I should mention that, despite my above griping about the name, I am very excited about Firefox 0.8. I've really liked using 0.7 and I think that version 1.0 is going to really shake things up when it arrives. I like the fact that some stuff with bookmarks has been tweaked and the bug fix to remember editted text across tab-changes is a good annoyance fix.
The developers have done a great job so far. Thanks, guys!
My sentiments exactly. I just sent them an email a month ago telling them all the reasons Firebird was better than IE.
Now I'm going to have to send another one: "You know that Firebird-thing email I sent you that you didn't know what I was talking about? Well, if you weren't interested then: now it's even better than before, and it's name has been changed to Firefox."
For what it's worth, I found this article on incremental testing and rocket design to be something of an eye-openner. He points out that once you start out building rockets the way NASA started, you are very unlikely to experiment with a proven design. Extrapolating from that, I don't know if NASA ever would eventually develope similar technology to what the X-Prize contestants are doing.
I am excited about this prize program. Bush didn't mention it in his speech a while back, and I figured it would take some proven success by the non-government projects before tax money would start going to private enterprize so that they could experiment in ways NASA hasn't been able to do. Apparently it is starting to happen.
I did look higher up the money chain, and you're wrong. Bush and the Republican Congress increased NASA's budget. Bush's new budget proposal increases last year's budget by 10% over the next 5 years. They are certainly guilty of getting the budget in the state it's in, but not of forcing NASA to tighten it's belt.
You can blame the Bush-Republican Congress combination for a lot of fiscal irresponsibility, and cases of choking off funding for important social funding. But, NASA is benefitting from the largess, not being hurt by it.
The trailer situation is a tricky one. The radar system would be tuned to each model car it was installed in. It won't check an additional one-trailer-length behind the car. The hardware would have to be changed for each trailer configuration.
I guess the "towing package" blind-spot radar would have twice as many radar arrays. When you hooked up something to tow, the software would switch to the 10-foot-longer radars. The designers would have to make certain assumptions about how long an item you were going to be towing (or give you a dashboard switch to choose 5', 10', 15' etc.)
There is another player in this market that has enormous power to set things straight, but is often overlooked: the professor.
If your professor wrote one of those fat 1st year texts which comes bundled- lobby them. Tell them you find such practices appalling, and that you would much rather spend money on beer.:) Seriously, be polite but firm, and be prepared to reiterate- some have been so high up in their ivory towers that oxygen is sometimes rare. The publishers can put out a new edition every 3-4 years only with the complicity of the professor.
If your professor asks you to buy those expensive books, ask them to complain to the publishing house. A couple professors that tell the sales reps they won't use the text again unless they stop bundling WILL make them listen. Encourage them to use that text one or two extra years, and make future decisions based in part on price.
It seems like this might be a good opportunity for some web activism. If only someone would... Start a website that exposes these professors and urges the student's at that proffessor's university put pressure on him for the benefit of the rest of the country. A general clearinghouse of greivances against this bad practice and local activists would take the fight to their local offender.
I'm sure that this has been said somewhere else in the discussion, but I couldn't find it.
The publishers bundle texts with supplemental materials in an attempt to not compete with the reseller market. You can't get the CD and study guide with the used-text, or you can't get on to the text's website because your book's password was used last year. All of a sudden, the used book is much less attractive because it's not the equivalent of the bundled package.
You might mean by "require all the publishers..." that a law ought to be passed. That makes me nervous because then the law will be abused somehow and there won't be a way to stop the abuse without removing the law. It would be better if there was a free-market way to make bundling a bad idea.
Professors who are corrupt in this way don't need or want kickbacks. That's too complicated, and traceable. A few really nice dinners is all they want. Or a few complimentary copies of the book that they can sell online or at the bookstore for a tidy little sum. They aren't trying to make a living off the textbooks; they just want a little bonus.
There is some difference, enough to make assigning chapters and problems a hassle. Even with only small changes, each edition will have different page numbers and different problem numbers (even if the problems are the same, the newer editions will have more problems, throwing off the numbering).
So the prof. would also have to compile a conversion sheet for each edition: "pages 415-423 in the 6th edtion is the same as pages 420-428 in the 7th", etc. Professor's just don't have the time to do that. And, once an edition with Real changes comes along, all their work is ruined, since the old editions won't be usable.
I had similar suspicions, but there are aspects about it that make me think NASA is not playing some tricky political game:
1 - There was no noticable reaction from the Bush administration or Congress about the news that the Hubble mission would be cancelled.
2 - If you're going to raise an outcry for more budget increases, shouldn't you keep up the pressure until the new budget is created? The time between outcry and decision to re-evalute the Hubble mission was very short; it seems like more of an internal decision than a result of waiting for politicians to react to the negative press.
