Even if it was more expensive--which it isn't, actually about a third the price on F9/Dragon--shipping the money to Russian doesn't exactly employ the same number of Americans. Bleeding money is rarely a good thing compared to recirculating it within. In many cases the internal investment often comes with a multiplier effect. e.g. $1 generates $2 more.

While I can't disagree with your statement. As it relates to TFA I don't think Obama has really shown terribly much favoritism for the commercial programs. These programs seem to be championed by NASA and the general public more than the White House, or in particular the Congress. COTS and CCP are in some ways a vegan alternative to the traditional bacon served.

I suspect the later was a response to the former.

That was Bolden's jab in response. I personally feel it was well placed.

The Delta IV can't afford lose an engine either. The Falcon 9 is designed via their 9 pack to suffer multiple engine out and still complete mission objectives. Same reason most aeronautic systems have at least double redundancy. In the case of SpaceX, they went one better with triple redundancy in the flight control systems. ULA and Arianespace are developing new vehicles largely in response to SpaceX. You know, that terrible communist idea of market competition.

It doesn't help that the US--CIA, et. al.--has been in large part responsible for the destabilization of many parts of the world in their attempts to bend the world to suit their agenda. What we have today and the need for containment, is in very large part a consequence of all the proxy wars and government overthrows that have been instigated by the US.

SpaceX has been doing fine keeping pace with their milestones. NASA wasn't wanting to put all their eggs in one (CCP) basket. Boeing and SpaceX capsules aren't flying yet, and you don't know what you don't know. Better to have a rainy day contingency. That was a thin excuse to redirect the spigot to the good old boys. I wouldn't doubt in part payback for SpaceX stepping on toes with the Air Force launch contracts. In part because Bolden slapped Cruz around a bit and poked him in the eye with COTS recently.

At the moment they're kinda killing that reputation. Rampant corruption seems to be leading to terrible quality control. All it will take is the inevitable manned mission to go horribly wrong to redirect the spigot back where it belongs.

Setting other injustice aside. In many cases of cooperative spying, US tech companies had no means by which to refuse. They were legally compelled to comply. They were legally compelled to shut up. While it would have been an amazing act of courage, and rebellion, Apple, Google, etc. surely were not going to burn their businesses to the ground just to poke the spooks in the eye. Only a handful willingly volunteered to snoop such as Verizon, AT&T (if memory serves).

In many cases such as Cisco, and Juniper, the NSA and co were intercepting shipments of hardware to customers and modifying them. Google was victim of NSA man-in-the-middle attacks.

The power brokers in the military industrial complex need the slap down.

This kind of sounds like FIFA and the FBI. If it wasn't for the FBI sniffing around and uncovering poorly covered secrets FIFA wouldn't look so shameful. If it wasn't for the FBI FIFA wouldn't now be poised to go bankrupt from lawsuits. What's wrong with the status quo people? Come on people. Seriously...

I wonder if the masters giveth or threatened to taketh?

I'm not so much concerned with Media Center as I am with the underpinnings. What games are they playing with Media Foundation and DirectShow?

It might seem easy. It might seem to make sense. But no matter what the thing is, guns, drugs, food, etc. you will never succeed in tackling a problem by dealing with the supply of something. Given sufficient demand, there will always be a supply or a near-equivalent alternative. History refuses to tell the story differently. Supply side restrictions always fail.

The problem itself must be tackled, not the tools, not the side-effects. You have to address demand. If someone wants to cause harm, they will, by whatever means are available to them be it a gun, a kitchen knife, or a number 2 pencil. Desperate people perform desperate deeds. Malfunctioning minds conceive malformed intentions. Start here first, not last, if ever.

It's as stupid as algorithm export bans. Supply of anything is rarely hampered for long provided sufficient demand. However, given a vacuum of good ideas invented by a certain political party, that party will happily supply bad ones. Should the other side manage to come up with something better, of course they'll make sure they encounter roadblocks.

Spoken another way. Conservatives seem to like to keep with the tradition of attacking supply. Liberals try to attack the demand. Since the latter came from the liberals it of course is socialism and therefore evil. It's unclear how successful tackling demand would be, but hitting supply is good for the MIC and prison industry even if it has a clear historical demonstration of failing to solve the original problem.

I believe the death penalty is automatically appealed. The defendant doesn't get a say.