Dale Amon has some thoughts about robots, ethics, and whether Asimov’s three laws are immoral.

Here’s another one to drive the quagmiristas crazy. Allen Dulles’ letter from occupied Germany. As Glenn says, it sounds pretty familiar.

[Afternoon update]

Oh, and by the way, per the comments section, add my name to this list.

Boy, this, if true, sounds almost reminiscent of Andersonville. It sure wasn’t very far away from there.

But Jay Manifold is keeping tabs on them.

Scroll down, too–he’s got lots of other good stuff, spacey and otherwise.

Who needs parodies of WW II reporting? Someone at Jessica’s Well has found the real thing, from a 1946 issue of Life magazine.

[Via the Professor]

Via Mark Whittington, here’s a more detailed description of yesterday’s space policy hearing than Keith Cowing’s truncated summary. It’s not quite as bad as Keith made it sound, but it’s still chock full of conventional “wisdom,” (scare quotes to indicate that I don’t find it particularly wise). I found Mike Griffin’s quote interesting:

“NASA costs each American 14 cents a day. A really robust program could be had for about 20 cents a day,” Griffin said. “Americans spend more on pizza then they do on space.”

Well, Mike, there’s a really big difference between pizza and NASA. When people pay for pizza, they get to eat it, so maybe it’s not shocking that they’re more willing to spend their money on it.

In addition to that point, there’s another fallacy here, and I’m working on a column about fallacies of space advocacy, spurred by the SF writer’s panel at last week’s Space Frontier Conference, which abounded with them.

But, speaking of Mark Whittington, I’ll also note that, in contrast to his absurd caricature of the position of advocates of alternate space programs in the comments section here, I would have had some interesting things to say had I been called to testify, and I think that I may sit down and write up some congressional testimony, should that unlikely event ever occur.

Via Mark Whittington, here’s a more detailed description of yesterday’s space policy hearing than Keith Cowing’s truncated summary. It’s not quite as bad as Keith made it sound, but it’s still chock full of conventional “wisdom,” (scare quotes to indicate that I don’t find it particularly wise). I found Mike Griffin’s quote interesting:

“NASA costs each American 14 cents a day. A really robust program could be had for about 20 cents a day,” Griffin said. “Americans spend more on pizza then they do on space.”

Well, Mike, there’s a really big difference between pizza and NASA. When people pay for pizza, they get to eat it, so maybe it’s not shocking that they’re more willing to spend their money on it.

In addition to that point, there’s another fallacy here, and I’m working on a column about fallacies of space advocacy, spurred by the SF writer’s panel at last week’s Space Frontier Conference, which abounded with them.

But, speaking of Mark Whittington, I’ll also note that, in contrast to his absurd caricature of the position of advocates of alternate space programs in the comments section here, I would have had some interesting things to say had I been called to testify, and I think that I may sit down and write up some congressional testimony, should that unlikely event ever occur.

Via Mark Whittington, here’s a more detailed description of yesterday’s space policy hearing than Keith Cowing’s truncated summary. It’s not quite as bad as Keith made it sound, but it’s still chock full of conventional “wisdom,” (scare quotes to indicate that I don’t find it particularly wise). I found Mike Griffin’s quote interesting:

“NASA costs each American 14 cents a day. A really robust program could be had for about 20 cents a day,” Griffin said. “Americans spend more on pizza then they do on space.”

Well, Mike, there’s a really big difference between pizza and NASA. When people pay for pizza, they get to eat it, so maybe it’s not shocking that they’re more willing to spend their money on it.

In addition to that point, there’s another fallacy here, and I’m working on a column about fallacies of space advocacy, spurred by the SF writer’s panel at last week’s Space Frontier Conference, which abounded with them.

But, speaking of Mark Whittington, I’ll also note that, in contrast to his absurd caricature of the position of advocates of alternate space programs in the comments section here, I would have had some interesting things to say had I been called to testify, and I think that I may sit down and write up some congressional testimony, should that unlikely event ever occur.

I know, I know, the entire blogosphere has been sitting on the edge of its collective chair, wondering what I think about Rush Limbaugh and his…errrmmm…issues.

First, let me say that I don’t want to see him go to jail. But then, unlike him, I don’t want to see anyone go to jail just because they decide to put a non-government-approved chemical or substance into their body, or do so in a non-government-approved manner. I, like others, wonder if this will cause him to rethink his position, or if he’ll use the bogus excuses that others have (e.g., “he was in pain, the drugs weren’t really illegal,” etc.)

Specifically with regard to the “it’s different because he was treating pain” excuse, I’ve never heard any of the current purveyors of that one using it in defense of medical marijuana, even for cancer or AIDS sufferers who can’t otherwise keep food down. And as others have pointed out, few of us lead pain-free lives, and many people self-medicate for it, with both legal (alcohol, tobacco) and non-legal substances. And is the excuse for addiction of “he was in pain” really more compelling than the one of “he started when he was a dumb kid, and got hooked”?

And should he get off, as some argue, regardless of his financial and legal wherewithal because he’s a “first-time offender”?

Well, that argument might have some force if it were true, but as far as I can tell, he’s not a first-time offender. That is, he didn’t do it just once, and got caught.

No, he’s certainly a first-time apprehendee, but by his own admission, he seems to be a long-time, serial, even daily offender, and would be offending still had the case not come to the attention of the National Enquirer.

So, a key question, at least to me, is whether or not he is sorry in any sense other than that he got busted. That is, does he now, did he then, consider what he was doing wrong? If he does (and perhaps even if he doesn’t) he may be relieved that he got caught, because it forced him to get treatment and get the monkey off his back.

And if he does believe that what he was doing is wrong, will he be willing to take his medicine (so to speak) and pay the criminal penalty for it? One suspects not, since he’s already lawyered up, and is likely to be treated much differently than someone with few financial resources, and much less fame.

And if he doesn’t, then he’s saying that the current laws regulating prescription drugs must be wrong (unless he takes a narcissistic viewpoint that it might be wrong for some, but not him).

Some have argued that there’s no hypocrisy here, or that hypocrisy is not the worst thing in the world–that it’s better to at least preach the right thing, even if you’re unwilling to practice it. And I wouldn’t necessarily disagree with that, except that what is sauce for the goose should be at least a slight reduction for the gander. If Rush is unwilling to take his legal punishment for his long-time abuse of the drug laws that he’s mostly stoutly defended for years, he shouldn’t any longer be making the case for locking up a kid with a few ounces of grass.

That’s what I think, anyway. But that’s just me.

[Update on Friday late morning]

Jacob Sullum has some further thoughts.