3 - On the subject of public reaction, most negative press about the Bush space program seems to be taking the stance of: "We can't afford what we're doing already, why go to the moon?" rather than the Hubble-related: "Look what Bush's change in focus made NASA do!"
I think it's worth keeping an eye on, but I don't think it's the most likely explanation.
I think Zooey's a great pick for Trillian. I've only seen her in small roles, but she's been really subversively funny in them (e.g. her part as a cashier in The Good Girl). Trillian's a bit part in the books, so it doesn't matter a whole lot who plays her, but Zooey is an excellent pick. Pretty enough to make poor Arthur Dent to fall for her hook line and sinker, too.
Haven't seen, or don't remember seeing, Mos Def so I can't say anything about him.
No disagreements with that--being Christian is a tough job for those who are honest about it. I'm sure there are theologians on both sides of the argument of whether Jesus would support the War On Terror. I can't contribute more to that discussion than the noises I've already made about the Just War Theory. I know that the Vatican has made statements about the invasion of Iraq being wrong. I don't think it will be possible to jail or kill all the terrorists; there are too many potential terrorists and it's too hard to distinguish between disgruntled Arabic youth and actual terrorists. Jailing is preferable to killing when possible. Regardless, we have to try to change the minds of the youth. A daunting and seemingly impossible task, but there's no other choice that I can see.
I think you are taking Mr. Hicks' rhetoric too literally just to make your own rhetorical points. Also, your definition of Christianity is very difficult to live up to. I think you can differ from Jesus' beliefs somewhat, still call yourself a Christian, and not be talking out your ass. But, I can't defend that belief other than to say that Catholicism does have the concept of reconciliation, which implies that you can have differences and yet still be part of the Catholic church (I know Catholicism and Christianity are not the same--I am making a hand-waving type of argument). However, I don't know that Mr. Hicks meant something more moderate than he wrote, and I can't really argue with your definition of Christianity since I don't substantially disagree with it. I guess I do disagree with what you consider not Christian--your definition of Christianity being too rarified a height for most people to attain.
First of all, I'm not speaking for Mr. Hicks any more. I don't know anything about his beliefs. I have my own "Kill every damned one of those sons of bitches" sentiment, which may or may not be the same as Mr. Hicks'. I'm only explaining myself here.
There is a righteous anger at the atrocities committed on Sept. 11th. It is entirely right to be enraged and horrified by the murders committed that day. But, even with the justified desire for vengeance, that is not the reason to go to war against the fundamentalist Islamic terrorists. The reason to attack the terrorist organizations and cells without remorse is that they continue to try to kill us. I want to kill the terrorists who are going to try to commit similar attacks. I believe that the terrorists have been prevented from killing me due to simple logistics: they haven't had the weapon or the opportunity yet. They have the desire; I want to kill them in self-defense.
The moral highground does not mean sitting idly by while terrorists arm themselves at their leasure. We can be terrible in our anger and still retain the moral highground. To destroy every last one of the terrorist cells is terrible and morally right.
Even though "Kill every damnd one of those sons of bitches" is a bit simplistic, it's easier to say than the above paragraphs. And, as is shown every day on these forums, the weight of time tends to make people forget the dangers that continue to grow. The terrorists' apologists have been hard at work ever since Sept. 11th to blunt America's purpose, to distract her from her just war. They have high hopes: this type of obfuscation has worked well in the past. Unless we hold on to the anger, we will lose the passion to pursue these vermin to the ends of the earth. Vengeance is not a good justification for war, but it is a good spur.
If you don't see a difference between radical Islam and this attitude of ruthless defense, you are ignorant of what the terrorists' aims are. Please educate yourself about it. Don't just read the New York Times, it has some good articles but also a lot of biased reporting. Find essays about the short and long term goals of terrorism in general (not just islamic terrorism). Why (as a terrorist) is blowing people up a good strategy? Who should/should not be blown up? When do you stop blowing people up? Look for stuff about the goals of Al Qaeda and the Taliban. Not just Osama's speaches, which are all over the map, but analysis about how the goals have changed over the years. Read about the Islamic concept of dhimmi. The islamic fundamentalists are more like the pre-reformation Catholic church than current Catholicism. They must go through their own reformation (or be overwhelmed by more moderate interpertations of Islam) before there can be any integration with the Western world. Read about the relationship (proxy war) between rulers of Saudi Arabia and the Wahhabi sect of Islam. If you're American, you've had two years to ask the questions "Why did they attack us?" and "How can we stop them from attacking again?" My answers have evolved over the last two years as I find more about the enemy.
