Lileks comments:
Let us set aside the traffic noise, for a moment. You could never open the drapes. Ever. The giant plate-glass windows look right into the kitchen. Anyone walking past can look right in, so you can
Now I Understand
Aren’t you glad you have smart people like this (note: for those morons thinking that I’m a Republican, this is a Republican) making decisions about your Internet?
I just the other day got, an internet was sent by my staff at 10 o’clock in the morning on Friday and I just got it yesterday. Why?
Because it got tangled up with all these things going on the internet commercially.
So you want to talk about the consumer? Let’s talk about you and me. We use this internet to communicate and we aren’t using it for commercial purposes.
“Unnecessary Risk”
I got an email on my NRO piece this morning from a David Barnhart:
I would like to offer another point of view. Every astronaut death has been avoidable. Yes, people are going to die when pushing the edge of the envelope. Shit happens. But Grissom, Young, and Chaffee died because the system (NASA) built an unreliable dangerous vehicle. You only have to listen to Grissom’s words days earlier complaining about the communications gear to realize that. Challenger astronauts died because the system did not listen to the real concerns of the scientists and engineers. The foam issue was always an accident waiting to happen. Columbia astronauts died because the system ignored the problem too long.
Soldiers die from EIDs but not because the command structure failed them. The soldiers’ commanders are doing everything they can to eliminate unnecessary risk. That is not the case at NASA.
While it can certainly be argued that NASA management was negligent in the cases of Challenger and Columbia (and the astronauts didn’t understand how risky their missions were), that can’t be said in the current situation, in which everyone, including crew, are aware of the risks now, given the openness of the discussion about it. I’ll bet they’re eager to go, regardless.
It’s very easy to talk about eliminating “unnecessary” risks. It’s a lot harder to get agreement on which risks are “necessary” and which are not. The command structure in Iraq is in fact not “eliminating all unnecessary risks” to the troops. Many (e.g., war opponents) would, in fact, argue that their being in Iraq at all is an “unnecessary risk,” because this was a “war of choice.” Every time they are sent out on patrol without adequate armor, they are taking an “unnecessary risk.” Never mind that they might be less effective in the armor, or that it costs money that might be better spent on other items. No, they’re being forced to take “unnecessary risks,” because soldiers’ lives are of infinite value, just like those of astronauts.
Right?
Every single day that we don’t fly the Shuttle represents another expenditure of over ten million dollars devoted to that program, with zero results. As I said in the column, “safe” is a relative word, not an absolute one. Flying Shuttles will never be “safe.” Neither will flying the new planned CLV/CEV. For that matter, neither is driving down the freeway in your car, and I don’t care what kind of car it is. There is no risk-free state except the grave. People are irrational about this, but we must make tradeoffs every day between safety, money and schedule. Rational people who recognize this develop optimum, cost effective, and relatively reliable and safe systems. Those in denial, who think that complete safety somehow can be achieved, if we only spend enough money, and delay launches long enough, give us Space Shuttle programs.
“Unnecessary Risk”
I got an email on my NRO piece this morning from a David Barnhart:
I would like to offer another point of view. Every astronaut death has been avoidable. Yes, people are going to die when pushing the edge of the envelope. Shit happens. But Grissom, Young, and Chaffee died because the system (NASA) built an unreliable dangerous vehicle. You only have to listen to Grissom’s words days earlier complaining about the communications gear to realize that. Challenger astronauts died because the system did not listen to the real concerns of the scientists and engineers. The foam issue was always an accident waiting to happen. Columbia astronauts died because the system ignored the problem too long.
Soldiers die from EIDs but not because the command structure failed them. The soldiers’ commanders are doing everything they can to eliminate unnecessary risk. That is not the case at NASA.
While it can certainly be argued that NASA management was negligent in the cases of Challenger and Columbia (and the astronauts didn’t understand how risky their missions were), that can’t be said in the current situation, in which everyone, including crew, are aware of the risks now, given the openness of the discussion about it. I’ll bet they’re eager to go, regardless.
It’s very easy to talk about eliminating “unnecessary” risks. It’s a lot harder to get agreement on which risks are “necessary” and which are not. The command structure in Iraq is in fact not “eliminating all unnecessary risks” to the troops. Many (e.g., war opponents) would, in fact, argue that their being in Iraq at all is an “unnecessary risk,” because this was a “war of choice.” Every time they are sent out on patrol without adequate armor, they are taking an “unnecessary risk.” Never mind that they might be less effective in the armor, or that it costs money that might be better spent on other items. No, they’re being forced to take “unnecessary risks,” because soldiers’ lives are of infinite value, just like those of astronauts.
Right?
Every single day that we don’t fly the Shuttle represents another expenditure of over ten million dollars devoted to that program, with zero results. As I said in the column, “safe” is a relative word, not an absolute one. Flying Shuttles will never be “safe.” Neither will flying the new planned CLV/CEV. For that matter, neither is driving down the freeway in your car, and I don’t care what kind of car it is. There is no risk-free state except the grave. People are irrational about this, but we must make tradeoffs every day between safety, money and schedule. Rational people who recognize this develop optimum, cost effective, and relatively reliable and safe systems. Those in denial, who think that complete safety somehow can be achieved, if we only spend enough money, and delay launches long enough, give us Space Shuttle programs.
