Some researchers are theorizing that the Neanderthals were wiped out by free trade. As John Miller points out:
What does this tell us about anti-globalization protestors?
Clueless At GWU
I wish I could get a sweet gig like this. I could have given NASA much better advice than this study, for a lot less than three hundred thousand:
The study by George Washington University researchers urged the National Aeronautics and Space Administration to cut down on shuttle flights by limiting construction on the space station and to reinvest extra funds in developing a new manned vehicle. NASA could use shuttles as remote-controlled cargo ships to finish the station, the report said.
No matter how many times people make that recommendation, it remains fundamentally wrong, and displays an ignorance of economics, and the purpose of the Shuttle. There’s no point in flying it at all if you’re going to fly it without crew, and no way to justify the expense of maintaining the infrastructure for it. The astronauts, who are paid and willing to risk their lives, are the least valuable element of the system, and NASA has an oversupply of them. NASA only has three orbiters left, and if it loses one more, it will almost be out of the Shuttle business anyway, regardless of whether or not more astronauts are lost.
But I can’t get my head around this bizarre notion that some seem to have that sending people into space is supposed to be risk free. What is it about that environment, unlike the sea, coal mines, construction, or any other activity in which people die all the time, that make some people check their brains at the door?
NASA at least had an appropriately diplomatic response:
Erica Hupp, a spokeswoman for NASA, said the organization “appreciates all the work that George Washington University put into its study. We are working toward the same goal to make human space flight more reliable and less hazardous.”
Translation: thanks for the clueless advice, but no thanks. What a waste of money.
[Update on Saturday morning]
Keith Cowing isn’t very impressed, either.
“World To End”
“Women, Minorities Hardest Hit.”
That’s the old joke about how the New York Times would headline a story about the apocalypse.
Well, in the case of the tsunami, life imitates satire.
“World To End”
“Women, Minorities Hardest Hit.”
That’s the old joke about how the New York Times would headline a story about the apocalypse.
Well, in the case of the tsunami, life imitates satire.
“World To End”
“Women, Minorities Hardest Hit.”
That’s the old joke about how the New York Times would headline a story about the apocalypse.
Well, in the case of the tsunami, life imitates satire.
Animal Or Vegetable?
Rob Bailey has some similar thoughts to mine about the Schiavo case, over at Reason.
Overhype
It’s looking like the recent blow against the terrorist camp in Iraq wasn’t as big as originally reported.
The Rest Of The Story
In the wake of the Oscar hype, Sallie Baliunas has a tribute to Howard Hughes, relating some of his lesser-known, but very important accomplishments.
Hilarity
Amidst pathetic whines about plagiarism, Iowahawk has released some previously unseen redneck haiku.
What’s The Rush?
While a little skeptical of the merits of the case, I find it a little surprising that none of the judicial rulings have erred on the side of keeping Mrs. Schiavo alive until all can be resolved with some degree of certainty. After all, there’s no harm in doing so.
Those who want to kill her (and no matter what kind of gloss they wish to put on it, that’s exactly what they’re doing) shouldn’t be in such a hurry–after all, there’s plenty of time to pull the tube later if the de novo investigation comes to the same conclusion. Why are they determined to act with such alacrity, almost desperate to end her life? Some might argue that if it’s her wish to do so, it’s an injustice to her to continue to delay it. But those who argue that also claim that she has no awareness, so why should she care–she’ll never know?
The only rationale that I can think of is that they want to create a fait accompli, because once she’s dead (assuming that no cryonic suspension has been arranged), she’s not coming back. There’s no patient to examine, and the entire issue becomes moot. What are they so frightened of in a potential review that they want so quickly to destroy any of the evidence, put a stake through the heart of the case?