industry or other people push for them to be done. I think space travel is an excellent example of this...almost SPARKING renewed interest by the white house, where as NASA was all but dead and gone before the private developers were legitimately getting things into space.
    Ok then kudos to him if he did, we should drive more for the sciences and math, and increase NASA budget substationally. If he did I give him credit and hope all presidents get on Board and the USs goes back to being a pioneer and leader in this regard.

    Private developers still are barely in space . Space X and Virgin Space are basically where NASA was in the 50s, we currently use other countries to get to space, Russia, Japan, etc ... While capitalism is great , it is not great when the return on investment is 30 years down the line, there is no compelling business case to go to Mars. Moreover the cost is not something a single company nor even nation can absorb.

    nasa budget was cut because there are many people who for God knows what reason think it's a waste of money during tough economic times, and don't realize how many inventions came from NASA. the government you do realize funds the private sector investment in space exploration by the way. It's not that the government just said hey we are done with NASA, they held open competition to get private sector to start doing some of the work. And fund the space prizes it's not private sector money. Who do you think built the intercontinental railway, or shighway system, or Internet? Government has a role and so does private sector in innovation it's not one or the other.
    Last edited by acadia11; 12-16-2014 at 12:22 AM.
    12-15-2014 09:52 PM
  16. SeanHRCC's Avatar
    And that long winded reply is all great and all, but my point still stands firm...and yes, I clearly understand who funded the space prizes, and it got a job done...it poured gas on an already very bright fire. Almost like a modern "space race", but in the private sector, and it worked gloriously. And while the private sector may be generations behind NASA, it's better than the complete lack of existence all together...and now, we have NASA partnering with Space X. I'd say what they have sent to space has been a pretty satisfying bit of effort, and at least to me...I don't care who or how we get further into space exploration, as long as it's done and it isn't diminished because of the economy (something the government did, and needed a spark from private sector, like I said before).

    Again...after all that said, my original point still stands.
    12-15-2014 10:44 PM
  17. acadia11's Avatar
    And that long winded reply is all great and all, but my point still stands firm...and yes, I clearly understand who funded the space prizes, and it got a job done...it poured gas on an already very bright fire. Almost like a modern "space race", but in the private sector, and it worked gloriously. And while the private sector may be generations behind NASA, it's better than the complete lack of existence all together...and now, we have NASA partnering with Space X. I'd say what they have sent to space has been a pretty satisfying bit of effort, and at least to me...I don't care who or how we get further into space exploration, as long as it's done and it isn't diminished because of the economy (something the government did, and needed a spark from private sector, like I said before).

    Again...after all that said, my original point still stands.
    Are you serious? There was a bright spark of space exploration by the private sector, are you mad? The private sector had no interest in space exploration anytime in the immediate future because right now the cost is just a bad financial investment. It wasn't until 2000s that to was considered and it wasn't until NASA investment that it was tried.

    NASA pushed the initiative period, it didn't pour gas on it, the initiative happened because of NASA. The government didn't just shut the shuttle space program down, it still exists. The people is simply didn't want to pay for current cost to launch shuttle. And we needed a new shuttle which won't be ready until 2015-2018. In 2006 NASA essentially created the private sector when they offered 500 million to any company that could show a viable ISS re supply service. Russia started selling its services by the way from their government program. You are rewriting history. Today there are more private companies companies because NASA is offering the money and needs the service until the new shuttle comes on board in 2015.

    A commercial privatized space program is on its infancy period. It's far from a tinder box or close to being a flame. Like I said in capitalism if there is no money to be made people won't do it, and right now there is huge entry cost and little money to be made.
    Last edited by acadia11; 12-16-2014 at 12:18 AM.
    12-15-2014 11:57 PM
  18. acadia11's Avatar
    And that long winded reply is all great and all, but my point still stands firm...and yes, I clearly understand who funded the space prizes, and it got a job done...it poured gas on an already very bright fire. Almost like a modern "space race", but in the private sector, and it worked gloriously. And while the private sector may be generations behind NASA, it's better than the complete lack of existence all together...and now, we have NASA partnering with Space X. I'd say what they have sent to space has been a pretty satisfying bit of effort, and at least to me...I don't care who or how we get further into space exploration, as long as it's done and it isn't diminished because of the economy (something the government did, and needed a spark from private sector, like I said before).

    Again...after all that said, my original point still stands.
    Lookup COTS and CCD, commercial orbital transportation services , started in 2006 to fund private sect ISS transport program in time for the space shuttle retirement in 2011. CCD is the program developed by NASA , Commercial Crew Development is program stated in 2010 to develop commercial manned flight private companies. I'm sorry the private space sector exists because NASA purposely and actively has been creating it. As with most technologies that are cost prohibitive the government subsidizes their creation to move into the private sector , the retirement and creation of commercial entities to take over was always planned by NASA. But the cost in doing so makes it a long long way off.