“Unnecessary Risk”
I got an email on my NRO piece this morning from a David Barnhart:
I would like to offer another point of view. Every astronaut death has been avoidable. Yes, people are going to die when pushing the edge of the envelope. Shit happens. But Grissom, Young, and Chaffee died because the system (NASA) built an unreliable dangerous vehicle. You only have to listen to Grissom’s words days earlier complaining about the communications gear to realize that. Challenger astronauts died because the system did not listen to the real concerns of the scientists and engineers. The foam issue was always an accident waiting to happen. Columbia astronauts died because the system ignored the problem too long.
Soldiers die from EIDs but not because the command structure failed them. The soldiers’ commanders are doing everything they can to eliminate unnecessary risk. That is not the case at NASA.
While it can certainly be argued that NASA management was negligent in the cases of Challenger and Columbia (and the astronauts didn’t understand how risky their missions were), that can’t be said in the current situation, in which everyone, including crew, are aware of the risks now, given the openness of the discussion about it. I’ll bet they’re eager to go, regardless.
It’s very easy to talk about eliminating “unnecessary” risks. It’s a lot harder to get agreement on which risks are “necessary” and which are not. The command structure in Iraq is in fact not “eliminating all unnecessary risks” to the troops. Many (e.g., war opponents) would, in fact, argue that their being in Iraq at all is an “unnecessary risk,” because this was a “war of choice.” Every time they are sent out on patrol without adequate armor, they are taking an “unnecessary risk.” Never mind that they might be less effective in the armor, or that it costs money that might be better spent on other items. No, they’re being forced to take “unnecessary risks,” because soldiers’ lives are of infinite value, just like those of astronauts.
Right?
Every single day that we don’t fly the Shuttle represents another expenditure of over ten million dollars devoted to that program, with zero results. As I said in the column, “safe” is a relative word, not an absolute one. Flying Shuttles will never be “safe.” Neither will flying the new planned CLV/CEV. For that matter, neither is driving down the freeway in your car, and I don’t care what kind of car it is. There is no risk-free state except the grave. People are irrational about this, but we must make tradeoffs every day between safety, money and schedule. Rational people who recognize this develop optimum, cost effective, and relatively reliable and safe systems. Those in denial, who think that complete safety somehow can be achieved, if we only spend enough money, and delay launches long enough, give us Space Shuttle programs.
Fool Me Once
…shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
COTS doesn’t seem to be a very high NASA priority.
Sources close to the companies have told Flight International that the NASA budget proposal for fiscal year 2007 has a major reduction for COTS, which could make the project
Email Flood
Some cretin has set up a spam system to send emails to a vast number of people with the return address as *@transterrestrial.com.
While I was up at the cape, I got over two hundred emails to the effect that: so and so is out of the office, such and such a spamfilter blocked this email, etc.
All with return addresses of random names from my domain. I can’t imagine that they’re originating from my machine, since I don’t even use that domain myself for outgoing email.
Question. Other than blocking all incoming email to *@transterrestrial.com other than simberg@transterrestrial.com, what do I do about this, if anything? There’s certainly nothing I can do to prevent a third party from sending out email with a return address with my domain, though if there was, torching their genitals would be too good for them.
A (Little) Good News
Why can’t this happen in Washington?
The Flexibility Of The Word “Bigot”
Isn’t it amazing?
The Times is a good target. People who believe in the “left-wing media” believe that the New York Times is the leftiest of them all. The people who believe in the “mainstream media” believe that the Times is the mainest of them all. Hardly anyone has a good word to say about it, except that it’s the best newspaper in the country. But really, how important is that?
Also, the name of the New York Times contains the word “New York.” Many members of the president’s base consider “New York” to be a nifty code word for “Jewish.” It is very nice for the president to be able to campaign against the Jews without (a) actually saying the word “Jew” and (b) without irritating the Israelis. A number of prominent Zionist groups think the New York Times is insufficiently anti-Palestinian, so they think the New York Times isn’t Jewish enough.
Particularly considering that the latest left epithet of “neocon” seems to often really mean “Zionist Jew.”
The Flexibility Of The Word “Bigot”
Isn’t it amazing?
The Times is a good target. People who believe in the “left-wing media” believe that the New York Times is the leftiest of them all. The people who believe in the “mainstream media” believe that the Times is the mainest of them all. Hardly anyone has a good word to say about it, except that it’s the best newspaper in the country. But really, how important is that?
Also, the name of the New York Times contains the word “New York.” Many members of the president’s base consider “New York” to be a nifty code word for “Jewish.” It is very nice for the president to be able to campaign against the Jews without (a) actually saying the word “Jew” and (b) without irritating the Israelis. A number of prominent Zionist groups think the New York Times is insufficiently anti-Palestinian, so they think the New York Times isn’t Jewish enough.
Particularly considering that the latest left epithet of “neocon” seems to often really mean “Zionist Jew.”