Um, in the history of space exploration, has an astronaut ever been "lost" during EVA?
Oh yeah, I forgot, 2001, A Space Odyssey. My bad.
Of course I know the risks. I'm not an idiot. I'm not saying that NASA has to go out and do it, and screw the risks. I'm saying that they need to consider that it's important to prove the repair concept at some point, before they NEED it. If it's too risky, then it's too risky - but you know, they've been thinking about this stuff since Columbia - or probably before. Someone's got to be thinking about how to remove risk from these kinds of EVAs.
How much risk was there throughout the entirety of the Gemini program?
The whole program's purpose was to learn how to perform EVA activities, and rendevous in space. Many risky launches and maneuvers, and in at least one case, a vehicle got out of control.
Yet, they did it, and learned what they needed to know in order to proceed to Apollo, and the moon.
And here we are, flying the shuttle half-assed. With only SOME of the skills and technology necessary to actually fly the thing, only on a good day, when everything goes well. The risk of the EVA and repair attempt on this ship, is probably less than the risk of the EVA and repair attempt on the next damaged ship - if the next damaged ship is *really* damaged, and we don't have the bugs worked out of our repair skills yet.
Maybe the conclusion is - we need to abandon the "fragile heat-tile" design, as soon as is possible. But if that is not the case, then it is obvious that this technology can not be fielded without some method of practical on-orbit repair. We're either spacefaring, or we're burning money for no reason.
I thought that it would be good to have the foam on the tank shed right at launch - maybe attached to the ground by cables.
that way, the foam (and ice) never gets to a high velocity, and there's an immediate weight savings.
SpaceX does this with A thermal blanket that sheds on liftoff. (unfortunately, the thing did get hung-up on the ill-fated first launch. Mr. Musk assures us that it had nothing to do with the crash, however).
The Vandenberg capability was based on Thiokol being able to deliver a more powerful SRB. They failed. That's why they built a launch facility, hell, even a VAB, and a widened road to haul the shuttle from the airstrip to the VAB, and they built an SRB reprocessing facility, including a new pier for the recovery ship.
Vandenberg was ramped up to process Shuttle flights - they previously didn't even have ANY manned spaceflight capability at all. They built all that out. And Thiokol blew it.
They wanted to be able to launch NRO payloads, and with the Keyhole platform, that meant the larger cargo bay, and "high-inclination" orbits, (ie. Vandenberg. . . ie "cross-range capability"). Well, Thiokol never delivered on the SRB's that would have given the cross-range capability, so that was the first thing to get shitcanned. So the Air Force was already screwed there, and for much of the 1980's could not launch NRO payloads into high-inclination orbits.
Then Challenger happened, and the Air Force whined to congress - because now they couldn't launch NRO payloads AT ALL. So they got the EELV program (Atlas/Titan/Delta - where Atlas and Titan were mainly recycled ICBM's - and now, Atlas is a totally new platform based on the old design.) - after that, the Shuttle really needed a new purpose in life, and got one, in the way of the ISS. Say what you will about it - I'm not a big fan of it myself - I think it shows a lack of vision, and was really driven as a means of pork-continuation. Though, we did learn a lot about international collaboration on a really huge, really complex project. That has to be worth something.
In the aftermath of Columbia - I'm not sure that recycling Shuttle technology and hardware is the best approach to getting a new generation of launch vehicles. But given the likely funding profiles, who knows if even THAT will succeed?
I still feel strongly that they should attempt a repair, in this case.
First and foremost - if there is a small chance of catastrophic loss of vehicle, then measures should be taken to prevent that.
But Secondly - and possibly more importantly; how many more shuttle flights will there be? What if there is more serious damage on the next flight? And we still have never tested the repair techniques?
I think that this damage is a perfect opportunity for NASA to do what it does best: testing new aerospace technologies - and in this case, repair of shuttle heat-shield damage. The repair job will be a great opportunity to learn new EVA skills and techniques. After the shuttle is safely down, the repair job can be studied, and evaluated for how it held up during re-entry, and I think that is valuable science that wouldn't otherwise be done.
