Cartoon Guide to Federal Spectrum Policy

The New America Foundation has put together a cartoon guide to Federal Spectrum Policy. Quite apart from being a fan of cartoon guides to whatever, I’m a fan of rational technology policy, which the Federal policy towards spectrum allocation isn’t. I don’t know much about the New America Foundation other than what’s on their website, but the analysis of spectrum policy is basically right, if a little, um… cartoonish.

Hat tip: Maria Farrell at Crooked Timber

General Aviation under attack

These guys are trying to stop a series of idiotic lawsuits which threaten to kill general aviation. Their opponents are the usual NIMBY morons who won’t get a link out of me because I refuse to move them up Google’s page ranking. Check out their quotes page for some astonishing statements by the NIMBYs. I’m sympathetic to concerns about noise, but there are ways to deal with it without stomping on other people’s liberties.

Extrapolation

Andrew Sullivan points out that Susan Sontag is vying for one of his Susan Sontag awards:

…the cover story in Sunday’s New York Times Magazine is a Susan Sontag essay. Yes, she’s going to write about Abu Ghraib. And – yes! – the headline is: “The Photographs Are Us.”

Fine, Susan. I’ll consider the possibility that “the photographs are us” when you and other people in the intelligentsia and media will admit that people like this are you.

Audentes Fortuna Juvat

“Fortune Favors The Bold”

That’s apparently the motto of the new Exploration Office, complete with logo.

Hmmm…tell it to the Islamonutballs who attack our forces in Iraq and other places, and get generally slaughtered. Methinks that it’s one of those things that’s a necessary, but not sufficient condition. Smartness is required as well as boldness.

[Hat tip to emailer Ken Talton]

Missing The Point

Don Peterson has a long disquisition at SpaceRef about why we shouldn’t go to Mars via the moon.

The problem with this, of course, is that it presumes that the only goal is to go to Mars. He seems to recognize no intrinsic value in returning to the moon, or in establishing a base there. He’s welcome to his opinion, of course, but that’s not in concert with the president’s goals, and in my opinion, he’s wrong. There are many reasons to go back to the moon, as were laid out by several witnesses to the Aldridge commission a few weeks ago, regardless of its eventual utility in supporting a Mars flight.

Amateur Rocketry and Terrorism

The post Rand links to below brings up some issues that have been floating around in the amateur rocketry community for some time. There are some people within the community who claim that there is no realistic problem, but they are simply wrong. If amateur rocket scientists are to have any relevance to opening the high frontiers they will develop weapons relevant technologies. The simple and obvious reason for this is that rockets are a transportation technology, and as such they can be used to transport harmful payloads just as aircraft, boats, and trucks can.

Continue reading Amateur Rocketry and Terrorism

The Excluded Middle

As anyone who reads Andrew Sullivan knows, John Derbyshire is probably the most (what Andrew (and other gays) call) “homophobic” writer at National Review.

Apparently, in response to a post yesterday about the genetic origins of homosexuality, he got an email from a (vociferously non-conservative) supposed expert in the field, who wrote:

…if it were a genetic disease defense, it would have a certain very simple and identifiable inheritance pattern, and it certainly does not have that pattern. Identical twins would both have it, but the chance that a homosexual man’s identical twin is also homosexual is only about 20%.

I have a theory about the genetic basis of human sexual orientation, that I never hear anyone discuss, but to me makes perfect sense, and fits the facts (including the one quoted above, assuming that it is indeed a fact). I discuss it here, and in comments to this post.

Simply put, some are born homosexual, some (probably more) are born bisexual, and most are born heterosexual. For the first and third groups, their sexuality is indeed thrust upon them. Errrr…so to speak.

If that’s true, then the twin studies might actually provide some insight into the relative genetic component, assuming they’re separated twins. If two separated twins (the cite above doesn’t indicate whether they were separated or not) turn out to both be homosexual, that to me is a good indicator of homosexuality with either a genetic basis, or uterine environmental basis, or both. Of course, the only way to truly determine the genetic basis may be to allow human cloning…

In any event, it seems to me that my theory would dictate that the cases in which one twin is homosexual, and the other not, are cases in which both were born bisexual, and for various post partum environmental reasons, made different choices as to partners. It also explains why some homosexuals can be “cured,” and others can’t. The ones who can be were never homosexual in the first place–they always had a choice and simply decided to start choosing differently.

Long story short, this “expert’s” provision of this “fact” (and I’m pretty sure I’ve seen different numbers) has little relevance to the debate, unless you really do have the simplistic viewpoint that all people are either purely homosexual, or heterosexual, with nothing in between.

Biting Commentary about Infinity…and Beyond!