Google's Lease of NASA Airfield Criticized By Consumer Group 138
Spy Handler writes Yesterday's announcement that Google will lease Moffett Field from NASA for 60 years drew criticism from a group called Consumer Watchdog, which stated "This is like giving the keys to your car to the guy who has been siphoning gas from your tank. It is unfairly rewarding unethical and wrongful behavior. These Google guys seem to think they can do whatever they want and get away with it – and, sadly, it looks like that is true.”
Jealous? (Score:5, Interesting)
Sounds like this so-called consumer group is jealous... They may not be a "consumer" group, probably more like an astro-turf group pretending to be for the lowly "consumer". Hard to tell these days.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Jealous? (Score:4, Funny)
Re: Jealous? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
They may not be a "consumer" group, probably more like an astro-turf group pretending to be for the lowly "consumer". Hard to tell these days
You can find out [wikipedia.org]. We have an internet now.
They are an older organization, not really astro-turfing, associated with Ralph Nader. They seem to be against whatever they consider to be big business excesses.
Re: (Score:2)
I believe this is the group that pushed the defeated Prop 46 this year. This is a proposition that 1. increase the cap on malpractice sue from the current $250K to $1M and 2. required doctors and nurses undergo random drug test.
http://ballotpedia.org/Califor... [ballotpedia.org]
Re:Jealous? (Score:4, Insightful)
The complaint is literally "they got cheaper gas" probably because they were big customers & looking for a place to live long term.
It's exactly like typical business negotiations.
Oh, and the cheaper gas was roughly 1% of this deal.
In other words, Consumer Watchdog is a whiny fucking bitch.
Re: (Score:2)
They got cheaper gas they were entitled to. They didn't get a deal for cheaper gas. They essentially stole cheaper gas.
Re: (Score:2)
Um.. I do not think those words mean what you think they mean.
Re: (Score:2)
Pshaw, sure they do. Work 80 hours a week and never take vacations so you have a nice fat paycheck? You stole that $500,000 house and that $70,000 car (even though you were entitled to spend your money on them). Sadly, a lot of people feel this way about people who have more than them.
Re: (Score:2)
I flubbed the Englishes...
"They got cheaper gas that they weren't entitled to."
They were only supposed to use the gas for business purposes related to their NASA work, but they used it for their own personal use as well. People say "big deal" to this stuff, but it's serious. Those rules are in place so that corruption and nepotism in government contracting is at a minimum.
Re: (Score:2)
They are whiny bitches. I get their emails and one thing that really bothered me is that these people are behind the banning of Buckyballs. Buckyballs are super strong, small sphere-shaped magnets that are really fun to play with. But because babies eat them and die, Consumer Watchdog wants them off the shelves. It pisses me off that because it's dangerous to babies, nobody else is responsible enough to own them.
Reminds me of the quote:
âoeCensorship is telling a man he can't have a steak just because a
Eric Schmidt walks (Score:3)
No he doesn't! Haven't you been paying attention to the articles about planes, rockets and self-driving cars?
In a couple years, Eric Schmidt is going to forget what his legs are for...
Re: (Score:1)
Our hero! Walking 20 miles to work every day and back, and going all the way to China, on a long walk. :)
what? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:what? (Score:5, Informative)
They allege, and I don't know how rightly, that all of the following are true:
1. Google has received a discounted rate on jet fuel from NASA.
2. This means that Google is underpaying on the lease since they'll get their jet fuel cheap???????
The problem with that logic, which the group acknowledges and, in spite of that, persists is that NASA doesn't actually take a loss on the fuel they sell Google.
Re: (Score:3)
How much should they have paid for the property in your opinion? How did you arrive at that figure?
Keep in mind Google needs to maintain the capacity of the field as an air strip, maintain Hanger One as a historical building, and other factors that make this more than just ordinary commercial real estate. In the end, Google still doesn't own the property and when that lease comes up in 60 years a whole lot of things could change with regards to Silicon Valley and the state of industry there. Either it wi
Re: (Score:3)
well I just hope in the future NASA does the ethical thing with its excess jet fuel and dumps it into the water table rather than selling at discount to large corporations
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think this was "excess jet fuel".
Google was previously located out of Moffett. The private company which operates Google's planes got the benefit of buying discounted fuel which NASA had purchased.
In other words, the taxpayer subsidized the fuel price Google was paying for its private aircraft.
So, are you OK with a multi-billion dollar corporation, owned by multi-billionaires, getting cut rate jet fuel from the government because they fly their aircraft out of a federal facility?
Because that sounds
Re:what? (Score:4, Insightful)
If as other posters claim, the government was paid more for the fuel then they paid for it, I would can it win-win.
Re:what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:what? (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't think this was "excess jet fuel".
Google was previously located out of Moffett. The private company which operates Google's planes got the benefit of buying discounted fuel which NASA had purchased.
In other words, the taxpayer subsidized the fuel price Google was paying for its private aircraft.
So, are you OK with a multi-billion dollar corporation, owned by multi-billionaires, getting cut rate jet fuel from the government because they fly their aircraft out of a federal facility?
Because that sounds kind of insane to me. Even if it is only a "few million", why is Google being given this gift?
There was no gift at all. RTFA puts it this way: "While this arrangement did not cause an economic loss to NASA or DLA-Energy, it did result in considerable savings for H211 and engendered a sense of unfairness and a perception of favoritism toward H211 and its owners."
So, they are pissed that a perfectly legal "arrangement" between Google and NASA where the latter sold the former some jet fuel for *what they paid for it*, is now an official one that apparently will save NASA about $6 million a year. I wonder if anyone else actually tried to ask NASA to sell them fuel and got turned down? Or, is this "consumer protection" group just pissed that Google had the balls and they didn't? We may never know.
Re:what? (Score:4, Insightful)
Google got that fuel at discounted prices by using those planes to do work for NASA. It's not like they just showed up and said 'fill 'er up!' out of the blue.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:what? (Score:4, Informative)
NASA isn't losing any money so there is no subsidy.
NASA uses a lot of jet fuel, thus gets a cheaper rate.
NASA sells the cheaper fuel at a profit to Google.
Google gets it cheaper than they could if they bought it directly.
Its just smart business, not ripping off the tax payer at all.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:what? (Score:5, Informative)
Google didn't steal. NASA didn't sell the fuel
NASA is a government agency and doesn't have to pay taxes and levies that the private sector does.
The fuel was supplied by DLA-Energy (Defense Logistics Agency), not NASA. The fuel was purchased by H211, a company owned by the top Google people.
DLA-Energy can sell the fuel, but they should collect the tax when they do.
There was confusion because H211 was flying some missions on behalf of NASA, for which they were entitled to tax free fuel.
[The inspector general] 'Martin attributed the discount to a “misunderstanding” between personnel at the airfield and the fuel supplier “rather than intentional misconduct. DLA-Energy misunderstood that H211 was drawing fuel for both private and NASA-related missions.'
Balanced article about the situation:
http://www.businessweek.com/ar... [businessweek.com]
Re: (Score:2)
was joke. Lighten up, Francis
Re: (Score:3)
All you have to do is get your plane down to a NASA facility. Legally.
Re: (Score:2)
If it's sold at cost, to the people who are using the facility, it's really not that amazing.
Honestly, if I'm renting my restaurant out to a wedding party, the fact that I'm only selling my wine to the wedding party is perfectly fine. Selling at cost even makes sense if I got a good enough deal on the party itself.
Re: (Score:2)
if you're a for-profit restaurant, then by all means -- do whatever you wish.
However if you're a tax payer funded entity, handing out a lease like that with no bidding and a term of 60 years, AND selling any of your (again, tax payer purchased assets) below market rate -- how is that not playing favorites?
Re: (Score:2)
Did they say it was a no bid lease?
Because that would be actual malfeasance, and I saw no sign of it in either article.
Re: (Score:1)
Where's any evidence that there was no bidding or other offers? It's only a valid criticism if it's true & there's no evidence that what you say is true...and that is NOT what the 'Consumer Watchdog group' was even mad about anyway...heck it should be an easy thing for a 'Consumer Watchdog' group to submit an 'access for information' request to get the details of the process used to lease the land...once they have that THAN maybe they could find something to bitch about but they are just bitching for bi
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well if you marked up the rental price enough to cover the loss for wine bought (including management assessment and evaluation costs), transport, storage and cleaning bottles, serving and supplying of glasses, as well as cleaning said glasses and disposal of empty bottles. What is really happening is there seems to be a scammy deal with a no bid lease not open to the public purview and discounted fuel to boot (ignoring all costs associated with the distribution of fuel). Google seems to be doing evil all
Re:what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Consumer Watchdog wants to complain about something... trying to make a name for themselves? (Naming themselves after what they consider themselves to be wasn't good enough?)
The primary complaint they have against Google: Google got cheap gas from the US Gov't while leasing hangar space at this airfield. Boo Freaking Hoo. It is specifically mentioned that no loss of money occurred so they weren't even selling the gas below cost they were just selling the gas at below retail which they are more than entitled to do (When there are $5M of *savings I can only guess what the total bill was anyway!)
Reality of the world: When you have a lot of money you pay very little per unit than everyone else because you can afford to buy a LOT of whatever "it" is. Simple economics (Economy of Scale).
As far as this deal going forward: NASA gets a lot of money they need and gets to take a not insignificant amount of maintenance cost of their balance sheet at a time when their budgets are not exactly glamorous. If the $1.16B is even spread over time that's $19.4 M per year income plus $6.3M in savings = $25.7M net gain per year for giving up use of something they are not using. (Oh yeah and $200M in renovations of property they'd still own too)
I really don't like organizations that make noise for no reason when there are plenty of worthy causes in the world.
Re: (Score:1)
Two links (Score:4)
I very rarely complain about the editors and stay out of the beta discussions (but beta does suck) but I am getting as tired as everyone else with some of the submissions these days. If there are two articles that link to the exact same content but on different sites jut pick one and use it. Having two links just wastes the time of the users that actually RTFA...
* Yes, I occasionally RTFA, I'll turn in my /. ID on my way out now...
Re: (Score:2)
I will second that. Would it really be that hard to link to the primary source? Linking to an article is often helpful, but this article sounds like it is just regurgitating a press release.
Re:Two links (Score:5, Informative)
Submitter here. I only linked one article (the parabolicarc.com one). The editor added the second CNBC article (which I didn't know about). To be honest, the CNBC article has more info so it wasn't a bad call. Maybe what they should've done is replace my link with the CNBC link, or just reject my submission and write a new one.
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks, and for the record I automatically thought it was the editors, not sure in hindsight why that was my gut reaction but it was... Definitely not trying to pick on submitters! Even a poorly written (not yours, in general) but interesting submission should be displayed to us as a very well written submission, period, every time. That's what editors are for!
Re: (Score:2)
Don't worry, this is Slashdot. There will be a new one along shortly.
Re: (Score:3)
Glad to see someone can appreciate all he's done for us.
Stick to your field (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
A brief history of thyme?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Consumer Watchdog is a nonprofit organization dedicated to providing an effective voice for taxpayers and consumers in an era when special interests dominate public discourse, government and politics.
Criticizing a company for getting steep discounts worth millions of dollars on jet fuel from the government and then getting a large lease from that same government seems in line with their mission.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Stick to your field (Score:4, Informative)
Citation? I didn't notice any mention of "steep discounts".
"Getting a large lease"? Is that the same thing as "paying the government a lot of money"?
Wrong analogy (Score:5, Insightful)
Their gripe is based on a previous case of Google being given discounts on fuel purchases, which the watchdog group themselves admits did not negatively impact the government or NASA. Google didn't steal this fuel or commit fraud to get these discounts. Their opinion is simply that it was unfair preference shown to Google(which, if anything, is misconduct on the part of NASA). So comparing this to stealing gas is unfair on the part of the watchdog group.
"These Google guys seem to think they can do whatever they want and get away with it"
So because Google was given got some fuel at a discount, "these Google guys" shouldn't be allowed to do anything at all anymore? What are they getting away with? Oh god they've leased some land and given the government some money for something that would have otherwise depreciated in value unused! The atrocity!
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Two things. Yes, NASA selling cheap fuel to Google may not illegal but it's unethical to some observers. Can you or I buy fuel cheap fuel from NASA? No. It's favoritism, pure and simple.
Second, a 60 year lease is basically forever. Everyone currently working at NASA or Google will be long dead when the lease is over. So NASA is basically saying they don't need the land anymore. What would've been a more transparent action for a government agency? A. partition off the few buildings they want preserved as a m
Re: (Score:3)
No.
The term of the lease is a bit excessive, yes BUT the U.S. Gov't really doesn't like selling ANY of their land. "What's our is ours forever" so the Google getting a "seemingly forever" lease on the land if about as close as the Gov't is going to go. I'll add that the specific use case for a big chunk of it (starting a space program it seems) requires a LOT of time especially if they go commercial with it so this is appropriate. That use case also falls in line with NASA's purvey these days "Get the easy
Re: (Score:2)
A. partition off the few buildings they want preserved as a museum and sell/lease the remainder of the 1000 acres in a public auction, or B. give it to the same guys that some have accused you of giving preferential treatment in what seems to be a sweetheart deal (995 acres in Silicon Valley is pretty pricey).
Really another museum to our past while we turn our future into a Mall? That is your plan A!?
You forgot the part of option B that really matters... maintain an operational airfield and flight facilities that may be of unique and great value in the future. More valuable (to some) than yet another condo development with a golf courses or some such. Sometimes divvying something up that has more value when kept whole just to appease everyone isn't always the way to go.
Keeping the airfield and facilities who
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, but it would cost NASA a fortune to clean up the site before it could be auctioned off. El Toro Marine Base was just taken off the Superfund list after 24 years and $165 million dollars to clean up the land after the base closed. Considering Moffet Field has been an experimental site as well as a military base, you can use the El Toro cleanup as a baseline - so instead of leasing the land to Google, making NASA money on the deal and also getting maintenance paid for, the suggestion is to spend $200
Re: (Score:2)
I'm rather annoyed that you think I'll be dead before I'm 95. I was planning to live until at least 100.
Rephrased: There'll be plenty of current google and nasa employees still alive in 60 years.
Re: (Score:2)
Can you or I buy fuel cheap fuel from NASA? No. It's favoritism, pure and simple.
Well, it's favoritism to an organization that has helped to fund maintenance and restoration projects on NASA's airfield and hangars, and has allowed NASA to fly scientific research missions on its jets (granted, in exchange for the right to park said jets on NASA's airfield). For several years Google has collaborated with NASA on various Moffet Field-related issues and endeavors, and in the process Google has pumped many millions into it. I'm sure if you or I did the same sort of thing we also could buy ch
Re: (Score:2)
Who? (Score:2)
Who are these nuts, their one complaint seems to be that Google was purchasing fuel from a government airfield while flying their planes out of it. They talk about "Up To" $5.3 million without offering any context or pointing out how they arrived at that number. Did Google even know it was improper? Does this have something to do with the idiotic aviation fuel tax which taxes private aircraft who use the traffic control system minimally (where the money is supposed to go) while giving the commercial airl
Don't Understand the Complaint (Score:5, Insightful)
"While this arrangement did not cause an economic loss to NASA or DLA-Energy, it did result in considerable savings for H211 and engendered a sense of unfairness and a perception of favoritism toward H211 and its owners. "
So nobody lost money. It sounds like Google found a way to save money (thus being good stewards of corporate cash).
In 2011 Google offered to pay a big chunk of restoration costs for the hanger, and NASA instead decided to sell or lease it. It was used for Star Trek in 2009, but other than that it seems to have sat empty.
So instead of an empty unused hanger, NASA is getting 6.3 million per year for the next 60 years.
I really don't see who is losing anything here.
Re: (Score:2)
Oops. NASA isn't getting 6.3 Million in rent per year, they are saving 6.3 million in Maintenance costs per year. They are getting something like 16M/year in rent.
Yeah. That's a hardship.
Re: (Score:2)
So nobody lost money.
That's not what was said. Neither NASA nor DLA-Energy lost money, but all the companies that would have sold the jet fuel to Google at a profit did. The government acted in competition with private enterprise to fuel private enterprise aircraft.
Some people think that government competition (with huge bulk price discounts and endlessly deep pockets to cover losses) with commercial ventures is bad.
Re: (Score:2)
all the companies that would have sold the jet fuel to Google at a profit did. The government acted in competition with private enterprise to fuel private enterprise aircraft.
You're ignoring the fact that extra jet fuel was simply available at a discount, because NASA had already bought it. What should NASA have done with that extra jet fuel? Sold it to a private jet-fuel company? Let's say that they did that. They would have had to sell it at a discount (maybe the same discount) because the jet fuel was located at an otherwise-unused airfield and would have to be transported elsewhere, which is not free.
Oh, you say, they could have sold it to the same private jet-fuel comp
Re: (Score:2)
You're ignoring the fact that extra jet fuel was simply available at a discount, because NASA had already bought it.
Huh? Of course NASA had the fuel because NASA bought it. They wouldn't have had it otherwise, would they?
What should NASA have done with that extra jet fuel? Sold it to a private jet-fuel company?
Gee, I don't know. It's not like the government owns any jets that it could have been used in. I think the FAA uses floobydust in their jets. I doubt that even the National Aeronautics and Space Administration owns anything as complicated as a jet or anything. You're right, selling at cost in direct competition with commercial dealers was the only thing they could have done.
Oh, you say, they could have sold it to the same private jet-fuel company that Google has contracted to fuel its planes!
No, I don't think you've e
Re: (Score:2)
It's not like the government owns any jets that it could have been used in.
Are you suggesting that the government fly a bunch of planes to that airfield just to refuel with the fuel that's located there?
Re: (Score:2)
You've convinced me. It's just peachy that all those people who pay taxes (business and personal) because they're in the business of selling aviation fuel have the
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That is companies who sold fuel at other airports, perhaps in that region, potentially lost money because Google executives didn't buy their fuel at those other airports first and then flew the planes into Moffett Field. That sounds like a major inconvenience and a waste of time as well. It isn't as if there were other fuel providers at this particular airfield.
It really is a baseless complaint.
Re: (Score:2)
That sounds like a major inconvenience and a waste of time as well.
Do you understand why companies have corporate jets? It isn't so the pilots can go out to "fly around the patch" for fun. It is so the people who ride in them can go other places. Those "other places" are called "airports". Unless the CEO or CFO or whatever likes to take the corporate jet to his vacation cabin out in Bumfart, ND, those planes aren't going to be spending much time at an airport that doesn't have an FBO that sells Jet-A.
And it's not difficult to fuel up. They'll come right to the plane and f
Re: (Score:2)
So your complaint is about NASA allowing Google to base their air fleet at Moffett in the first place? That is a valid complaint. Your complaint about the jet fuel is groundless though. Yes, the fuel trucks could drive across the bay instead (on the toll bridges, etc. for multiple additional charges) but this isn't otherwise hindering private enterprise.
What you are suggesting is that these pilots are going to be casually flying around for the hell of it where flying to another airport in the Bay Area fi
Re: (Score:2)
So your complaint is about NASA allowing Google to base their air fleet at Moffett in the first place?
It is? Gosh, I don't recall saying anything like that.
Yes, the fuel trucks could drive across the bay instead (on the toll bridges, etc. for multiple additional charges) but this isn't otherwise hindering private enterprise.
Fuel trucks don't have to "drive across the bay" when they go to refuel a jet that has just landed at the airport. They drive across the ramp. It's just not that hard. Any FBO that keeps their fuel trucks "across the bay" from the aircraft at an airport they serve deserves to go out of business, AND THAT IS WHY THEY DON'T.
What you are suggesting is that these pilots are going to be casually flying around for the hell of it
No, I pretty much said exactly the opposite. They're going to be going someplace with their passengers because that's the whole pu
Not for free (Score:4, Insightful)
Not for free is Google getting Moffett.
"In fact the lease gives Google unprecedented control of a federal facility to use as its own playground," said John M. Simpson, director of Consumer Watchdog's Privacy Project.
In fact the lease gives Google control of a federal white elephant in exchange for $19.3 million per year plus taxpayer savings of $6.3 million per year. Total $25.6 million to the good for taxpayers.
Re: (Score:2)
So the government receives $25.6M/year and spends $30M/year fighting out how to best spend it...
Ah... (Score:2)
Ah yes... another group that feels its your patriotic duty to give the government our money. And to what glorious end should will the government put googles money? The NSA? The 3rd war in Iraq? Propping up yet another 3rd world dictator to keep the price of some commodity down? No thanks.
Consumer Watchdog (Score:5, Informative)
The group clearly has a bee in their bonnet about Google. Pretty much every month, they put out a big press release attacking something the company does.
http://insidegoogle.com/ [insidegoogle.com]
Follow the money (Score:1)
So who's "sponsoring" this group? My guess is one (or many) of MS, Apple, and/or perhaps Oracle.
Re: (Score:2)
No. Probably Bing.
Well, Bing is MS.
Unless Bing funds the Rose Foundation. But I carried this ball so far; I'll let others use available tools if they care for this ball to go any farther.
They're not likely to get far. The Rose Foundation says it's committed to protecting the privacy of its donors. http://rosefdn.org/privacy-pol... [rosefdn.org]
Assuming it is MS or Apple (which I'm not claiming; I have no idea), you might be able to find their donations to the Rose Foundation in their filings, but even that wouldn't be any sort of proof, because the foundation does a lot of different things. And you might not find it, because the money might first pass through one or two other foundatio
Re: (Score:2)
Consumer Watchdog got a $100k grant specifically to attack Google. No issues with money getting mixed up for different causes there. It's basically a lobbying/PR group that poses as some sort of consumer rights organisation - at one point there website was being cohosted by an actual Washington lobbying firm that claimed to specialise in "grassroots movements". As phony as they get.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Dishonest summary (Score:2)
The report [nasa.gov] they are drawing their findings from found no wrongdoing on Google's part:
"We found that Ames officials accurately reported H211’s relationship with the Center to DLA-Energy but DLA-Energy believed H211 was performing only NASA-related missions and therefore was entitled to fuel at the cost-plus-surcharge rate. We found that a misunderstanding between Ames and DLA-Energy personnel rather than intentional misconduct led to H211 receiving the discounted fuel rate for flights that had no NASA-
This is hardly new. (Score:2)
Defense contractors have been leasing parts of Moffett for ages, there's nothing new about this. Google probably wants a nice, big, pre-paved space to test their driverless cars.
To hell with it (Score:1)
I don't get it... (Score:2)
So based on this,the story is basically as follows: [consumerwatchdog.org]
- Google decides to lease an airfield from NASA for corporate jets
- NASA agrees to sell Google fuel at discounted rates (no state or local tax) in exchange for Google planes collecting climate data
- After 6 years of this, a NASA auditor notices ALL Google planes receive the discount, not just those carrying out NASA experiments.
- NASA stops selling them discounted fuel in September of 2013.
- Google now wants to renew the lease (without the discounted fuel)
-
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe of NASA had decent funding... (Score:2)
...this sort of thing would not happen.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Having dealt with the NASA budgeting hell for years, I am going with "doubtful" on that one.
And who else would rent it? (Score:4, Informative)
The Moffat authority has to be the worst landlord in Silicon Valley. I was involved in trying to find space for an educational non-profit (I am on the board). We looked at some space the Moffat authority had -- what they offered and the prices and terms they put forth were pure, unadultrated lifetime-government-employee unhingedness. It didn't even pass the giggle test. We snorted and moved on. Also... I have some friends at the Carnegie-Melon Silicon Valley campus, which rents from the Moffat authority. What they have to go through is goofy -- the rents are high, it takes forever to get permission to do anything, in part because Moffat has historic status. Hanger 1, in particular, is listed separately on the national register of historic buildings. So not only do you have to find a tennant who actually wants that behemouth space, you need to find a tennant that finds doing business with a capricious, narcissictic, and unhinged landlord entertaining. Good luck.
after RTFA (Score:2)
If that's the case, then charge them what the audit finds was used incorrectly and then set up something to mon
If the lease states that they can use the fuel, then what's the problem?
Hanger use (Score:2)
Are the Myth Busters going to have to find another giant hangar for their large scale experiments?
This matters much more than Google getting a price break on some jet fuel.
Re: (Score:2)
Are the Myth Busters going to have to find another giant hangar for their large scale experiments?
It won't matter. MythBusters will dry up and go away without boobs.
Google criticized by 'consumer Group' .. (Score:1)
Would this Consumer Watchdog group be run out of One Microsoft Way Redmond?
'this arrangement did not cause an economic loss to NASA or DLA-Energy'
Big question is... (Score:2)
huh?? (Score:2)
Is this so-called consumer rights advocacy group actually saying that a company paying a rent for prepared flat space which is currently sitting idle is in the wrong for doing so?
The fuck?