(That's my argument, but one thing about theology. Vengeance is a bit more Old Testament than New. Jesus probably would not have sanctioned wars of vengeance, but the fire-and-brimstone god of the Old Testament would have been fine with it. The OT is practically a sea of blood, from what I remember.)
1 - In a way, you're right. Some of the terrorists are people who are resisting our occupation of their country. They used to rule the country and their angry that they don't any longer. The rests of the terrorists are fundamentalist Islamic jihadis who hope to intimidate the U.S. into leaving. Recently, Al Qaeda put out a message telling jihadis to not go fight in Iraq because they were taking too many casualties.
2 - Too early to say. We did go in without laying a groundwork for democracy. Something of a mistake. Also, Saddam didn't want a democracy, so it was sort of difficult to lay the groundwork before getting rid of him. In the U.S., it took 10 years from the Declaration of Independance (1776) to the Constitution (1787). The U.S. and Iraq face(d)different advantages and disadvantages in becoming democracies. The U.S. had the disadvantage that it was the pioneer of this particular form of representative democracy. Iraq has the disadvantage that it is surrounded by failed states that are actively trying to make this attempt at Arabic democracy fail lest it foment unrest in their own territories.
3 - Turning the government over to the Iraqis and pulling out the troops are two different things. I don't have the numbers on troop movement on hand, but there isn't any way that Americans are going to leave Iraq completely in the forseeable future. If only to man bases for pressure/attacks on Syria and Iran, there will be a U.S. presence in Iraq for quite some time. Also, U.S. troops will be there to defend Iraq's democracy for quite some time after the country is ruled by the Iraqi people. Eventually Iraq's own army and police force will be strong enough, but that will take longer than 6 months.
4 - Iraq was a secular state. Iraq was not spreading "their radical Islam". These are not equivalent thoughts. Iraq was a secular state, but when he ran out of allies, Saddam did turn to radical Islam as his only defense against the U.S.. He had the Koran written in his own blood for a little Islamic street cred. Countless connections between Saddam and terrorists have been uncovered since the U.S. rolled into Bagdad. There are also countless connections between terrorists and radical Islam. There isn't a one-to-one-to-one connection between all three groups, but there's a whole lot of overlap all around.
4a - The radical wing of Islam is constantly threatening: "If you do this [random offense] you will turn the entire Muslim people against you." This is false. It would only be true if the Muslim people were sheep, which their not. The ones with hope see the islamic fundamentalists as horrible aberations. 4a.1 - Another way of looking at it is, we tried not to offend the Muslim fundamentalists, and they killed us anyways. Now we're going to kill them, which they may find offensive.
5 - It is still unclear whether Iraq had anything to do with the WTC attack. More evidence has been unearthed since the fall of Saddam to indicate that his government did have dealings with WTC-related terrorists. It is unlikely that Saddam planned or ordered the attacks, but it is likely that he, or his generals, supported some of the terrorists at one point or another. Is this damning? Not terribly, except that the WTC attack was an act of war, Saddam and Co. knew it was being planned, and they condoned it.
5a - Also, there is a general connection between Saddam and WTC, namely, the harboring of terrorists. The more places terrorists can live and train the more likely we are to be attacked again. So, the best way to defend against the next WTC attack is to take away the hiding places.
"Kill every damned one of those sons of bitches" - an abbrieviation of the conclusion of the Just War theory, believed by many Christians. "I am a God fearing Christian, but have no hatred of Muslims or the Islam religion." - not a contradiction of the above sentiment. He doesn't hate Muslims just because they're Muslims. He wa
Although the heat shield would have gouged a pretty good hole in the surface, I think there might be contamination issues with looking at that site.
1 The elements found at the site might be from the heat shield, not Mars.
2 The compounds may have been created by the heat/pressure of the heat shield's impact, not natural causes.
I'm sure a smart scientist could figure out ways to answer these questions, but they'd have to be careful with every bit of data from the heat shield site.
the President is a man who understands the approaching energy crisis. I was under the impression that the estimated fuel reserves had generally been increasing. Not that petroleum was being replentished, but that geologists with better tech had kept the guys finding new fuel comfortably ahead of the guys drilling it out.
Regardless, if I were president, I would be preparing for the coming energy crisis (if it is coming) by increasing funding for nulear powerplant research, and building more fission reactors. That's a much better insurance policy than hoping that we'll figure out fusion, moon bases, H3 mining, and cheap interplanetary transportation in time to stay ahead of everyone else. America's scientists and business are good, but that's a big gamble. I would be really surprised to find out that Bush wanted to go to the Moon to secure our fusion power.
Controlling the next generation energy supply could be important Fission power and Deutrium-Deutrium fusion will prevent H3 from being as important as oil. It'd be nice to have H3 when there are working fusion power plants, but a nation could get along without it.