To *not* repair this damage, is short-sighted in two ways: It's hoping that the damage to Endeavor isn't fatal, and it's hoping that the next mission to get damaged, also does not require repairs, and if it does, that we will get the repair right the first time, when we've never ever done anything remotely like it before.
I'm not advocating for welfare - welfare actually helps take political pressure off the major employers more than anything else. What I'm saying is that; I don't know how it is in the UK, but in the US, there is a regime of structural ossification in our economy, in that, very large corporations are protected. Their markets are protected. Their practices are not scrutinized while their smaller competitors are. They tend to get more special deals and handouts. And government policies tend to favor or benefit them more than smaller players. They get to exercise market power with impunity.
The workers who are treated as widgets by these corporations - I wouldn't make excuses for them, and I don't think they're better off with welfare, but I'm not surprised if they're discouraged at the prospect of a lifetime of hard work, struggling to make ends meet, no real hope for their offspring to have a different life, and a very large chance of any gains made or accumulated over one life time, or several generations, should they be that lucky, wiped out with a single instance of cancer, likely contracted after being exposed to industrial toxins, or contaminated products manufactured in some third world country where there are no safety standards or inspections.
I mean - why bother working hard and going to school, and building a career, only to get outsourced and laid off after ten years, and nothing really to show for it but outstanding student loan and mortgage debt?
I'm a believer in Free Market, and hard work and all that. But certain players have been able to purchase privilege and protection from their lapdogs in government. No amount of sweaty brows can compete with that. So what? Stay home, tax the rich, and drink?
I may or may not know you. And you've got to face facts: there are a LOT of people in this world, who frankly, don't give a rat's ass about you, or their own mother, or anyone else but themselves. A lot more than most people probably want to admit.
There are many perfectly pragmatic reasons why I want YOU to be healthy. Why I want my tax dollars going to fund your good health:
1. I want you to work your job, earn money, pay taxes, produce economic output, maybe invent something, write a profound book, grab my kid as he walks out in front of a bus while he's dialing a cell-phone, fund MY good health. 2. I don't want to have to pay money into a social security fund that isn't also funded by you, that we're both going to be drawing from. 3. I don't want you to be sick, and with a weakened immune system, be more susceptible to transmissible diseases, and act as a carrier for the next global plague that could wipe me out - or someone I love. 4. I don't want to live in a society where the solution to people who get sick and can't afford medical treatment is "fuck-em, and let their corpses rot on the street." 5. I would rather pay up front for less expensive preventative treatments for you - even if they're unnecessary, than have to pay for the eventual catastrophic consequences of your not getting preventative care. (ie. early cancer detection testing, as opposed to detection by symptom in the late stages, requiring treatment via very expensive surgery, which may not succeed, may have crippling results, etc.)
People seem to forget that there are many very good pragmatic arguments for social programs that extend well beyond the "compassion" argument. This is how The New Deal came about in the first place - and at that time, we damn near got national health care then too. (yes, we've been trying in this country for THAT long).
The counterarguments to the pragmatic ones, all tend to arise from selfish narrow-mindedness. "I'm healthy, why should *I* pay for sick people?" - The question that needs to be asked is; are you a healthy person, or a healthy American? No man is an island unto himself. Anyone who claims to be, can stay the hell off the roads I built, and keep his bastard offspring out of my schools.
Well, we need to tap-out their bank accounts first.
First, we'll make them fat, by including high-fructose corn-syrup in just about everything they eat, to really fuck up their metabolism. That way, if they try to diet, their metabolism will slow down more, and they'll get tired, and they won't be able to exercise, and they won't burn those calories, and they'll stay fat. If they exercise, they'll just get hungrier, and eat more, so they'll stay fat.
Next, let's make them feel self-conscious about being fat, by bombarding them with all kinds of studies, advertisements, and media images. (And charge them more for insurance too).
