Robert Zimmerman (no, not that one, the one who’s written a book or two about space) suggests, of all things, that perhaps the government should look to the private sector for space transportation. Imagine that!
I wonder if anyone in Washington is listening?
[via Mark Whittington]
Can anyone imagine this happening with a French warship?
It makes me feel a little better about driving a BMW.
Can anyone imagine this happening with a French warship?
It makes me feel a little better about driving a BMW.
Can anyone imagine this happening with a French warship?
It makes me feel a little better about driving a BMW.
Or worse.
Dave Kopel says that Silveira may end up being a judicial disaster for the Second-Amendment cause.
Now the New York Times has a story (registration required).
Arnold Kling points out a very real danger for the Democrats next year (and one that they seem obtusely unable to recognize)–becoming, or at least being perceived as, the UN party, as opposed to the US party.
The single question that I think will determine my vote in the 2004 Presidential election might be phrased as follows:
Do you believe that the rifts within the United Nations indicate moral obtuseness on the part of (a) the United States or (b) other members of the UN?
I would answer emphatically with (b). I fervently believe that it is the United States that holds the moral high ground. We absolutely must not treat the UN as if it holds the moral trump cards.
My sense is that the activist wing of the Democratic Party passionately believes the opposite. If the Democratic nominee reflects the views of the activists, then as far as I am concerned, it’s game over. I cannot vote for anyone who sees the UN as morally superior. If you take the pro-UN position, then you can just sit down and relax — you do not need to answer any of my other questions.
I agree wholeheartedly.
I used to have a tee shirt, that had a picture of a garden mole and exterminator. The caption was “Mole problems? Call Avogadro 6.022 x 10^23.”
It’s a chemistry joke.
[rim shot]
OK, it’s geeky. Avogadro’s number is the number of atoms in a mole, which allows us to convert the unit of mass to number of atoms, and vice versa, by converting the atomic number to grams. Carbon 12 (the most common carbon isotope) is the reference–a mole of carbon 12 atoms will, in theory, mass exactly twelve grams. Similarly, a mole of hydrogen atoms will mass one gram.
Obviously, for this to work, we have to know pretty accurately just how many atoms there are in a mole. In fact, if we knew it accurately, and precisely enough, we could use it as an atomic basis for mass (just as the meter was defined in terms of wavelengths of a specific chemical laser, and more recently as the distance light goes in a certain time interval measured by a cesium clock). The current (crude) standard for mass is a lump of metal, a kilogram by definition, kept in a bell jar in Paris.
Recent research indicates that the traditional number, first identified by Avogadro, may be a little off. If they can refine the number sufficiently, it can be established as the basis for mass, and we can free ourselves of one of the few areas in which we’re dependent on the duplicitous French…
Vegetarian wackos fight a losing battle with hypermutated grass. War correspondent Tim Blair has the scoop.
Howie Kurtz says that General Clark’s honeymoon with the press is over, after a single day.