Some cheery thoughts from Dick Morris.
Geez Louise, we had an awful choice in November.
Not Just A Theory
Here’s a useful web site for those people who claim that evolution is “only a theory,” an argument that’s so ignorant that it’s not even wrong.
Freedom Politics
A new web site. Can’t have too many web sites on this topic.
New Link Category
I’ve created a category called “Inadvertent Comic Relief.” It will contain links to sites that are serious, but hilariously and relentlessly stupid. The honor of the first link goes to perennial anti-military-space loon Bruce Gagnon. As an example, here he expresses his frustration that the Obama administration is going to do nothing to prevent those evil Anglospherians from colonizing the moon and terrorizing the moon people:
In Obama’s opening words he talked about the early vision of our “founding fathers”. He intends to remain loyal to the rich white men who dreamed of their own empire — one that would challenge England’s global power. An empire that would push the Native Americans from their land, ravage the Earth for its natural resources, and move overseas to terrorize and colonize people in Hawaii, the Philippines, Guam, Latin America, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, and ultimately the moon in the sky.
End the madness.
[Update a few minutes later]
I’ve also added another of my favorite whacko conspiracy mongers — Elaine Supkis (who also happens to be L-5 Society founder Carolyn Meinel’s sister).
Ten Movie Cliches
..that should die. As they note in comments, he left out the Evil Corporation, and tired trope that businessmen are heartless monsters. I’ve written about the latter in the past.
Of course, if you got rid of all these cliches, Hollywood would pretty much be out of business.
And Heeeeeerrrre’s Barack
Is it just me, or did the announcer for the inauguration today sound more like Ed McMahon or a WWF announcer than a sober and somber master of ceremonies? The tone seemed quite inappropriate to the occasion, to my ear.
The Economy Is Not A Machine (Part Two)
I had a post on this subject the other day, but Brian Micklethwait (boy, is that an English name or what?) is more pithy:
In the mind of the anti-free-marketeer, the government occupies the same kind of intellectual territory as the divine designer in the mind of an anti-Darwinian.
Just so.
“Certifying” Space Shuttles
A minor row seems to have broken out in comments at this post, at which an obviously frustrated “Habitat Hermit” thinks he’s living in the twilight zone. It’s an important enough point that it’s worth breaking it out in a separate post. I first responded to his comments on certification thusly:
Certification is very well defined for aviation. You can go look up in a book what is required, per FAA procedures. Such a book has never been written for the Shuttle, and it’s not a simple matter of transferring the procedures from aviation, because Shuttle has many systems that don’t even exist in an aircraft, with no experience of how long they can really safely go without refurbishment or replacement (one of the reasons that it would be extremely premature to put a certification process on the space transport industry). It is not an aircraft, except for a brief period of its mission, and it remains an experimental system.
Estimates of what “recertification” would cost for Shuttle are based on the costs of doing a full OMDP for whichever of the orbiters (Discovery I think) is due for one, and perhaps a lesser one for Endeavor (which is a newer vehicle, and again, where that term isn’t well defined, though I suppose that it could be sort of equivalent to a D check). But no one has ever discussed “certification” of Shuttles, as far as I know, prior to the CAIB, and the CAIB had no special insight into what would be involved in it, other than what they gathered by talking to NASA personnel, who probably had given it little thought. The fact remains that the 2010 date was driven by need to complete ISS, and had nothing to do with when the Shuttles were “due” for “recertification.”
To which he responded:
Your reply amazes me. I do realize that I’m beating a dead horse but I (and everybody else) should continue doing that as long as people try to operate space transportation systems upon the carcass.
The Shuttle components were manufactured to specifications.
Those specifications were whatever NASA deemed sufficient.
Certification obviously means ensuring that the Shuttle components still meet those specifications and requirements (including any later changes) for every part of every Shuttle.
This is not being done in full according to every source I have. No one has come forward with sourced information to the contrary.
This issue is dead simple yet the replies are a buffet of avoiding the topic and arguments made, obfuscation, nonsense, repeating or introducing small pieces of information I would hope would be obvious to most interested bystanders with some knowledge (including me) and in general adding absolutely nothing at all.
In other words you are obviously and most likely consciously arguing against common good practice and minimum standards.
My reply:
Certification obviously means ensuring that the Shuttle components still meet those specifications and requirements (including any later changes) for every part of every Shuttle.
No, that is not what “certification” means (at least for aviation), “obviously” or otherwise. No matter how much you want it to mean that, it doesn’t. The word for that is “verification.” There is no established procedure to certify a Shuttle Orbiter, regardless of how upset that reality makes you. And absent such a defined procedure, the Shuttle cannot be either certified, or recertified.
In other words you are obviously and most likely consciously arguing against common good practice and minimum standards.
No one is arguing, or has argued against that. But that’s not certification, either. Words really do mean things.
The reason that we insist on not misusing the word “certification” is because of the potentially dire implications it would have for the fledgling space transport industry should the FAA take it into its head that spacecraft require it. It would likely strangle it in the cradle.
[Late afternoon update]
I have received an excerpt of a document from a very reliable source at NASA that may shed some light on this subject. Alternatively, it could simply further confuse. Continue reading “Certifying” Space Shuttles
Think Horn, Not Meat
Eric Drexler points out that people misunderstand the implications of protein engineering. Somehow, it reminds me of the Monty Python self defense class where they learn how to handle people attacking them with fruit. Proper protein engineering will generate pointy sticks as well as steaks.
Only 1461 Days To Go
…until the end of the Obama presidency. Maybe the time will fly while we’re having fun.