Then, when they go get liposuction, we render the fat to make fancy boutique soaps, and sell it back to them at boutique prices.
Then we'll hook them up to the treadmill and gas them.
I don't know why so many vegetarians/vegans assume it's meat-eating that's the sole cause.
Because veganism is a religion - and their religion is "don't hurt/enslave the poor animals!" - and any meme that justifies that cause, is one they'll latch onto and try to use as an argument. Sometimes, the motivation's a little more benign - like, they just want to be able to go out to eat to a restaurant, and not have meat shoved in their face, (meat products sneakily included in just about everything that's served, making it a very difficult proposition to be morally "pure" as a vegan) - so they reason; "if 20-30% of people were vegans, instead of the 1-2%, then maybe restaurants would listen to us as a significant market segment, and start offering products we want." - and from there, they're on a holy jihad to convert everyone to their religion.
There are people for whom, no amount of present-day sacrifice will amount to any significant change in fortune.
There are some very seriously high barriers to entry in a lot of avenues by which someone could change one's fortune. To start a business, one needs startup capital, a business plan, a level playing field, etc. At different points, given different social backgrounds, and different economic situations, this changes. But for some, the barriers are just overwhelming, and they are placed at several levels along the way to upward mobility.
It is both easy (and very common) to make a "moral judgment" about the behavior of people who won't help themselves in the so-called "land of opportunity". It is also very easy for those who were born on third base, to be unaware of how difficult it is to get from the plate to first.
Well, I do this all the time to stay underwater longer - and if it's just a matter of suppressing the urge to breathe, then I guess it's dangerous, and a bad thing.
On the other hand, CO2 concentration, O2 concentration, and urge to breathe are all irrelevant in space. There's no air, to breathe whether you've got the urge or not, and there's no O2 or CO2 in the blood, because the blood has vaporized. (jeez, what happens to the arteries? do they rupture?)
Personally, I think that Apple has given up on the "free market" thing, and is just hoping AMD will go away, so the govt. can step in and regulate Intel like the monopoly that it is, without the token "competition" that AMD represents.
And, if you read the preamble, you read that these rights are endowed by a Creator - so basically, the 4th applies to the guy in Pakistan, as well. Because, that Creator created both persons in that conversation.
But as we all know - just because the Creator endows people with rights, and just because a bunch of guys 230 years ago decided to enshrine those rights in our Constitution and Amendments, doesn't mean that people today, can't cower in fear behind racist propaganda and demand that those rights be abridged.
The pseudo state of war or emergency is only needed if you need to maintain the illusion of freedom.
If your fascist state has tools at its disposal that make that need obsolete (like say, hypno-mind control rays, or some form of automated violent extortion like mass-produced thug-bots, all-pervasive video surveillance, rigged voting machines, or FoxNews), then the illusion of freedom thing, and fake-emergency isn't really necessary.
Um - you've been listening in on so many rightwing strawman attacks, I think a herd of cattle decided to bed down in your eardrum, and has filled your skull with cow shit.
What you are calling "The left" does back the respect of other cultures. But if you think that means that the same political movement that fought for a womans right to vote in this country, wants a far-right fascist religious culture that treats its women like cattle, then you're grossly mistaken.
It's a strawman attack. And a retarded one, at that.
There is no liberal who supports Sharia law, or wants "Radical Islam" to take over the West.
I'm sure the economy played a strong role as well. Give people a stake in their civilization, a way to make a living, hope, a future, and they'll be less likely to turn to crime. While overall income and jobs increased in the late 1990's, income equality also increased - so maybe the middle three quintiles were drawn less to lives of crime during this time period, but the bottom quintile was probably MORE drawn to it - but policed better.
If the 100,000 police didn't have an impact - then I suppose that that theory was discredited on Rush Limbaugh's radio program.
The heat we need to worry about is the huge amount that hits our planet every day from the sun - and the fractional amount that is absorbed by the CO2 in our atmosphere. Currently, enough of that radiates back out. As the CO2 traps more and more, we're phucked, more and more. Unless we can reduce (or keep stable) the CO2 ppm of our atmosphere.