Why is this insightful? Was your Saturday ruined because you were forced to read Roblimo's essays on a topic you find uninteresting? Go outside! He's not trying to take up your precious time.
Sure the topic sounds a little cliched, but there's an ideological war on between parts of Saudi Arabia and the West. To end the war, it's worth something to ask simple questions like this. The answer might be "nothing interesting here, move along", but you have to ask the question to find that out.
I think I need to clarify something. I admit that the Hubble cut is a cut to the observatory missions, but that seems justifiable because the Hubble needs the shuttle to operate. I think shutting down the Hubble sucks, and should not happen if at all possible, but this guy makes a clear, susinct argument for why it's necessary. I think that, with this one exception, the observatory missions will probably not be hurt by Bush's new direction (except that they won't rely on the shuttle).
I was worried about the survival of the robotic missions as well, but Bush said in his speech (here's a transcript):
"Robotic missions will serve as trailblazers, the advanced guard to the unknown. Probes, landers and other vehicles of this kind continue to prove their worth, sending spectacular images and vast amounts of data back to Earth."
So, he said he's not going to eliminate the robotic missions. There still are things like the observatories that could be vulnerable to cuts, but I doubt he would do that. Those seem to me to be much less costly than the robotic missions and have a great return in scientific value.
The only two things he said he would cut are the space station and the shuttle, neither of which are worth spending more money on.
You might say that this proves he WILL cut robotic missions, based on your earlier statements. I'm not going to try to prove that he will or not, just reporting what he said. If he doesn't live up to this statement, we can call him on it.
Just think of the howls of protest from the rest of the world when the US or China says that they own the land their explorers are on. Then, think of the waves of spaceships from India, the UK, Germany, Russia, Japan and Brazil and elsewhere that will start arriving at Mars 4 years later.
Could start more wars, which would be very bad, but at least the kids of that generation would really be living in the space age.
Yeah, colonialism with the eventual promise of self-rule is probably the inevitable model. There would certainly be arguments about when to make the transition from colony to country. But, I don't think any reasonable country would expect to maintain eternal sovereignty over a city on another planet. At least, not without warp drive and blaster technology:P
A utopia would be nice, but nothing keeps people working like greedy self-interest, and the only people we'd want on Mars for the first few generations are hard-working, self-sufficient bastards.
Maybe Zubrin mentioned it in his book, but I don't know what things of value a colony could export from Mars. Probably just rare ores that happen to be easy to mine on Mars. Maybe that crazy no-water-added Martian mud that NASA's taking pictures of right now. Just right for facials.
I've only read "Red Mars". It was good, but I decided at the time that "Green" and "Blue" would be concerned with changes to Mars that were so far in the future they couldn't possibly be as scientific as "Red". I still might read them because I liked the first book, but I didn't feel compelled to follow the story. I thought that Red Mars was very interesting for about 3/4ths of the way through while it followed the course of the first colonists, and only somewhat interesting describing the struggles in the last part of the book because it was more fiction and less science. Not bad, just not why I picked up the book.
Maybe I should read the other books to see how property rights are hashed out in the new world. From what I remember of the first book, the colonists wanted to own Mars in a sort of joint trust (it's been a while since I read the book, so I could very well be wrong). I find this too utopian to believe it could survive as a system, but a reasonable first attempt by idealistic colonists. It's possible Mr. Robinson addresses the problems with this in his later books. The first book had bigger issues of survival to deal with, so property didn't come into play much.
Let's assume that the first inhabitants carry with them property rights to a 100KM radius area from their landing spot. Who owns those rights? The explorers? Not likely, they're living soley on the charity of the country that supports them. The country? Sounds a lot like colonialism--a politically risky choice for the US. The private companies that help underwrite the mission (assuming they exist)? Unless Boeing (to take a company at random) paid for the entire launch and support, there's no way the government would let them own part of Mars. The voters would hate that.
I agree that nothing would spur settlement like property rights. Once a US mission landed on Mars, China, Russia and the EU would be falling over themselves to get their own stake. But, I don't know how it would work in the beginning.
The colonial model is the most logical: the US owns whatever part of Mars it's settlers are living on. But, how long does the US own the land? At what point does it revert to the settlers? At what point does the Mars-US relationship become like the American Colonies vs. the British Empire?
It probably shouldn't be based on a strict timeline, but rather a series of developement steps. Once the Mars colony is reasonably self-sufficent (and the US has made a return on it's investment?) the land would become privately held.
Just thinking out loud. There's probably an essay somewhere on the internet that works out these details...
