Slashdot Mirror

Quit tuning into Fox news. It rots your brain.

Read between the lines.
Official? Not yet.

BUT, NASA is pushing for multiple human launch vehicles IN SPITE of you neo-cons. In addition, they are pushing Bigelow Aerospace. They want and NEED BA to put up multiple space stations around earth and go the moon, so as to lower the price of launch. As launch prices go down, then NASA is able to accomplish more. So, what does NASA need to have a base on the moon? They do NOT need a single expensive heavy lifter. THat will make it impossible to go to the moon.
OTOH, if NASA can get MULTIPLE human launchers and MULTIPLE cargo launchers, and MULTIPLE pluggable tugs of different types, then we can run humans and cargo to the moon, and elsewhere. 3 years ago, they passed out multiple contracts to study various tugs/fuel depots. 3 were for chemical tugs and another 3 were for SEPs.

Now, NASA's real problem, is that you neo-cons continue to hit their budget and try to stop them from going ANYWHERE BEO. So, now, NASA wants this equipment produced in private space, so that prices come down, AND NASA no longer has to deal with the HOUSE republicans denying them funding to accomplish things.

Obama is not the problem. You neo-cons are.

What, you don't believe in Mitt's tan? Next you'll be telling me that airplane windows don't roll down!

Forgot where I got the 1 pound figure, but here's a pretty authoritative source:

http://www.dailylivestockreport.com/documents/dlr%2012-20-2011.pdf

That one says about 3.5 pounds a week. Which is a lot less than what I said, but still a lot. A healthy diet is slightly less than 2 pounds a week.

And it use to be a lot higher. Perhaps I was looking at some old stats. I think we can agree that cost is driving down consumption

And a $150 a month just on meat? Sounds about right, if you remember that it's an average. Some folks eat no meat at all. Some eat more.

TFS should have read the "Las Vegas Sun" - the other daily paper in Vegas, and one with a decidedly more leftward tilt than the strongly conservative Review-Journal, whose proxy Righthaven is. The Greenspun Media Group, which owns the Sun, also owns the "Las Vegas Weekly", one of two major alternative weeklies in Vegas (the other is Las Vegas Citylife, a Stephens Media paper, for which, in the interests of full disclosure, I wrote a cover story in 2008.)

I hope you washed the money they paid you...a little research suggests that it was probably a lot slimy.

Uh, that's certainly VERY "little research". Essentially, it's an opinion piece that includes two quotes - one from a Stephens Media rep who expresses hope that the lawsuits in question will result in more linkbacks to LVRJ articles online (and, by implication, fewer cops of LVRJ content), and the other from the slimebag that runs Righthaven. Now, since Stephens Media does NOT own Righthaven, I fail entirely to see how this "suggests" in any way, shape, or form that Stephens Media is "probably a lot slimy."

Which brings up the question of why you believe that a freelance writer (i.e. - me) selling a story to a weekly magazine whose editorial management is (as is the case with EVERY ethical news operation) completely divorced and firewalled from the business management side of the operation is in any way unethical, immoral, or "slimy".

My hunch is that you're just a dimwiit who didn't bother to read MY article, who is profoundly unfamiliar with the principle of editorial independence in professional journalism, and who has such a pathetically weak little ego that you have to reach around the block for a pretext to feel morally superior to strangers, based on nothing but someone else's hot air.

Having said that, I want to make clear that I have zero sympathy with Righthaven's handwaving, and I consider Stephens Media to have made a major error in judgement in allowing itself to be linked with those scumbags. Yes, it's getting harder and harder for newspapers to turn a profit as online news aggregators increasingly steal their readers. That's tough (and it's particularly tough on those of us who write for a living, since the very newspapers and magazines that the aggregators are parasitizing are the source of much of our income), but it still doesn't make it a good idea for them to associate themselves with legal bullying. However, I doubt that it will cost them many additional readers, because most people just don't give a damn about copyright trolling.

Anyway, the courts have shown little sympathy with Righthaven's conduct. Copyright trolling has turned out not to be the license to print money that Righthaven expected it to be, and I fully expect it to fold its tent and slink silently back into the slime from which it oozed, RSN.

TFS should have read the "Las Vegas Sun" - the other daily paper in Vegas, and one with a decidedly more leftward tilt than the strongly conservative Review-Journal, whose proxy Righthaven is. The Greenspun Media Group, which owns the Sun, also owns the "Las Vegas Weekly", one of two major alternative weeklies in Vegas (the other is Las Vegas Citylife, a Stephens Media paper, for which, in the interests of full disclosure, I wrote a cover story in 2008.)

I hope you washed the money they paid you...a little research suggests that it was probably a lot slimy.

Is that anything like "The Google?"

TFS should have read the "Las Vegas Sun" - the other daily paper in Vegas, and one with a decidedly more leftward tilt than the strongly conservative Review-Journal, whose proxy Righthaven is. The Greenspun Media Group, which owns the Sun, also owns the "Las Vegas Weekly", one of two major alternative weeklies in Vegas (the other is Las Vegas Citylife, a Stephens Media paper, for which, in the interests of full disclosure, I wrote a cover story in 2008.)

The Whitehouse wouldn't have anything against Nevada would it?