There is (and has been) a significant faction within the Democratic party; perhaps the overwhelming majority of Democrats, who accept at face-value, the "conventional wisdom" that this country has "shifted to the right" (the proof being, Reagan, Bush 41, Clinton->1994 congress, Bush 43) - This faction really came about as a response to their party's stunning defeat in 1980, which was a significant electoral loss, but it was a HUGE propaganda loss for them. Their response was a strategy of compromise and triangulation. Trying to use polls and focus groups, to test the waters to see where the people were with a given issue (with the corporate-dominated newsmedia STEERING the people along the way).
The result: Clinton was an elected Democrat, but honestly, he was pretty far over to the right. He was accused of being pretty left wing, but what did we really get under Clinton? Welfare "reform", expiration of EPA milage standards on autos, no healthcare plan, 8 years of sanctions and bombings of Iraq, with no real progress, Don't-ask-don't-tell, the DMCA, CALEA, Telecom deregulation that's led to this consolidation nightmare, and a serious lack of securities oversight that led to the Enron fiasco.
Thanks to this faction within the Democratic Party (the DLC), the left in this nation (that is, really the political CENTER, that is now referred to as the "left") has no representation at all. This is why our election turnouts suck, and why there's something like 25% favorability ratings for our congressional, judicial, and executive officials.
The DLC has forced center-right and rightwing democratic candidates for the last several elections; which is one of the reasons why the Democrats keep losing elections: the Democratic base is turned-off by these candidates. They hated Kerry - Kerry was "picked" by voters in the Eastern 1/4 of the country before the primary process was completed. Same with Gore - and it wasn't really Gore, it was Lieberman; who has a solid liberal voting record, but leans strongly conservative in his rhetoric, particularly in foreign policy (where the US spends most of it's tax dollars). Lieberman lost this election in 2000, Kerry's backing of the war, and milktoasty change of stance lost it in 2004, and it's looking like Clinton is the DLC candidate of-choice (oh - they're TERRIFIED of Obama!) - and HER backing of the war is going to LOSE the election in 2008.
It's encouraging to see that Obama got so much backing this year - and that the DLC actually ALLOWED Kucinich into the debate hall this year (he was not allowed to debate in 2004, because of his vocal anti-war stance: he was detained by security trying to enter the debate hall as a spectator, they were so afraid of him!). But the fix is obviously in, the poll numbers, the MONEY, all point to Clinton being the "annointed one" this time, and again, the DLC is going to offer America a choice between "far-right" and "a little less far-right".
Gang violence is due to a government that refuses to invest in law enforcement for inner-cities.
I agree about the drug war - but I also believe that the drug war could be "won" if resources were targeted at actually dangerous drugs (excluding, especially MJ), and if we could clean up our own corrupt system of payoffs and bribery. Right now, the trafficking is allowed, and the prohibition is encouraged, because it creates a profitable commerce, and the risk is borne by the low-level dealers, and mostly not the kingpins, and their enablers in the government(s).
In the 90's we had a sharp drop in violent crime, because a bill was passed that funded putting 100,000 police officers on the streets of American cities. People were able to rely on police nominally for protection.
One of the first orders of business of the current administration when it came into office, was to undo that directive. They want to put up video cameras, fine. That's profitable for the video camera manufacturers. But it doesn't really do much for the crime or gangs. Police presence, and community cohesiveness (a community that does not feel abandoned by the nation, and therefore does not feel the need to become its own nation; ie. a gang) is what fights gangs and gang violence.
Slashdot Mirror
Um, in the history of space exploration, has an astronaut ever been "lost" during EVA?
Oh yeah, I forgot, 2001, A Space Odyssey. My bad.