Slashdot Mirror
I should mention that, despite my above griping about the name, I am very excited about Firefox 0.8. I've really liked using 0.7 and I think that version 1.0 is going to really shake things up when it arrives. I like the fact that some stuff with bookmarks has been tweaked and the bug fix to remember editted text across tab-changes is a good annoyance fix.
The developers have done a great job so far. Thanks, guys!
Posted with Firefox.
My sentiments exactly. I just sent them an email a month ago telling them all the reasons Firebird was better than IE.
Now I'm going to have to send another one: "You know that Firebird-thing email I sent you that you didn't know what I was talking about? Well, if you weren't interested then: now it's even better than before, and it's name has been changed to Firefox."
Might generate too much confusion.
For what it's worth, I found this article on incremental testing and rocket design to be something of an eye-openner. He points out that once you start out building rockets the way NASA started, you are very unlikely to experiment with a proven design. Extrapolating from that, I don't know if NASA ever would eventually develope similar technology to what the X-Prize contestants are doing.
I am excited about this prize program. Bush didn't mention it in his speech a while back, and I figured it would take some proven success by the non-government projects before tax money would start going to private enterprize so that they could experiment in ways NASA hasn't been able to do. Apparently it is starting to happen.
I did look higher up the money chain, and you're wrong. Bush and the Republican Congress increased NASA's budget. Bush's new budget proposal increases last year's budget by 10% over the next 5 years. They are certainly guilty of getting the budget in the state it's in, but not of forcing NASA to tighten it's belt.
You can blame the Bush-Republican Congress combination for a lot of fiscal irresponsibility, and cases of choking off funding for important social funding. But, NASA is benefitting from the largess, not being hurt by it.
The trailer situation is a tricky one. The radar system would be tuned to each model car it was installed in. It won't check an additional one-trailer-length behind the car. The hardware would have to be changed for each trailer configuration.
I guess the "towing package" blind-spot radar would have twice as many radar arrays. When you hooked up something to tow, the software would switch to the 10-foot-longer radars. The designers would have to make certain assumptions about how long an item you were going to be towing (or give you a dashboard switch to choose 5', 10', 15' etc.)
There is another player in this market that has enormous power to set things straight, but is often overlooked: the professor.
:) Seriously, be polite but firm, and be prepared to reiterate- some have been so high up in their ivory towers that oxygen is sometimes rare. The publishers can put out a new edition every 3-4 years only with the complicity of the professor.
If your professor wrote one of those fat 1st year texts which comes bundled- lobby them. Tell them you find such practices appalling, and that you would much rather spend money on beer.
If your professor asks you to buy those expensive books, ask them to complain to the publishing house. A couple professors that tell the sales reps they won't use the text again unless they stop bundling WILL make them listen. Encourage them to use that text one or two extra years, and make future decisions based in part on price.
It seems like this might be a good opportunity for some web activism. If only someone would...
Start a website that exposes these professors and urges the student's at that proffessor's university put pressure on him for the benefit of the rest of the country. A general clearinghouse of greivances against this bad practice and local activists would take the fight to their local offender.
I'm sure that this has been said somewhere else in the discussion, but I couldn't find it.
The publishers bundle texts with supplemental materials in an attempt to not compete with the reseller market. You can't get the CD and study guide with the used-text, or you can't get on to the text's website because your book's password was used last year. All of a sudden, the used book is much less attractive because it's not the equivalent of the bundled package.
You might mean by "require all the publishers..." that a law ought to be passed. That makes me nervous because then the law will be abused somehow and there won't be a way to stop the abuse without removing the law. It would be better if there was a free-market way to make bundling a bad idea.
Kickbacks:
Professors who are corrupt in this way don't need or want kickbacks. That's too complicated, and traceable. A few really nice dinners is all they want. Or a few complimentary copies of the book that they can sell online or at the bookstore for a tidy little sum. They aren't trying to make a living off the textbooks; they just want a little bonus.
There is some difference, enough to make assigning chapters and problems a hassle. Even with only small changes, each edition will have different page numbers and different problem numbers (even if the problems are the same, the newer editions will have more problems, throwing off the numbering).
So the prof. would also have to compile a conversion sheet for each edition: "pages 415-423 in the 6th edtion is the same as pages 420-428 in the 7th", etc. Professor's just don't have the time to do that. And, once an edition with Real changes comes along, all their work is ruined, since the old editions won't be usable.
I had similar suspicions, but there are aspects about it that make me think NASA is not playing some tricky political game:
1 - There was no noticable reaction from the Bush administration or Congress about the news that the Hubble mission would be cancelled.
2 - If you're going to raise an outcry for more budget increases, shouldn't you keep up the pressure until the new budget is created? The time between outcry and decision to re-evalute the Hubble mission was very short; it seems like more of an internal decision than a result of waiting for politicians to react to the negative press.
