Lots of people are pointing out this story about how great it was in Gitmo for at least some of the Afghan POWs.
Actually, from the way they describe their experience, despite all the whining from Human Rights Watch, it sounds like their situation was better than that of most Cubans. And they got to leave…
I place the blame firmly on the local police department, who should have anticipated, and prepared for, the feelings on the street in the wake of the verdict.
…corrections officials have tried to dispel the myth that white collar prisons are cushy.
“The sheets are 130 thread count un-ironed cotton, and the lack of windows results in almost no natural light whatsoever,” said Donna Buhmper a guard at Camp Elgin in Walton Beach, Florida. “For Ms. Stewart, this could be the closest thing to hell she ever sees- until she dies, of course, and goes there for real.”
Protein Wisdom is back after all these years, with (like your humble blog here) a new URL. Something must be going around.
Today, Mr. (Dr.?) Goldstein seems to be indulging in a little schadenfreude over Mr. Rall’s well-deserved travails.
So, we all got into our skycars last night and blasted over to the Encounter Restaurant at LAX, Jetsons style, to meet and imbibe alcohol and comestibles with the inimitable Jane Galt and estimable companion (whose name, forgive me, has escaped my feeble mind) during their several-hour layover from Mexico back to the drudgery of her job (which she claims to love) in New York.
As can be seen below, I had a camera with me, but decided to not be obnoxious and take pics of everyone there. I’ve got a rare and (in my humble opinion, difficult to create) unflattering photo of Jane, that I won’t post (I’m saving it for extortion purposes, after the point at which she becomes not only famous, but rich).
I sat across the table from the charming and lovely Asparagirl. I captured a picture of her embracing an Evil Democrat (TM). I’ve no desire to blackmail her (it would be pointless–she just started a job with Mouseland–Eisner, even in his present semi-submissive state, isn’t going to make her rich any time soon).
I’m going to post the picture, as a punishment and perpetual reminder, sort of like the Scarlet Letter, to modify her future behavior, and make an example of her for any others who may desire to stray from the true path of non-Democratism (which, I hasten to add, is not the same as being a Republican).
It’s probably a fruitless endeavor, though. Given that it’s her husband (who’s surprisingly charming himself), I suspect that she’ll remain incorrigible, and persist in such shameless activities.
The two newlyweds apparently have a new joint blog, called the Protocols of the Yuppies of Zion. I guess I’m behind the times, because I see that all the cool blogs have already blogrolled it.
Others in attendance that I can recall (forgive me again, do I have to remind you that there was alcohol involved?) were Pejman, who has his own report, the lovely Emily Jones (the blogger formerly known as Hawkgirl), and several others who may remind me if they see this.
A good time was had by all. If anyone didn’t have a good time, they didn’t deserve to. That’s my story, and I’m sticking with it.
[Update on Sunday night]
In looking at the pic, I realize that I didn’t realize how spiffed up for the occasion the happy couple were. They’re not just dressed for the twenty-first century, with George and Elroy Jetson. As anyone can see, Scott actually garbed himself for the twenty-fourth. He looks ready to step onto the bridge of whatever version of the Enterprise is extant at the time.
“Scotty, the airplanes continue to come in. Can you hold the restaurant steady?”
“I canna’ hold her, Captain. I need more power.”
And won’t Brooke make a positively fetching ensign? And not just one of those unnamed expendable ones that goes off on an away team…
I haven’t found anything on line about it yet, but I heard on the television today that in analyzing the Yucatan crater, they’ve determined that the impact occurred hundreds of thousands of years before the dino extinction, so the original Alverez theory may not be true.
On the other hand, much closer to home, both in distance and time, a paper presented at last week’s planetary defense conference speculates that a comet may have caused the Chicago Fire.
Well, that would let Mrs. O’Leary’s cow off the hook. Bossy may be exonerated after all these decades.
Either way, it would still be prudent to keep looking for them and to quickly develop the technological capability needed to deal with any that appear to have our number.
From the Risks forum, a submission on sun outages in satellite TV systems. When the receiving antenna, the satellite, and the sun all line up, the satellite signal is swamped by the sun. It’s obvious that this would be a problem once you think about it, but this is the first time I’ve seen consumer level consequences from it. You’d think that cable systems would make a big deal out of this (up to 8 minute outages twice a year), since obviously cable doesn’t have the same issues. As Rand has pointed out many times here and elsewhere, the key to reduced launch costs is markets. Right now satellite TV is doing quite well in competition with cable, but this is a definite competitive disadvantage, which is bad news. The good news is that it’s also a money making opportunity for whoever can figure out how to fix it.
Other items (also here) in the same digest talk about electronic voting machines. We’re entering what is certain to be a nasty campaign, and if things proceed on their current course the results of the election will be tainted by serious problems with electronic voting systems. The last thing America needs in the current global climate is still further internal polarization. Fortunately some smart and dedicated people are working to mitigate the problems, and you can help.
I used to be fairly close to Keith Henson (who is, among other things, co-founder of the L-5 Society), back in the late seventies and early eighties, but I haven’t heard from him since he took refuge in Canada, a few years ago, from an adverse court judgement in his little war with the Scientologists. So I found this interview with him [via Clark Lindsey] quite interesting. You may as well.