Of course I know the risks. I'm not an idiot. I'm not saying that NASA has to go out and do it, and screw the risks. I'm saying that they need to consider that it's important to prove the repair concept at some point, before they NEED it. If it's too risky, then it's too risky - but you know, they've been thinking about this stuff since Columbia - or probably before. Someone's got to be thinking about how to remove risk from these kinds of EVAs.
How much risk was there throughout the entirety of the Gemini program?
The whole program's purpose was to learn how to perform EVA activities, and rendevous in space. Many risky launches and maneuvers, and in at least one case, a vehicle got out of control.
Yet, they did it, and learned what they needed to know in order to proceed to Apollo, and the moon.
And here we are, flying the shuttle half-assed. With only SOME of the skills and technology necessary to actually fly the thing, only on a good day, when everything goes well. The risk of the EVA and repair attempt on this ship, is probably less than the risk of the EVA and repair attempt on the next damaged ship - if the next damaged ship is *really* damaged, and we don't have the bugs worked out of our repair skills yet.
That's my point.
Maybe we need to learn how to do this.
Maybe the conclusion is - we need to abandon the "fragile heat-tile" design, as soon as is possible. But if that is not the case, then it is obvious that this technology can not be fielded without some method of practical on-orbit repair. We're either spacefaring, or we're burning money for no reason.
I thought that it would be good to have the foam on the tank shed right at launch - maybe attached to the ground by cables.
that way, the foam (and ice) never gets to a high velocity, and there's an immediate weight savings.
SpaceX does this with A thermal blanket that sheds on liftoff.
(unfortunately, the thing did get hung-up on the ill-fated first launch. Mr. Musk assures us that it had nothing to do with the crash, however).
The Vandenberg capability was based on Thiokol being able to deliver a more powerful SRB. They failed. That's why they built a launch facility, hell, even a VAB, and a widened road to haul the shuttle from the airstrip to the VAB, and they built an SRB reprocessing facility, including a new pier for the recovery ship.
Vandenberg was ramped up to process Shuttle flights - they previously didn't even have ANY manned spaceflight capability at all. They built all that out. And Thiokol blew it.
Yes;
The Air Force bears much of the blame.
They wanted to be able to launch NRO payloads, and with the Keyhole platform, that meant the larger cargo bay, and "high-inclination" orbits, (ie. Vandenberg. . . ie "cross-range capability"). Well, Thiokol never delivered on the SRB's that would have given the cross-range capability, so that was the first thing to get shitcanned. So the Air Force was already screwed there, and for much of the 1980's could not launch NRO payloads into high-inclination orbits.
Then Challenger happened, and the Air Force whined to congress - because now they couldn't launch NRO payloads AT ALL. So they got the EELV program (Atlas/Titan/Delta - where Atlas and Titan were mainly recycled ICBM's - and now, Atlas is a totally new platform based on the old design.) - after that, the Shuttle really needed a new purpose in life, and got one, in the way of the ISS. Say what you will about it - I'm not a big fan of it myself - I think it shows a lack of vision, and was really driven as a means of pork-continuation. Though, we did learn a lot about international collaboration on a really huge, really complex project. That has to be worth something.
In the aftermath of Columbia - I'm not sure that recycling Shuttle technology and hardware is the best approach to getting a new generation of launch vehicles. But given the likely funding profiles, who knows if even THAT will succeed?
I still feel strongly that they should attempt a repair, in this case.
First and foremost - if there is a small chance of catastrophic loss of vehicle, then measures should be taken to prevent that.
But Secondly - and possibly more importantly; how many more shuttle flights will there be? What if there is more serious damage on the next flight? And we still have never tested the repair techniques?
I think that this damage is a perfect opportunity for NASA to do what it does best: testing new aerospace technologies - and in this case, repair of shuttle heat-shield damage. The repair job will be a great opportunity to learn new EVA skills and techniques. After the shuttle is safely down, the repair job can be studied, and evaluated for how it held up during re-entry, and I think that is valuable science that wouldn't otherwise be done.