3 - On the subject of public reaction, most negative press about the Bush space program seems to be taking the stance of: "We can't afford what we're doing already, why go to the moon?" rather than the Hubble-related: "Look what Bush's change in focus made NASA do!"
I think it's worth keeping an eye on, but I don't think it's the most likely explanation.
I think Zooey's a great pick for Trillian. I've only seen her in small roles, but she's been really subversively funny in them (e.g. her part as a cashier in The Good Girl). Trillian's a bit part in the books, so it doesn't matter a whole lot who plays her, but Zooey is an excellent pick. Pretty enough to make poor Arthur Dent to fall for her hook line and sinker, too.
Haven't seen, or don't remember seeing, Mos Def so I can't say anything about him.
No disagreements with that--being Christian is a tough job for those who are honest about it. I'm sure there are theologians on both sides of the argument of whether Jesus would support the War On Terror. I can't contribute more to that discussion than the noises I've already made about the Just War Theory. I know that the Vatican has made statements about the invasion of Iraq being wrong. I don't think it will be possible to jail or kill all the terrorists; there are too many potential terrorists and it's too hard to distinguish between disgruntled Arabic youth and actual terrorists. Jailing is preferable to killing when possible. Regardless, we have to try to change the minds of the youth. A daunting and seemingly impossible task, but there's no other choice that I can see.
I think you are taking Mr. Hicks' rhetoric too literally just to make your own rhetorical points. Also, your definition of Christianity is very difficult to live up to. I think you can differ from Jesus' beliefs somewhat, still call yourself a Christian, and not be talking out your ass. But, I can't defend that belief other than to say that Catholicism does have the concept of reconciliation, which implies that you can have differences and yet still be part of the Catholic church (I know Catholicism and Christianity are not the same--I am making a hand-waving type of argument). However, I don't know that Mr. Hicks meant something more moderate than he wrote, and I can't really argue with your definition of Christianity since I don't substantially disagree with it. I guess I do disagree with what you consider not Christian--your definition of Christianity being too rarified a height for most people to attain.
First of all, I'm not speaking for Mr. Hicks any more. I don't know anything about his beliefs. I have my own "Kill every damned one of those sons of bitches" sentiment, which may or may not be the same as Mr. Hicks'. I'm only explaining myself here.
There is a righteous anger at the atrocities committed on Sept. 11th. It is entirely right to be enraged and horrified by the murders committed that day. But, even with the justified desire for vengeance, that is not the reason to go to war against the fundamentalist Islamic terrorists. The reason to attack the terrorist organizations and cells without remorse is that they continue to try to kill us. I want to kill the terrorists who are going to try to commit similar attacks. I believe that the terrorists have been prevented from killing me due to simple logistics: they haven't had the weapon or the opportunity yet. They have the desire; I want to kill them in self-defense.
The moral highground does not mean sitting idly by while terrorists arm themselves at their leasure. We can be terrible in our anger and still retain the moral highground. To destroy every last one of the terrorist cells is terrible and morally right.
Even though "Kill every damnd one of those sons of bitches" is a bit simplistic, it's easier to say than the above paragraphs. And, as is shown every day on these forums, the weight of time tends to make people forget the dangers that continue to grow. The terrorists' apologists have been hard at work ever since Sept. 11th to blunt America's purpose, to distract her from her just war. They have high hopes: this type of obfuscation has worked well in the past. Unless we hold on to the anger, we will lose the passion to pursue these vermin to the ends of the earth. Vengeance is not a good justification for war, but it is a good spur.
If you don't see a difference between radical Islam and this attitude of ruthless defense, you are ignorant of what the terrorists' aims are. Please educate yourself about it. Don't just read the New York Times, it has some good articles but also a lot of biased reporting. Find essays about the short and long term goals of terrorism in general (not just islamic terrorism). Why (as a terrorist) is blowing people up a good strategy? Who should/should not be blown up? When do you stop blowing people up? Look for stuff about the goals of Al Qaeda and the Taliban. Not just Osama's speaches, which are all over the map, but analysis about how the goals have changed over the years. Read about the Islamic concept of dhimmi. The islamic fundamentalists are more like the pre-reformation Catholic church than current Catholicism. They must go through their own reformation (or be overwhelmed by more moderate interpertations of Islam) before there can be any integration with the Western world. Read about the relationship (proxy war) between rulers of Saudi Arabia and the Wahhabi sect of Islam. If you're American, you've had two years to ask the questions "Why did they attack us?" and "How can we stop them from attacking again?" My answers have evolved over the last two years as I find more about the enemy.
(That's my argument, but one thing about theology. Vengeance is a bit more Old Testament than New. Jesus probably would not have sanctioned wars of vengeance, but the fire-and-brimstone god of the Old Testament would have been fine with it. The OT is practically a sea of blood, from what I remember.)
