I actually think that newspapers are more likely to be done in by things like Craig’s List (when they start losing their classified ad revenue) than bloggers, Sam. I’d like to know more about that poll.
Young people may be reading blogs, but it’s not obvious from it that that’s where they’re getting their news. There are a lot of blogs that talk about a lot of subjects, but that’s more of a social activity, I suspect, than information gathering.
Well, at least slower living. Researchers have put mice into suspended animation using hydrogen sulfide. And, the key part of course, brought them back.
Mike Griffin wrote Marshall a blank check yesterday.
As Keith points out, this doesn’t exactly square with his previous (laudable) statements about having more (needed) competition between centers.
[Afternoon update]
Clark Lindsey isn’t very impressed, either:
MSFC is rewarded for all those successful launch vehicle development projects it carried out in the past couple of decades
My thoughts on that subject, at TCS.
Chuck Simmins says that Americans have now raised over a billion dollars in private aid for the tsunami victims.
Damned unilateralists.
Some of my recent reading material has caused me to return to the question (upon which I’ve pondered off and on for decades) of what it means to be human. Along those lines, I have to confess to being a little perplexed by a post at Powerline today, in which Scott Johnson writes:
One of the great projects of the Progressive movement is the abolition of nature as supplying the standard of human conduct — the kind of standard to which the Founders appealed in adverting to “the Laws of Nature” in the Declaration of Independence.
Now, certainly progressives are opposed to the very notion of human nature–no dispute about that–but whence comes the notion that nature per se should “supply the standard of human conduct”? I assume that Mr. Johnson considers himself a conservative, and so I wonder if he’s actually thought through the import of this statement.
If he really believes this, he’s indulging in the naturalistic fallacy. I’m not sure what he has in mind here, but if we were to use nature, even human nature, as a guide to conduct, then rape would be perfectly acceptable, since this is a natural human behavior. As would homosexuality, since there’s nothing particularly unnatural about that, either. It may not be useful in reproduction, but there’s little doubt that there are people born to be attracted exclusively to members of the same sex, and like it or not, such behavior has been observed in other species as well (some very closely related to us).
I wouldn’t claim to be a conservative, but I had thought that conservativism was about operating from higher principles (e.g., divine, or otherwise), and rising above our animal tendencies. I’d like to see a little expansion on this topic from him, because as barely stated, it doesn’t make much sense to me.
…the Senate, as currently composed, seems to attract people who have that potent & fatal combination of dimness and self-regard, and when you elevate those sorts to the Great National Saucer, you get idiocies like the Bolton hearing. On one side, a charmless babbler like Joe Biden, whose instinct upon finding a bad metaphor is to attenuate it until it is three microns wide; on the other side, George Voinovich, who finally showed up for a hearing and pronounced himself Disturbed by the allegations. This is like a guy skipping class on the origins [of] WW2 for a month then raising his hand to ask why they haven
For some reason, I don’t think that these people are taking the new government food pyramid seriously.
Here’s an interesting bit from Will Whitehorn’s (of Virgin Galactic) testimony this morning on the Hill:
Mr. Chairman, let me now turn to the question the Subcommittee asked about what preparations we presently are undertaking for the use of the spaceships we plan to purchase from Mr. Rutan. We are focused on complying fully with the letter and spirit of the Commercial Space Launch Amendments Act of 2004. Scaled Composites will have sole responsibility to certify the spacecraft. However, together, we are engaged in an active dialogue with the Federal Aviation Administration on other aspects of our business.
Emphasis mine.
This does not compute. If he complies with the CSLA, there will be no spacecraft certification–just a launch license. So the question is, was this a deliberate attempt to insert the C-word into the discussion (since Burt has been agitating to do this for some time), or was it simply sloppy usage by someone who doesn’t know better? One would think that company lawyers would vet a submitted Congressional testimony from someone representing a company like this, but it could be that they didn’t realize the significance of it. And in fact, it may have no significance at all, and I’m just being hypersensitive.
Sorry I didn’t notice this earlier, but Clark Lindsey has been live blogging this morning’s commercial space hearing. There seems to be a common (and worthy) theme here–reform ITAR.
[1 PM update]
Keith Cowing has the prepared testimony.