To *not* repair this damage, is short-sighted in two ways: It's hoping that the damage to Endeavor isn't fatal, and it's hoping that the next mission to get damaged, also does not require repairs, and if it does, that we will get the repair right the first time, when we've never ever done anything remotely like it before.
And most of the money used to finance the purchase of these products comes from China too.
Something fishy about all this. . . .
there's nothing wrong with being working class.
Except for wage stagnation, layoffs, etc.
I'm not advocating for welfare - welfare actually helps take political pressure off the major employers more than anything else. What I'm saying is that; I don't know how it is in the UK, but in the US, there is a regime of structural ossification in our economy, in that, very large corporations are protected. Their markets are protected. Their practices are not scrutinized while their smaller competitors are. They tend to get more special deals and handouts. And government policies tend to favor or benefit them more than smaller players. They get to exercise market power with impunity.
The workers who are treated as widgets by these corporations - I wouldn't make excuses for them, and I don't think they're better off with welfare, but I'm not surprised if they're discouraged at the prospect of a lifetime of hard work, struggling to make ends meet, no real hope for their offspring to have a different life, and a very large chance of any gains made or accumulated over one life time, or several generations, should they be that lucky, wiped out with a single instance of cancer, likely contracted after being exposed to industrial toxins, or contaminated products manufactured in some third world country where there are no safety standards or inspections.
I mean - why bother working hard and going to school, and building a career, only to get outsourced and laid off after ten years, and nothing really to show for it but outstanding student loan and mortgage debt?
I'm a believer in Free Market, and hard work and all that. But certain players have been able to purchase privilege and protection from their lapdogs in government. No amount of sweaty brows can compete with that. So what? Stay home, tax the rich, and drink?
It's not about compassion.
I may or may not know you. And you've got to face facts: there are a LOT of people in this world, who frankly, don't give a rat's ass about you, or their own mother, or anyone else but themselves. A lot more than most people probably want to admit.
There are many perfectly pragmatic reasons why I want YOU to be healthy. Why I want my tax dollars going to fund your good health:
1. I want you to work your job, earn money, pay taxes, produce economic output, maybe invent something, write a profound book, grab my kid as he walks out in front of a bus while he's dialing a cell-phone, fund MY good health.
2. I don't want to have to pay money into a social security fund that isn't also funded by you, that we're both going to be drawing from.
3. I don't want you to be sick, and with a weakened immune system, be more susceptible to transmissible diseases, and act as a carrier for the next global plague that could wipe me out - or someone I love.
4. I don't want to live in a society where the solution to people who get sick and can't afford medical treatment is "fuck-em, and let their corpses rot on the street."
5. I would rather pay up front for less expensive preventative treatments for you - even if they're unnecessary, than have to pay for the eventual catastrophic consequences of your not getting preventative care. (ie. early cancer detection testing, as opposed to detection by symptom in the late stages, requiring treatment via very expensive surgery, which may not succeed, may have crippling results, etc.)
People seem to forget that there are many very good pragmatic arguments for social programs that extend well beyond the "compassion" argument. This is how The New Deal came about in the first place - and at that time, we damn near got national health care then too. (yes, we've been trying in this country for THAT long).
The counterarguments to the pragmatic ones, all tend to arise from selfish narrow-mindedness. "I'm healthy, why should *I* pay for sick people?" - The question that needs to be asked is; are you a healthy person, or a healthy American? No man is an island unto himself. Anyone who claims to be, can stay the hell off the roads I built, and keep his bastard offspring out of my schools.
Well, we need to tap-out their bank accounts first.
First, we'll make them fat, by including high-fructose corn-syrup in just about everything they eat, to really fuck up their metabolism. That way, if they try to diet, their metabolism will slow down more, and they'll get tired, and they won't be able to exercise, and they won't burn those calories, and they'll stay fat. If they exercise, they'll just get hungrier, and eat more, so they'll stay fat.
Next, let's make them feel self-conscious about being fat, by bombarding them with all kinds of studies, advertisements, and media images. (And charge them more for insurance too).