Bullet points are easy to respond to!
1 - In a way, you're right. Some of the terrorists are people who are resisting our occupation of their country. They used to rule the country and their angry that they don't any longer. The rests of the terrorists are fundamentalist Islamic jihadis who hope to intimidate the U.S. into leaving. Recently, Al Qaeda put out a message telling jihadis to not go fight in Iraq because they were taking too many casualties.
2 - Too early to say. We did go in without laying a groundwork for democracy. Something of a mistake. Also, Saddam didn't want a democracy, so it was sort of difficult to lay the groundwork before getting rid of him. In the U.S., it took 10 years from the Declaration of Independance (1776) to the Constitution (1787). The U.S. and Iraq face(d)different advantages and disadvantages in becoming democracies. The U.S. had the disadvantage that it was the pioneer of this particular form of representative democracy. Iraq has the disadvantage that it is surrounded by failed states that are actively trying to make this attempt at Arabic democracy fail lest it foment unrest in their own territories.
3 - Turning the government over to the Iraqis and pulling out the troops are two different things. I don't have the numbers on troop movement on hand, but there isn't any way that Americans are going to leave Iraq completely in the forseeable future. If only to man bases for pressure/attacks on Syria and Iran, there will be a U.S. presence in Iraq for quite some time. Also, U.S. troops will be there to defend Iraq's democracy for quite some time after the country is ruled by the Iraqi people. Eventually Iraq's own army and police force will be strong enough, but that will take longer than 6 months.
4 - Iraq was a secular state. Iraq was not spreading "their radical Islam". These are not equivalent thoughts. Iraq was a secular state, but when he ran out of allies, Saddam did turn to radical Islam as his only defense against the U.S.. He had the Koran written in his own blood for a little Islamic street cred. Countless connections between Saddam and terrorists have been uncovered since the U.S. rolled into Bagdad. There are also countless connections between terrorists and radical Islam. There isn't a one-to-one-to-one connection between all three groups, but there's a whole lot of overlap all around.
4a - The radical wing of Islam is constantly threatening: "If you do this [random offense] you will turn the entire Muslim people against you." This is false. It would only be true if the Muslim people were sheep, which their not. The ones with hope see the islamic fundamentalists as horrible aberations.
4a.1 - Another way of looking at it is, we tried not to offend the Muslim fundamentalists, and they killed us anyways. Now we're going to kill them, which they may find offensive.
5 - It is still unclear whether Iraq had anything to do with the WTC attack. More evidence has been unearthed since the fall of Saddam to indicate that his government did have dealings with WTC-related terrorists. It is unlikely that Saddam planned or ordered the attacks, but it is likely that he, or his generals, supported some of the terrorists at one point or another. Is this damning? Not terribly, except that the WTC attack was an act of war, Saddam and Co. knew it was being planned, and they condoned it.
5a - Also, there is a general connection between Saddam and WTC, namely, the harboring of terrorists. The more places terrorists can live and train the more likely we are to be attacked again. So, the best way to defend against the next WTC attack is to take away the hiding places.
"Kill every damned one of those sons of bitches" - an abbrieviation of the conclusion of the Just War theory, believed by many Christians.
"I am a God fearing Christian, but have no hatred of Muslims or the Islam religion." - not a contradiction of the above sentiment. He doesn't hate Muslims just because they're Muslims. He wa
Although the heat shield would have gouged a pretty good hole in the surface, I think there might be contamination issues with looking at that site.
1 The elements found at the site might be from the heat shield, not Mars.
2 The compounds may have been created by the heat/pressure of the heat shield's impact, not natural causes.
I'm sure a smart scientist could figure out ways to answer these questions, but they'd have to be careful with every bit of data from the heat shield site.
the President is a man who understands the approaching energy crisis.
I was under the impression that the estimated fuel reserves had generally been increasing. Not that petroleum was being replentished, but that geologists with better tech had kept the guys finding new fuel comfortably ahead of the guys drilling it out.
Regardless, if I were president, I would be preparing for the coming energy crisis (if it is coming) by increasing funding for nulear powerplant research, and building more fission reactors. That's a much better insurance policy than hoping that we'll figure out fusion, moon bases, H3 mining, and cheap interplanetary transportation in time to stay ahead of everyone else. America's scientists and business are good, but that's a big gamble. I would be really surprised to find out that Bush wanted to go to the Moon to secure our fusion power.
Controlling the next generation energy supply could be important
Fission power and Deutrium-Deutrium fusion will prevent H3 from being as important as oil. It'd be nice to have H3 when there are working fusion power plants, but a nation could get along without it.
Why is this insightful? Was your Saturday ruined because you were forced to read Roblimo's essays on a topic you find uninteresting? Go outside! He's not trying to take up your precious time.
Sure the topic sounds a little cliched, but there's an ideological war on between parts of Saudi Arabia and the West. To end the war, it's worth something to ask simple questions like this. The answer might be "nothing interesting here, move along", but you have to ask the question to find that out.
I think I need to clarify something. I admit that the Hubble cut is a cut to the observatory missions, but that seems justifiable because the Hubble needs the shuttle to operate. I think shutting down the Hubble sucks, and should not happen if at all possible, but this guy makes a clear, susinct argument for why it's necessary. I think that, with this one exception, the observatory missions will probably not be hurt by Bush's new direction (except that they won't rely on the shuttle).
I was worried about the survival of the robotic missions as well, but Bush said in his speech (here's a transcript):
"Robotic missions will serve as trailblazers, the advanced guard to the unknown. Probes, landers and other vehicles of this kind continue to prove their worth, sending spectacular images and vast amounts of data back to Earth."
So, he said he's not going to eliminate the robotic missions. There still are things like the observatories that could be vulnerable to cuts, but I doubt he would do that. Those seem to me to be much less costly than the robotic missions and have a great return in scientific value.
The only two things he said he would cut are the space station and the shuttle, neither of which are worth spending more money on.
You might say that this proves he WILL cut robotic missions, based on your earlier statements. I'm not going to try to prove that he will or not, just reporting what he said. If he doesn't live up to this statement, we can call him on it.
Just think of the howls of protest from the rest of the world when the US or China says that they own the land their explorers are on. Then, think of the waves of spaceships from India, the UK, Germany, Russia, Japan and Brazil and elsewhere that will start arriving at Mars 4 years later.
Could start more wars, which would be very bad, but at least the kids of that generation would really be living in the space age.
Yeah, colonialism with the eventual promise of self-rule is probably the inevitable model. There would certainly be arguments about when to make the transition from colony to country. But, I don't think any reasonable country would expect to maintain eternal sovereignty over a city on another planet. At least, not without warp drive and blaster technology :P
A utopia would be nice, but nothing keeps people working like greedy self-interest, and the only people we'd want on Mars for the first few generations are hard-working, self-sufficient bastards.
Maybe Zubrin mentioned it in his book, but I don't know what things of value a colony could export from Mars. Probably just rare ores that happen to be easy to mine on Mars. Maybe that crazy no-water-added Martian mud that NASA's taking pictures of right now. Just right for facials.
I've only read "Red Mars". It was good, but I decided at the time that "Green" and "Blue" would be concerned with changes to Mars that were so far in the future they couldn't possibly be as scientific as "Red". I still might read them because I liked the first book, but I didn't feel compelled to follow the story. I thought that Red Mars was very interesting for about 3/4ths of the way through while it followed the course of the first colonists, and only somewhat interesting describing the struggles in the last part of the book because it was more fiction and less science. Not bad, just not why I picked up the book.
Maybe I should read the other books to see how property rights are hashed out in the new world. From what I remember of the first book, the colonists wanted to own Mars in a sort of joint trust (it's been a while since I read the book, so I could very well be wrong). I find this too utopian to believe it could survive as a system, but a reasonable first attempt by idealistic colonists. It's possible Mr. Robinson addresses the problems with this in his later books. The first book had bigger issues of survival to deal with, so property didn't come into play much.
And the tune the colonists would radio back to signify successful landing on Mars:
We'll...meet again,
don't know where,
don't know when!
But I know we'll meet again
some sunny day!
Let's assume that the first inhabitants carry with them property rights to a 100KM radius area from their landing spot. Who owns those rights? The explorers? Not likely, they're living soley on the charity of the country that supports them. The country? Sounds a lot like colonialism--a politically risky choice for the US. The private companies that help underwrite the mission (assuming they exist)? Unless Boeing (to take a company at random) paid for the entire launch and support, there's no way the government would let them own part of Mars. The voters would hate that.
I agree that nothing would spur settlement like property rights. Once a US mission landed on Mars, China, Russia and the EU would be falling over themselves to get their own stake. But, I don't know how it would work in the beginning.
The colonial model is the most logical: the US owns whatever part of Mars it's settlers are living on. But, how long does the US own the land? At what point does it revert to the settlers? At what point does the Mars-US relationship become like the American Colonies vs. the British Empire?
It probably shouldn't be based on a strict timeline, but rather a series of developement steps. Once the Mars colony is reasonably self-sufficent (and the US has made a return on it's investment?) the land would become privately held.
Just thinking out loud. There's probably an essay somewhere on the internet that works out these details...