Clark Lindsey points out that the SpaceX Falcon is making steady progress toward first flight. Among all the other milestones noted, I found this one little bit extremely significant:
Regulators gave them “approval to fly the rocket with only thrust cutoff, rather than explosive termination.”… “[This] improves hazardous procedures in transportation, on the launch pad and particularly on recovery of the first stage.” This [was] allowed “due to the all liquid fuel configuration and six-fold valve redundancy.”
As far as I’m aware, the only previous launch system that received permission to fly without range-safety destruct was the SET-1 launch by the American Rocket Company in 1989. The general philosophy has always been that range safety must be able to not only terminate thrust, but destroy the vehicle, should it go out of control. Rockets have always had such range safety devices, and are unique among all other transportation systems in that regard. No ship, train or plane has had devices on board every trip whose sole purpose is to destroy the vehicle.
If SpaceX has gotten permission to launch without it, with only thrust termination, this may be a first for a liquid-fueled rocket (the American Rocket vehicle was a hybrid, with solid fuel and LOX). The big advantage, as it points out, is that there are now no pyrotechnic (explosive) devices on the vehicle, at least not for that purpose, which eliminates some of the steps in launch processing, and post-launch safing, and reduces one of the hazards associated with ground handling (not to mention greatly enhancing the probability of getting the first stage back, even in the event of a mission failure).
Getting such permission is obviously much more important for a reusable vehicle, which the Falcon first stage is advertised to be. They don’t want to have to destroy the vehicle just because it isn’t following the prescribed trajectory, if they continue to have control over it, because they want to get it back.
This is a key breakthrough in reducing launch costs. Let’s hope that it presages the future.
Clark Lindsey points out that the SpaceX Falcon is making steady progress toward first flight. Among all the other milestones noted, I found this one little bit extremely significant:
Regulators gave them “approval to fly the rocket with only thrust cutoff, rather than explosive termination.”… “[This] improves hazardous procedures in transportation, on the launch pad and particularly on recovery of the first stage.” This [was] allowed “due to the all liquid fuel configuration and six-fold valve redundancy.”
As far as I’m aware, the only previous launch system that received permission to fly without range-safety destruct was the SET-1 launch by the American Rocket Company in 1989. The general philosophy has always been that range safety must be able to not only terminate thrust, but destroy the vehicle, should it go out of control. Rockets have always had such range safety devices, and are unique among all other transportation systems in that regard. No ship, train or plane has had devices on board every trip whose sole purpose is to destroy the vehicle.
If SpaceX has gotten permission to launch without it, with only thrust termination, this may be a first for a liquid-fueled rocket (the American Rocket vehicle was a hybrid, with solid fuel and LOX). The big advantage, as it points out, is that there are now no pyrotechnic (explosive) devices on the vehicle, at least not for that purpose, which eliminates some of the steps in launch processing, and post-launch safing, and reduces one of the hazards associated with ground handling (not to mention greatly enhancing the probability of getting the first stage back, even in the event of a mission failure).
Getting such permission is obviously much more important for a reusable vehicle, which the Falcon first stage is advertised to be. They don’t want to have to destroy the vehicle just because it isn’t following the prescribed trajectory, if they continue to have control over it, because they want to get it back.
This is a key breakthrough in reducing launch costs. Let’s hope that it presages the future.
Clark Lindsey points out that the SpaceX Falcon is making steady progress toward first flight. Among all the other milestones noted, I found this one little bit extremely significant:
Regulators gave them “approval to fly the rocket with only thrust cutoff, rather than explosive termination.”… “[This] improves hazardous procedures in transportation, on the launch pad and particularly on recovery of the first stage.” This [was] allowed “due to the all liquid fuel configuration and six-fold valve redundancy.”
As far as I’m aware, the only previous launch system that received permission to fly without range-safety destruct was the SET-1 launch by the American Rocket Company in 1989. The general philosophy has always been that range safety must be able to not only terminate thrust, but destroy the vehicle, should it go out of control. Rockets have always had such range safety devices, and are unique among all other transportation systems in that regard. No ship, train or plane has had devices on board every trip whose sole purpose is to destroy the vehicle.
If SpaceX has gotten permission to launch without it, with only thrust termination, this may be a first for a liquid-fueled rocket (the American Rocket vehicle was a hybrid, with solid fuel and LOX). The big advantage, as it points out, is that there are now no pyrotechnic (explosive) devices on the vehicle, at least not for that purpose, which eliminates some of the steps in launch processing, and post-launch safing, and reduces one of the hazards associated with ground handling (not to mention greatly enhancing the probability of getting the first stage back, even in the event of a mission failure).
Getting such permission is obviously much more important for a reusable vehicle, which the Falcon first stage is advertised to be. They don’t want to have to destroy the vehicle just because it isn’t following the prescribed trajectory, if they continue to have control over it, because they want to get it back.
This is a key breakthrough in reducing launch costs. Let’s hope that it presages the future.