Then, when they go get liposuction, we render the fat to make fancy boutique soaps, and sell it back to them at boutique prices.
Then we'll hook them up to the treadmill and gas them.
I don't know why so many vegetarians/vegans assume it's meat-eating that's the sole cause.
Because veganism is a religion - and their religion is "don't hurt/enslave the poor animals!" - and any meme that justifies that cause, is one they'll latch onto and try to use as an argument. Sometimes, the motivation's a little more benign - like, they just want to be able to go out to eat to a restaurant, and not have meat shoved in their face, (meat products sneakily included in just about everything that's served, making it a very difficult proposition to be morally "pure" as a vegan) - so they reason; "if 20-30% of people were vegans, instead of the 1-2%, then maybe restaurants would listen to us as a significant market segment, and start offering products we want." - and from there, they're on a holy jihad to convert everyone to their religion.
Tell me;
Which failed communist regimes are responsible for hungry people in the United States of America - throughout its 230+ years of history?
There are people for whom, no amount of present-day sacrifice will amount to any significant change in fortune.
There are some very seriously high barriers to entry in a lot of avenues by which someone could change one's fortune. To start a business, one needs startup capital, a business plan, a level playing field, etc. At different points, given different social backgrounds, and different economic situations, this changes. But for some, the barriers are just overwhelming, and they are placed at several levels along the way to upward mobility.
It is both easy (and very common) to make a "moral judgment" about the behavior of people who won't help themselves in the so-called "land of opportunity". It is also very easy for those who were born on third base, to be unaware of how difficult it is to get from the plate to first.
Enlightenment, Caffeine, same difference.
Well, I do this all the time to stay underwater longer - and if it's just a matter of suppressing the urge to breathe, then I guess it's dangerous, and a bad thing.
On the other hand, CO2 concentration, O2 concentration, and urge to breathe are all irrelevant in space. There's no air, to breathe whether you've got the urge or not, and there's no O2 or CO2 in the blood, because the blood has vaporized. (jeez, what happens to the arteries? do they rupture?)
Personally, I think that Apple has given up on the "free market" thing, and is just hoping AMD will go away, so the govt. can step in and regulate Intel like the monopoly that it is, without the token "competition" that AMD represents.
Um - consumer-level Windows OS doesn't even support more than 3GB. So like, what are you smokin, dude?
4th amendment protects the guy in Dearborn.
And, if you read the preamble, you read that these rights are endowed by a Creator - so basically, the 4th applies to the guy in Pakistan, as well. Because, that Creator created both persons in that conversation.
But as we all know - just because the Creator endows people with rights, and just because a bunch of guys 230 years ago decided to enshrine those rights in our Constitution and Amendments, doesn't mean that people today, can't cower in fear behind racist propaganda and demand that those rights be abridged.
The pseudo state of war or emergency is only needed if you need to maintain the illusion of freedom.
If your fascist state has tools at its disposal that make that need obsolete (like say, hypno-mind control rays, or some form of automated violent extortion like mass-produced thug-bots, all-pervasive video surveillance, rigged voting machines, or FoxNews), then the illusion of freedom thing, and fake-emergency isn't really necessary.
Um - you've been listening in on so many rightwing strawman attacks, I think a herd of cattle decided to bed down in your eardrum, and has filled your skull with cow shit.
What you are calling "The left" does back the respect of other cultures.
But if you think that means that the same political movement that fought for a womans right to vote in this country, wants a far-right fascist religious culture that treats its women like cattle, then you're grossly mistaken.
It's a strawman attack. And a retarded one, at that.
There is no liberal who supports Sharia law, or wants "Radical Islam" to take over the West.
I'm sure the economy played a strong role as well. Give people a stake in their civilization, a way to make a living, hope, a future, and they'll be less likely to turn to crime. While overall income and jobs increased in the late 1990's, income equality also increased - so maybe the middle three quintiles were drawn less to lives of crime during this time period, but the bottom quintile was probably MORE drawn to it - but policed better.
