RSS Feeds
Readers Sound Off
By Design News Staff -- Design News, June 28, 2004
A REALLY BAD IDEA
Your editorial calling for a pro-technology president was without a doubt the worst article I have ever seen in a technical magazine. I have been an engineer for a fair number of years, and hope that I never live in a country where the technology policy making is not left to the markets. It is disturbing that you are calling for an expansion for the amount of money that the federal government should be passing out. I work for a small company that is struggling to survive with the present cost of doing business and the amount of taxes we have to deal with. The NSF budget of $5.7B sure sounds like a lot of money to me for the feds to mismanage, and I can only believe that $7.3B could only be a worse use of the taxes of the citizens of this country.
Bruce Boston, SAN MARCOS, CA
SOCIALIST PROPAGANDA
Without question there is a place for government involvement in the technology development arena. Your attempt to rally the engineering community to the cause of government handouts, however, reveals your underlying socialist view. The best thing that government can do is to get out of the way. The ways to do this are lower taxes, have less burdensome and overboard regulation, and maintain a fair playing field on the international level. Engineers, who are by and large seekers of the truth, and understand the natural laws of the universe, understand the causes and effects of government also. They can see through socialist propaganda.
David Middleton, COLCHESTER, CT
A PRO-EVERYTHING PREZ?
It seems to me everyone wants their own Prez. The farmers want a pro-farm Prez, the truckers want a pro-transportation Prez, the educators want a pro-education Prez, and on and on. The President must serve the whole country and every person in it, not just the special interests with the most money and clout. You state the NSF must provide more for K-12 education. Why? The U.S. Constitution leaves education to the citizens or the States, as it does for everything not specifically authorized by the Constitution. While much of what the Federal Government does cannot be provided by any other entity, it seems to me most would be better left to other units of government or private organizations. In filtering down from D.C., too much money is used up before it gets to the ones who need it. You also stated the President should put his money where his mouth is. But it's not his money—it's my money and your money, and I want it spent in the most cost-effective way or the government can give it back to me. I can spend my money better than some bureaucrat in Washington and, if given the chance, I can prove it. May I suggest you get a copy of the Constitution and review what the Government, including the Presidency, was really designed for? Thanks for letting me spout off.
Dave Johnson, MINNEAPOLIS, MN
|
ALL PUMPED UP
In his article on a new heart pump (DN Medical Supplement 05/17/04, p.S14; http://rbi.ims.ca/3851-532), Contributing Editor Terry Costlow seems to think that a heart pump has to deliver fluid faster than a gasoline station pump, at more than a gallon per second. Maybe it's about time for a pro-technology chief editor.
Orland Wilcox, RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA
DN's Reponse: You're right—we're wrong. The correct units are gallons per minute, not gallons per second.—TC
Talkback
DN's Resource Center Get Free Information, Made Easy
-
Light Matters: Saturated Colors
Avnet | Product Brief
Request Item -
Mobile, Handheld 3D Scanners Enable New Applications: 3 Case Studies
Z Corporation | White Paper
Request Item
