Launch Date Announced for Shuttle Mission STS-117
chuckpeters writes "After a two day Flight Readiness Review in Florida, space shuttle managers have announced an official launch date for STS-117 to be June 8, 7:38 PM. The launch window will run in two parts — from June 8th to the evening of June 12th when the shuttle must stand down for a June 14th Atlas launch. After that the windows opens again on the 17th. This first opening gives the standard four attempts in five days. If they have not launched by the 12th, they will replenish things such as liquid oxygen and hydrogen for the fuel cells to prepare for the 17th attempt."
This has very little to do with the article, but the L.A. Times recently published an article regarding the Toronto Sex Crimes Unit that focused on their fight against child pornography ("Sifting Clues to an Unsmiling Girl"). They are the law enforcement organization that photoshopped the victims out of child porn photos in order to get the public's assistance in identifying the backgrounds (it worked). In any case, the article had this amazing claim:
Wow. All but one in four years. Seemed rather unlikely to me.
So, I called the Child Exploitation Section of the Toronto Sex Crimes Unit and spoke to Det. Ian Lamond, who was familiar with the Times article. He claims they were misquoted, or if that figure was given it was done so jokingly. Of course, even if the figure was given jokingly, shouldn't the Times reporter have clarified something that seems rather odd? Shouldn't her editors have questioned her sources?
Nevertheless, Det. Lamond does confirm that a majority of those arrested show "at least a passing interest in Star Trek, if not a strong interest." They've arrested well over one hundred people over the past four years and they can gauge this interest in Star Trek by the arrestees' "paraphenalia, books, videotapes and DVDs."
I asked Det. Lamond if this wasn't simply a general interest in science fiction and fantasy, such as Star Wars or Harry Potter or similar. Paraphrasing his answer, he said, while there was sometimes other science fiction and fantasy paraphenalia, Star Trek was the most consistent and when he referred to a majority of the arrestees being Star Trek fans, it was Star Trek-specific.
Why should we assume that Griffin is "antiglobal warming," as Hansen so eloquently put it? That is, why assume that Griffin's comments are just insincere justification for toeing the Bush party line? I think his comments are a very reasonable position for an informed person to take.
Can you answer his rhetorical questions: is today's climate really the best possible one, and is human action making it worse? All we know it's making it different. Is letting nature take its course, as free as possible from human intervention, the "right thing to do?" Is anthropogenic climate change automatically bad just because it's anthropogenic? What if it has positive consequences for some?
I'm not advocating a position on this: I'm just saying that Griffin's comments should be evaluated on their own merits rather than being lumped into "pro" or "anti" categories and accepted/rejected on that basis. The guy has a point; don't dismiss him just because his argument leads to a conclusion that you don't agree with.