If the 100,000 police didn't have an impact - then I suppose that that theory was discredited on Rush Limbaugh's radio program.
That heat will simply radiate out into space.
The heat we need to worry about is the huge amount that hits our planet every day from the sun - and the fractional amount that is absorbed by the CO2 in our atmosphere. Currently, enough of that radiates back out. As the CO2 traps more and more, we're phucked, more and more. Unless we can reduce (or keep stable) the CO2 ppm of our atmosphere.
There is (and has been) a significant faction within the Democratic party; perhaps the overwhelming majority of Democrats, who accept at face-value, the "conventional wisdom" that this country has "shifted to the right" (the proof being, Reagan, Bush 41, Clinton->1994 congress, Bush 43) - This faction really came about as a response to their party's stunning defeat in 1980, which was a significant electoral loss, but it was a HUGE propaganda loss for them. Their response was a strategy of compromise and triangulation. Trying to use polls and focus groups, to test the waters to see where the people were with a given issue (with the corporate-dominated newsmedia STEERING the people along the way).
The result: Clinton was an elected Democrat, but honestly, he was pretty far over to the right. He was accused of being pretty left wing, but what did we really get under Clinton? Welfare "reform", expiration of EPA milage standards on autos, no healthcare plan, 8 years of sanctions and bombings of Iraq, with no real progress, Don't-ask-don't-tell, the DMCA, CALEA, Telecom deregulation that's led to this consolidation nightmare, and a serious lack of securities oversight that led to the Enron fiasco.
Thanks to this faction within the Democratic Party (the DLC), the left in this nation (that is, really the political CENTER, that is now referred to as the "left") has no representation at all. This is why our election turnouts suck, and why there's something like 25% favorability ratings for our congressional, judicial, and executive officials.
The DLC has forced center-right and rightwing democratic candidates for the last several elections; which is one of the reasons why the Democrats keep losing elections: the Democratic base is turned-off by these candidates. They hated Kerry - Kerry was "picked" by voters in the Eastern 1/4 of the country before the primary process was completed. Same with Gore - and it wasn't really Gore, it was Lieberman; who has a solid liberal voting record, but leans strongly conservative in his rhetoric, particularly in foreign policy (where the US spends most of it's tax dollars). Lieberman lost this election in 2000, Kerry's backing of the war, and milktoasty change of stance lost it in 2004, and it's looking like Clinton is the DLC candidate of-choice (oh - they're TERRIFIED of Obama!) - and HER backing of the war is going to LOSE the election in 2008.
It's encouraging to see that Obama got so much backing this year - and that the DLC actually ALLOWED Kucinich into the debate hall this year (he was not allowed to debate in 2004, because of his vocal anti-war stance: he was detained by security trying to enter the debate hall as a spectator, they were so afraid of him!). But the fix is obviously in, the poll numbers, the MONEY, all point to Clinton being the "annointed one" this time, and again, the DLC is going to offer America a choice between "far-right" and "a little less far-right".
Gang violence is due to a government that refuses to invest in law enforcement for inner-cities.
I agree about the drug war - but I also believe that the drug war could be "won" if resources were targeted at actually dangerous drugs (excluding, especially MJ), and if we could clean up our own corrupt system of payoffs and bribery. Right now, the trafficking is allowed, and the prohibition is encouraged, because it creates a profitable commerce, and the risk is borne by the low-level dealers, and mostly not the kingpins, and their enablers in the government(s).
In the 90's we had a sharp drop in violent crime, because a bill was passed that funded putting 100,000 police officers on the streets of American cities. People were able to rely on police nominally for protection.
One of the first orders of business of the current administration when it came into office, was to undo that directive. They want to put up video cameras, fine. That's profitable for the video camera manufacturers. But it doesn't really do much for the crime or gangs. Police presence, and community cohesiveness (a community that does not feel abandoned by the nation, and therefore does not feel the need to become its own nation; ie. a gang) is what fights gangs and gang violence.