    NASA has built the sLS (space launch system) and Orion space craft is being developed to replace the shuttle program, to be operational in 2021? The estimated cost $50 billion let me know when private sector will contemplate that type of an investment, when they can recoup the cost, and who the customers would be that could afford a ticket.
    Last edited by acadia11; 12-16-2014 at 06:54 AM.
    12-16-2014 12:10 AM
  19. A895's Avatar
    President can only carry blackberry it's the only phone certified right now for security for President to carry.
    There was another phone, but he chose to stay with a BlackBerry.
    12-16-2014 05:16 AM
  20. A895's Avatar
    Let's be realistic...the iPhone came at the very end of his term (and was not the caliber product it is today...yet). None of the other offerings in the "smart phone" world were even all that useful, and I owned dozens of them...it's like comparing computers of today vs. computers of the 90's, there's just no realistic level of comparison honestly. NOBODY used the devices back then like we do today.
    I mean the iPhone, BlackBerry and Symbian devices were the majority of smartphones during that time period. But he could have been the early tech adopter President. It may not have been as common but a lot of tech was there then.
    12-16-2014 05:18 AM
  21. SeanHRCC's Avatar
    Are you serious? There was a bright spark of space exploration by the private sector, are you mad? The private sector had no interest in space exploration anytime in the immediate future because right now the cost is just a bad financial investment. It wasn't until 2000s that to was considered and it wasn't until NASA investment that it was tried.

    NASA pushed the initiative period, it didn't pour gas on it, the initiative happened because of NASA. The government didn't just shut the shuttle space program down, it still exists. The people is simply didn't want to pay for current cost to launch shuttle. And we needed a new shuttle which won't be ready until 2015-2018. In 2006 NASA essentially created the private sector when they offered 500 million to any company that could show a viable ISS re supply service. Russia started selling its services by the way from their government program. You are rewriting history. Today there are more private companies companies because NASA is offering the money and needs the service until the new shuttle comes on board in 2015.

    A commercial privatized space program is on its infancy period. It's far from a tinder box or close to being a flame. Like I said in capitalism if there is no money to be made people won't do it, and right now there is huge entry cost and little money to be made.
    I'm not re-writing anything, you're being way over dramatic about your opinion on what the level of interest was...to me, it was significant, if you feel otherwise, that's fine, but it's still simply your opinion.

    As far as investments go...Elon Musk invested $100 million of his own money into Space X...and while that is a drop in the bucket compared to $50 Billion, it's also a single investor. I'd say that's pretty substantial, given the complete lack of private investment as the NASA space program developed over the latter part of the 20th century.
    12-16-2014 10:39 AM
  22. acadia11's Avatar
    Hey seanhrcc, I want you to do me favor run an experiment , go to your local Walmart and pick up a gun off the shelf shopping and let's see if you can checkout like a normal person without taking a bullet.

    http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/16/justic...l?c=homepage-t
    12-16-2014 12:01 PM
  23. SeanHRCC's Avatar
    Hey seanhrcc, I want you to do me favor run an experiment , go to your local Walmart and pick up a gun off the shelf shopping and let's see if you can checkout like a normal person without taking a bullet.

    Cops shot man at Walmart, then interrogated girlfriend - CNN.com
    12-16-2014 12:08 PM
  24. SeanHRCC's Avatar
    You know, putting aside whether you think this was a legitimate shooting or not...who in their right mind would think walking around with this gun in a Walmart in the fashion that he did is a good idea? I would hope that most people would use common sense and understand the kind of attention this would draw, and what COULD happen if confronted with law enforcement, regardless of your opinion on their aggressiveness...

    12-16-2014 12:17 PM
  25. acadia11's Avatar
    I'm not re-writing anything, you're being way over dramatic about your opinion on what the level of interest was...to me, it was significant, if you feel otherwise, that's fine, but it's still simply your opinion.

    As far as investments go...Elon Musk invested $100 million of his own money into Space X...and while that is a drop in the bucket compared to $50 Billion, it's also a single investor. I'd say that's pretty substantial, given the complete lack of private investment as the NASA space program developed over the latter part of the 20th century.
    I never said the level interest wasnt there , I said the capital expenditure was not, because from a business standpoint its a bad investment. The cost to launch something into space is huge, so regardless of interest , from capitalism standpoint. You won't have investors.

    Elon musk invested $100 million to win the prize and contract for a prize that NASA created. And $100 million isn't remotely enough to build a spaceship. If no offer from NASA plus additional capital it create the COTS program then Leon musk wouldn't have bothered. Why wasn't there investment before NASA announced their program. NASA was the catalyst it's not like some company said hey NASA we have a great idea we spent all this money let me show you what we've done, do want to buy it.
    12-16-2014 12:18 PM
938 ... 1920212223 ...

Similar Threads

  1. Even a 7 Year Old Boy can Break into an iPhone Finger Print Touch ID Technology
    By thymaster in forum General Apple News & Discussion
    Replies: 43
    Last Post: 01-01-2015, 07:22 AM
  2. Will Apple give me a new 5c?
    By iMore Question in forum Ask a Question
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 12-11-2014, 07:11 PM
  3. UPWORDS - classic word game, and now an app
    By iMore Question in forum Ask a Question
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 12-10-2014, 04:34 PM
  4. Apple Stores reportedly will offer Sprint iPhone financing options
    By iMore.com in forum iMore.com News Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-10-2014, 03:40 PM
  5. Transformers: Battle Tactics will launch with turn-based combat in 2015
    By iMore.com in forum iMore.com News Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-10-2014, 12:30 PM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD