Posted on 03/31/2005 12:01:29 PM PST by Willie Green
3 - "Same crap I heard in the 80's and the answer is no."
Really - and did you see this in the 80's too?
Bell Labs has moved its labs to China and India for research, and to
Ireland for manufacturing.
What is BLRC?
Founded on Mar. 23, 2000, Bell Labs Research China (BLRC) is the first
research laboratory Bell Labs established outside the United States.
BLRC is a center of technical excellence and innovation to strengthen
the support to Lucent business units and customers in the China and Asia
Pacific region. It primarily concentrates its efforts on applications.
It develops innovative ideas, implements them by prototypes, and
transfers these results to Lucent product houses and Lucent Worldwide
Services (LWS). BLRC also do fundamental research in the fields of
Internet technologies, software, wireless communications, optical
networks, computer science, and applied mathematic
Bell Labs Research, India, launched in October 2004, is located in
Bangalore, India's silicon city. The research center is an integral part
of Bell Labs, Lucent's world-renowned research and development arm. More
than any other institution, Bell Labs has helped weave the technological
fabric of modern society. Its scientists and engineers have made seminal
scientific discoveries, and have launched technological revolutions that
have reshaped the way people live, work and play.
Technologies originating at Bell Labs have largely defined the modern
era: transistors, lasers, communications satellites, digital
transmission, touch-tone phones, cellular telephony, fiber-optic
communications, digital encryption of data, fax machines, modems, the
UNIX operating system, the C language, and many more. Bell Labs has
produced 11 Nobel laureates, and Bell Labs scientists receive more than
2 patents a day.
The research program at the Bell Labs center in India will continue the
tradition of innovation and scientific excellence that is synonymous
with the Bell Labs name. Our focus will be on developing
state-of-the-art software systems for enabling the world's leading
wireline and wireless service providers to deploy and manage high-speed,
highly reliable networks.
We intend to work with the best and brightest minds produced by India's
world-class educational institutions to deliver a continuous stream of
software innovations to Lucent' products and services portfolio. Due to
the explosive growth that the communications industry has witnessed in
the past few years, our customers in the region face unique challenges.
We will partner closely with Lucent's customers as they deploy new
technologies (e.g., cellular data), and devise innovative solutions to
their most challenging problems.
Bell Labs Research in Ireland
Bell Labs has opened a new central research centre in Ireland in 2004.
The centre will serve as a global focal point for research in the
telecommunications and supply chain fields.
Seeded in part by the Industrial Development Agency in Ireland, the new
research centre is expected to bring significant benefits to both Lucent
and Ireland. For Lucent, it will help deliver even quicker
time-to-market cycles for new technologies and streamline our platforms,
ensuring our products are the most cost-efficient to manufacture and
support and for our customers to deploy and maintain.
Bell Labs Ireland will focus on research in the field of engineering,
manufacturing and supply chain technologies. These research areas will
encompass emerging network technologies, RF circuits and systems,
photonics, test and reliability technologies and value chain optimisations.
The Bell Labs Centre is located in the Lucent Technologies facility in
the Blanchardstown Industrial estate. See the directions below for more
information.
How to Get to Blanchardstown
Thanks for the ping.
Welcome back, PD!
PD
I'm confused by your original line that "wars will not be fought man to man no more but economy to economy". I agree wrecking some enemies economy will be part of the plan but no more fighting man to man??? Is that what you really meant?
If so then why are we building tanks airplanes etc??
ping for later
Ping
You have a strange definition of majority. Let me guess, public school math?
That's sad.
O.k. they are the second largest US bond holder. Is that better you pompeous a**?? I've noticed you have a way with belittling posters.
You and I will never agree on free traitors anyway.
Great, now what percentage do they own?
I've noticed you have a way with belittling posters.
Only posters that make stupid mistakes. Have I belittled you before?
Quiote: Only posters that make stupid mistakes. Have I belittled you before?
Oh you are so so funny and smug. A perfect example.
As a consequence, foreign ownership of the U.S. national debt has risen to $1.8 trillion or half of the privately held debt. A decade ago, foreigners owned just over 20 percent of the debt.
The Japanese are the largest foreign holders of U.S. Treasury securities, with a total $720 billion in September, up from $317 billion just four years earlier. The Chinese have become the second largest holders, with $174 billion worth, a sharp increase from $62 billion in Sept. 2000.
Let's see, if $1.8 trillion is half the privately owned debt, total privately owned debt must be $3.6 trillion. Going slowly enough for you to follow slots? If the Chinese own $174 billion, that would be less than 5%. Just a little less than your statement that they hold the majority.
They have us by the balls? If you say so. Oversimplification? Yes. Basically true? Not even close.
Hope I wasn't too funny and smug. Try not to be so wrong in the future. You know how I hate belittling posters.
We don't have a real opponent anymore.
True, but things change. Your analysis is based on the present status, the political regime presently in power (just barely). Let the left get back in power and we conservatives are not going to be so all-confident.
Imagine if the Vietnam anti-war appeaser and his party had gotten back in power. Clinton's dismantling of our military and nuclear capability would be minor compared to Skerry and the dims had they gotten in power.
In the days after WW1, Britain smug and confident, who could have foreseen the appeaser Chamberlain and the rise of Hitler in just a few years?
When you owe the bank $100, the bank owns you.
When you owe the bank $3,000,000,000,000, you own the bank.
The cash flow from those securities is the only thing allowing China to refinance its nonperforming loans. If we're not paying them, then the ChiComs go broke in a matter of months.
The Reagan build-up of our military was actually reversed by Papa Bush under the delusion that global marxism was dead. Yeah, Klintoon was certainly an abomination, but neocons aren't true conservatives either.
Good point. The utter lack of foresight and/or imagination on the part of our representatives is truly frightening. Here we are, just waking up to the threat posed by China, and still downsizing the military! Amazing.
FWIW - I agree we have cut too much, given our objectives. From the USAF side, our projected buy of Raptors is down to a laughable amount. Yes, it will be a great plane - but we're buying so few! The C-17 is another example. It was supposed to provide strat/tactical airlift - but we haven't bought very many & the C-141 has gone away, so plan on strat lift only for the C-17.
As for the 'quality vs quantity' arguement - I prefer both. And if our percentage of federal spending remained the same, we could afford both.
I do not believe the world is a much safer place than 20 years ago. The Chinese worry me. Russia is trending bad after I thought we had a chance to make it a solid ally. And the GWOT may become more critical as nukes proliferate.
Bottom line - I don't like cutting the Navy back so far. I don't like the limited buys the USAF has made. I worry about the numbers of boots on the ground that the Army can deliver. If these were cuts of necessity, I would accept them & hope we get lucky - but these are cuts made so politicians can fully fund the DoE, PBS and pay entitlement programs that always expand.
Chamberlain reasoned from a position of weakness. While you are correct that an extended dose of liberal leadership could weaken this nation, it would not be to the degree that would allow our opponents to gain advantage before they would again be replaced. Clinton is a great example. All he did was weaken our military to the point where it would be hard-pressed for us to kick two nation's asses at the same time, where it was then(and about to be again) a piece of cake.
It would take 20 years of liberal leadership in America for our potential opponents to gain parity with America. That is not going to happen.
Aegis, baby!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.